In a response to an article,”Clip: Ronald Reagan’s Racially Tinged Stump Speeches” I made the following comment: “Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.” Giving this link to to the source of my information.
Lynn Kopa Balogh responded:
Right their share of income increased and naturally would pay more income tax while good paying jobs for the middle decreased along with their share of income , thus less INCOME tax paid in. It was a redistrubutatig (sic) of the wealth from the middle class to the wealthy
To which I responded:
The reason their income went up was because of the job creating investments that they made, wealth does not create itself, it has to be created, jobs do not create themselves either, someone has to start a business by investing their own time and money, and that is what the cut in taxes did, released money for investments.
Surely you can understand that you incentive to work would be much greater if you got to keep 3/4 of what you earned instead of just 1/2 or less. Why should you risk your money if the government is going to take half or more if any profit you make make?
Then Steven Bell chimed in with the following , my response will be interspliced in bold”
Rexx, Do you have facts to back up what you are asserting? “… “Steven I gave the source of my assertion above, link, click on it to see the proof.” their income (should be incomes) went up because of the job creating investments that they made . . .” A tax cut raises take home income without a single job being created. “My argument was that the Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts were food for the economy, and all this ‘Dog Whistling; was/is a red herring.” Mitt Romney “created” wealth for himself and his investors, not by creating jobs, but by buying out companies, cutting jobs as a part of “restructuring” and then selling company assets for a profit. “What Romney was doing has a name, it is called ‘creative destruction‘ extracted from that link, ‘The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. (p. 83)‘”
” . . . you (your) incentive to work would be much greater if you got to keep 3/4 of what you earned instead of just 1/2 . . .” Are you talking about yourself, are you talking about me, or are you talking about someone else that you know? “I am talking about everyone who has an opportunity to work or invest for a living, virtually everyone wants a fair wage for their effort.” My decision to work has nothing to do with how much money I keep, as opposed to how much I pay in taxes. It has to do with whether I enjoy what I’m doing, whether I’m providing a service that is appreciated, and with what I’m capable of doing. “This assertion may apply to you, but you neglected to bring up the opportunity cost of going to work on a days that would push you into a higher tax bracket bringing the pay for those days’ labor to a half or a third of the other days you have worked to the pleasure you would get staying home with the kids, going to a movies, cutting the grass, etc., the incentive for working for so much less decreases for the most of us. That is why so many people on public assistance have a hard time leaving it, because the incentive to put out a lot more effort to gain so little for it is almost non existence.”
What government services would you like to abandon so that you presumably could keep more of the money you make? “I would limit government spending to the powers that the Constitution give them, that and no more.” Would you like to defund the Police Department, traffic lights, pothole repaving? Would you like to shut the schools down? “These are the arguments that progressives alway bring up, and none of theme are federal issues, they all belong to the states.” Cease food inspection through the Department of Agriculture? “I would end the ability of the DoA to subsidize farms, and overseas expenditures.” would you like to end our “war” on terrorism, bring all troops home and decommission the military services? “If it were in my power I would close most of the bases in Europe that we have had there since WWII. However National Defence is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.” We could save money by closing the Courts, and shutting down State and Federal legislatures. “These are all also Constitutional responsibility of the federal governments, both states and federal.” Oh yes, let’s not forget the Fire Department. Would you like the Fire Department to be all volunteer, and their equipment provided by rich benefactors who might decide to donate? “Again, none of these are federal issues, they are issues to be resolved on a state and local level, and beside the point of whether cutting the tax rate generates or decreases government government revenues. My point was that the tax cuts led to a raise in both the rop percent of earners paid to the government’s, and the total amount of tax revenue taken in.”
The subject of this article was Reagan’s use of racial “dog whistles” to turn out white voters who resented their tax dollars being used to help people who needed Food Stamps, most of whom were and are white though he never provided that information. “This in my opinion, was totally without merit, just an unprovable assertion. The most obvious rebuttal is that Reagan did not need the voter to pass his tax cuts, and had no need to talk in code to them. He could not have passed the without the help of the Democrats, and they the racist being talked about?”
The last comment came from Lynn Kopa Balogh:
I don’t think you would notice if you made 10 million last year or 5 million, second of all they create no wealth, of all the wealth that was created was by finance on speculation, gains in productivity is by the workers not the easily replaced CEO’s
Lynn truly I believe that you have absolutely no idea of how a capitalist economy operates, but your ignorance gives me an opportunity to expound upon it. First a disclaimer, I am not a CEO, or a large stockholder in any corporation. I am an engineer who earned an MBA.
Do you really think that you can take a machinist making $50-$250/ hr and put him in as a CEO of the company and the company make a profit? If the company does not make a profit the machinist loses his job. Do you have any idea how CEOs get their Job, and keep them?
If it is a privately held company, like Chick-Fil-A, the owners decide who the CEO will be, and what his compensation will be which will depend upon how profitable the company is. Ge will pick a salary for his workers that will isure a competent workforce. The workers are at will, and leave if they do not like their compensation for their labor.
A publicly held company or corporation means that it has sold out its ownership to anyone willing to buy a share in its operation. These people are called shareholders, and they hold yearly meeting to select a board, and appoint a chairman to that board. Among other things like decide how much will be returned to the owners in the form dividends, they pick the CEO and set his compensation package. He, like all of the workers for the concern, is paid from the profits it generates through it operations.
In both cases it responsibilities are to its owners, not to its workers. The boards of the various firms bid up the price that a component CEO is worth on the open market for his employment just as the worth of a good football, basketball player and coaches, or movie stars like Johnny Depp, or TV personalities like Opera, who is the richest woman in the world, is decided. It is striking to me why it is that your ilk never complain about how much people like this make, never compare their salary to the ticket payers take home.
From “UPS & McDonald’s CEOs need to be in the hot seat” on 1/23/2015 this:
“I don’t care. My critics can pound sand. When I look at the truly horrendous numbers from United Parcel today, when I read once again about how McDonald’s knows it has problems and will address them with alacrity, I can’t help but wonder: when will someone finally be held accountable for this kind of subpar performance?”
In Cramer’s opinion, someone made a mistake when they selected David Abney as the CEO of UPS for 2014. He thinks that the COO had a free pass last year with holiday mishaps that caused the stock to drop. No more free pass for this company.
Then today, 1/29/2015 this, “McDonald’s CEO Don Thompson steps aside, stock jumps”
Amid a tumultuous past year for McDonald’s, the world’s biggest restaurant chain’s CEO Don Thompson is retiring after two years on the job, effective March 1. The fast food is also getting a new CFO.
The restaurant’s Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Brand Officer Steve Easterbrook will replace Thompson, who is a 25-year veteran of the company, the company announced on Wednesday.
Previously, Easterbrook served as president of McDonald’s Europe and led the chain’s “efforts to elevate its marketing, advance menu innovation, and create an infrastructure for its digital initiatives,” it said in a release. The company’s CFO Pete Bensen will also transition to the role of chief administrative officer while Kevin Ozan, the company’s current corporate controller, will become the chain’s new CFO.
This update was to emphasize how the CEOs can affect the value of a company, and why some can demand and get such high compensation.
In comparison here are some people who get paide as much if not a lot more than CEOs that does not set you off:
Top two Football players yearly compensation:
Peyton Manning Total earnings: $42.4 million Salary/winnings: $32.4 million Endorsements: $10 million.
Haloti Ngata Total earnings: $37.3 million Salary/winnings: $37.1 million Endorsements: $200,000.
Top two Baseball players yearly compensation:
The highest paid player in Major League Baseball (MLB) from the 2013 season is New York Yankees’ third baseman Alex Rodriguez with an annual salary of $29,000,000, $4 million higher than the second-highest paid player, Cliff Lee.
Top two Basketball players yearly compensation:
LEBRON JAMES Total Earnings: between June 2011 to June 2012: $53 million Salary/winnings: $13 million Endorsements: $40 million
KOBE BRYANT Total Earnings: between June 2011 to June 2012: $52.3 million Salary/winnings: $20.3 million Endorsements: $32 million.