Raising taxes is unfair!

[Captain Picard's Hair]

How does a CEO giving himself a $5 million bonus and buying a sixth house help him be more "productive?" U.S. CEOs make many times their overseas counterparts, for what?

High pay attracts the best talent.

Sure, like there isn't already self-selection for top spots and ambitious people clawing to get above each other up the ladder anywhere. Sure, CEO's and other top execs will make more than the rank-and-file anywhere. But somehow I think companies can get good talent at management without paying millions per year in salary and I think CEOs can juuuuust manage to scrape by without the extra 3 resort houses and the yacht. The problem isn't they shouldn't be compensated for their work but that they have taken upon themselves the "right" to pay themselves whatever they damn well please.

How does the chief executive of a company do more good for his company by buying a $5 million resort house for himself than by letting that $5 mil go into his company so that it can become a more productive company?

OK, propose another way to get out of this depression. At least Obama is projecting to balance the budget after the economy recovers (even if his projections about the recovery may be rosy).

Is he now? Last I heard he was planning to half the deficit (meaning return it to slightly above what George Bush left it at) at the end of ten years (way after he's been out of office). Good job for him though, first he doubles the deficit, then he says that maybe he'll be able to half it. Everyone applauds the messiah.

At least he has some evident desire to see the budget get into better shape; it's understood that the "bailout" and "stimulus" expenditures are meant to be temporary hikes in spending.

You still haven't said what you'd do about this depression.

BTW, "quote" tags are all lowercase.

[Sionnach Glic]

Debate regarding taxes split from the other thread to here.

[Sionnach Glic]

I seriously doubt that you were told in any actual economics class that the only way for an economy to function is for the government to spend oodles of money it doesn't have. Bush was an idiot for spending some 500 billion dollars per year more than the government could afford, Obama is an even bigger idiot for spending 1.2 trillion dollars per year more than the government can afford.

Spending money is a good way to promote growth in an economy. It makes things worse in the short term, but it gets a lot better in the long term.

By all means, prove me wrong and find me one instance of a government getting out of a depression without spending large sums of money.

He already repays society by entertaining us with his excellent ball-throwing, which is irrelevant anyway. What you have is an agreement between two parties. Party "A" wants somebody who can throw a ball, party "B" is willing to throw said ball for money. What difference does it make to you how much "A" is willing to pay to have his balls thrown?

It matters because he owes society a debt. Merely going on TV and throwing his balls around does not count as repaying society. It entertains the people who watch it for the hour or so that it's on, but just how does he help the country? He doesn't. He's making massive amounts of money just for having, to him, a bit of fun in front of a camera. When he's making 30 million a year, is he going to even notice if you take 20 million of that and use it to help promote a national health system? No, he won't notice it at all. His standards of living won't decrease in any noticeable way at all. But the standards of living for the disadvantaged in society will go up, as they can now get serious operations without going bankrupt in the process.

Do you think that the government should be taxing us at all? After all, if they don't have the right to take X amount from a wealthy man who can afford it, what gives them the right to take Y amount from you if you need every penny you can get?

Tell me, have you ever experienced true poverty?

That may be their beliefs, but they're not mine. I think that the U.S government should be able to get by on around 2 trillion/year. Is that so unreasonable?

Yes, because countries need to spend money to rejuvinate their economies. It sounds bizzare, but that's how it works.
Up until the 1980's, Ireland used to be what amounted to a third world country. Now we are (or were, dunno how we're doing in the current crisis) one of the wealthiest nations in Europe. Know how we got there? By spending. The Celtic Tiger didn't magicaly pop into existance of its own accord, we had to go out and make it ourselves, and that cost money.

For the record, I do support "progressive" taxation, but not at the level proposed by those hear.

Why? Will a man earning 50 million dollars a year even notice if he goes from paying 5 million in taxes to 20 million? No, he won't. His standard of living won't drop an inch. So why not use this unneeded money to help society?
For someone who wants the government to be more careful in its spending, you seem pretty determined to stop them getting much out of one of the biggest sources of income there is.

Tell me, just how much do you think we should tax them, and why?

For starters, I'm not a libertarian.

Then what did you mean by "small government"? That's a libertarianist policy.

[Captain Seafort]

Then what did you mean by "small government"? That's a libertarianist policy.

Be careful about how you speak of "libertarianism", and what form of it you're thinking about. The qualified principle that a government should have the smallest possible profile consistent with a civilised society is absolutely sound, as I'm sure Teaos will wax lyrical on as soon as he turns up. What you're thinking about, and what idiots such as Volly advocate, is the peculiarly American brand of libertarianism that states that any government intervention is an evil. This, obviously, is rot, but it's important to note that this form is peculiar to the United States, and cannot be used as a catch-all for libertarianism in general.

[Aaron]

High pay attracts the best talent.

Really? Then why are the Big Three about to go tits up if they have such awesome talent running the place, or how about all those financial institutions with the high paid CEO's?

[Lazar]

Really? Then why are the Big Three about to go tits up if they have such awesome talent running the place, or how about all those financial institutions with the high paid CEO's?

Exactly. As I noted in another thread, American CEOs make several times as much money as European and Japanese CEOs, and they're rarely fired for poor performance. Advocates of supply-side economics say that we shouldn't overtax tax rich people because they're the ones that create jobs, but the fact is that they aren't creating jobs. So we're just supposed to let them swim in their money vaults while people have no jobs and no health care?

[Grundig]

I feel that it's worth pointing out: no matter how much money someone makes, they'll notice if you tax more. People have a remarkable ability to live just beyond their means, regardless of their income. I think, for example, a basketball player isn't quite rich enough that taking 2/3 of his pay will go unnoticed. I bet he's found a way to spend all that money, and if such a percentage is taken away, his lifestyle will change for sure, exorbitant though it may be.

Also, one of the philosophies I've heard from wealthy conservatives is that they'd rather choose what kinds of charity they give. Instead of having the gov't take millions from my account, I'd like to support those causes that I feel are most valuable.

I'm a very liberal person, and I find myself sitting on the fence with this whole situation. Taxes aren't evil. The rich can still be rich, even with high taxes. Then again, I feel very anxious that the gov't is spending the unbelievable amounts of money we're hearing about. For crying out loud, how are we ever going to pay that back?

[Sionnach Glic]

Well, you could earn it back by taxing the rich at high rates.
Problem now on its way to being solved.

Be careful about how you speak of "libertarianism", and what form of it you're thinking about. The qualified principle that a government should have the smallest possible profile consistent with a civilised society is absolutely sound, as I'm sure Teaos will wax lyrical on as soon as he turns up. What you're thinking about, and what idiots such as Volly advocate, is the peculiarly American brand of libertarianism that states that any government intervention is an evil. This, obviously, is rot, but it's important to note that this form is peculiar to the United States, and cannot be used as a catch-all for libertarianism in general.

Ah, understood. My experience with libertarians has always been with the US variety (seriously, short of Teaos I've never met any non-American who identifies themselves as a libertarian), so I sort of automaticaly assume that when someone brings up a libertarianist ideal they're following the same line.
In that case, my apologies to SteveK if I've misinterpreted your comments.

[SteveK]

How does a CEO giving himself a $5 million bonus and buying a sixth house help him be more "productive?" U.S. CEOs make many times their overseas counterparts, for what?

High pay attracts the best talent.

Sure, like there isn't already self-selection for top spots and ambitious people clawing to get above each other up the ladder anywhere. Sure, CEO's and other top execs will make more than the rank-and-file anywhere. But somehow I think companies can get good talent at management without paying millions per year in salary and I think CEOs can juuuuust manage to scrape by without the extra 3 resort houses and the yacht. The problem isn't they shouldn't be compensated for their work but that they have taken upon themselves the "right" to pay themselves whatever they damn well please.

That begs the question then, why would the company pay more than they need to for services? If they can get a good CEO for, I don't know, $250,000/ year then why don't they? Second, if a company's shareholders agree to pay X amount of dollars for a particular service, what right do you, as a non shareholder, have to say that it should be XY where 0 < Y <1? They are paying for a service, and if they're paying too much sucks for them, but it isn't any of your business.

OK, propose another way to get out of this depression. At least Obama is projecting to balance the budget after the economy recovers (even if his projections about the recovery may be rosy).

Is he now? Last I heard he was planning to half the deficit (meaning return it to slightly above what George Bush left it at) at the end of ten years (way after he's been out of office). Good job for him though, first he doubles the deficit, then he says that maybe he'll be able to half it. Everyone applauds the messiah.

At least he has some evident desire to see the budget get into better shape; it's understood that the "bailout" and "stimulus" expenditures are meant to be temporary hikes in spending.

You still haven't said what you'd do about this depression.

I see no evidence of desire to fix the budget, being as gracious as I can the best he's proposing is to keep overspending at Bush's level.

Regarding this recession, I honestly think that it is a bitter pill that America (and the world) needs to take. We as individuals and our government are spending way more than we can afford. What the government should do is allow the interest rates to rise, this will discourage purchases on credit and encourage saving. The fact of the matter is the previous state of the economy was unsustainable, people can't go on spending 120% of what they earn forever.

Spending money is a good way to promote growth in an economy. It makes things worse in the short term, but it gets a lot better in the long term.

By all means, prove me wrong and find me one instance of a government getting out of a depression without spending large sums of money.

I tried to prove you wrong, but I honestly couldn't find any modern examples of a government not spending large sums of money, good times or bad.

I disagree with you though, spending too much will improve things in the short term, but make it worse in the long run. There's a heavy interest bill to be paid.

[Captain Seafort]

I tried to prove you wrong, but I honestly couldn't find any modern examples of a government not spending large sums of money, good times or bad.

I disagree with you though, spending too much will improve things in the short term, but make it worse in the long run. There's a heavy interest bill to be paid.

It'll cause problems, certainly, but far few of them, and less severe, than leaving your economy in the shite.

[Sionnach Glic]

I tried to prove you wrong, but I honestly couldn't find any modern examples of a government not spending large sums of money, good times or bad.

I disagree with you though, spending too much will improve things in the short term, but make it worse in the long run. There's a heavy interest bill to be paid

Actualy, you have it somewhat backwards. Spending more money will make things worse in the short term, as the country's debt increases massively. Over time, once the economy picks up again, it becomes easier to pay this debt back and so makes things better in the long run.
The real problem is the fact that the economy is run by humans. We're just a fucking idiotic and shortsighted race when it comes to economic matters.

[Mikey]

Without getting into the value judgements here, I don't understand something. If we are going to in effect subsidize industry and finance, why don't we go all the way and impose salary regulation? There is one reason why the CEO of Mercedes-Benz doesn't make as much as the CEO of Ford - that reason is the fact that German law caps the salary.

[Sionnach Glic]

Because the US government seems to have some sort of aversion to the idea.

[Mikey]

I meant, "If you're going to subsidize companies, what's a good reason for not regulating executive salaries?"

[Captain Seafort]

Actualy, you have it somewhat backwards. Spending more money will make things worse in the short term, as the country's debt increases massively. Over time, once the economy picks up again, it becomes easier to pay this debt back and so makes things better in the long run.

To nitpick, in the short term it'll make thing better, by mitigating the worst effects of the recession, and getting the country out of it - it's in the medium term that they'll be problems, due to the higher taxes required to pay of the accumulated debt. Once you're past that, things will once again improve, as you say.