The 1% are the job creators.....

[.blank cd]

http://zap-file.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MythBusters-S09E11-Let-There-Be-Light-720p-HDTV-x264-MOMENTUM.gif

By none other than....the 1%

http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12

http://www.businessinsider.com/no-steve-jobs-did-not-create-jobs-by-inventing-the-iphone-2011-12

[TIGERJC]

Just like the cycle of life. Predators (Companies) can not survive if there is not enough prey (Consumer).

[Vteckidd]

All this does is prove that people don't have the slightest clue how the economy works. The consumers DO matter, but having consumers is 50% of the equation. You need capital to start a business, you need investment. IPhones don't just magically appear.

Ill explain more tomorrow when I'm on a computer, but the article is good at pointing out what the occupy generation want to believe , but it's not true

[.blank cd]

Sorry. I can't sit here and say with a straight face that the billionaire that wrote this article knows nothing about business. Especially when he's not the only person who says this. Start up capital is an important part of starting a new business, but it's still small in the grand scheme of things. You don't have a business in the first place if you don't have a customer (middle class) to buy your product. Even before you go to the bank to get a startup loan. Business 101. That "job creator" myth is rhetoric the 1% use to justify keeping taxes ridiculously low, especially on the historic level. I've been saying this even before the occupy movement, raising taxes on businesses would be insignificant. Now that it's been proven by ivy league economists and businessmen and politicians alike, it's about time we use this. The problem is raising taxes on businesses will probably never pass through with the way the government is set up.

[TIGERJC]

All this does is prove that people don't have the slightest clue how the economy works. The consumers DO matter, but having consumers is 50% of the equation. You need capital to start a business, you need investment. IPhones don't just magically appear.

Ill explain more tomorrow when I'm on a computer, but the article is good at pointing out what the occupy generation want to believe , but it's not true

It take two to tango. This is like what came first, the egg or the chicken.

I am not complaining the rich are too rich, I am mad that their voice is greater than the rest of us put together. I am talking about how Washington is run by the rich for the rich. This has lead to a huge explosion in their wealth and has damage this country as a whole due to their greed, while the majority don't get that same voice in Washington.

[.blank cd]

^ Careful with saying the word "greed" in this section. They'll want you to define it for them again. and again. Lol

[TIGERJC]

^ Careful with saying the word "greed" in this section. They'll want you to define it for them again. and again. Lol
I forgot and thats why I love living down here with florida which has a good mixture of both political ideologies.

Socialism breeds laziness the same way Capitalism breeds greed, and nothing great comes out of these two structure if followed to a tee

[BanginJimmy]

^ Careful with saying the word "greed" in this section. They'll want you to define it for them again. and again. Lol

I keep asking because I have yet to hear a decent answer that cannot be summarily disproven.


BTW what's wrong with being asked to define a word you are using. Yes, we can all goto dictionary.com and copy/paste. I want to see a definition put into the context of this discussion.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[RL...]

I agree with the article's perspective. Makes sense to me.

[Vteckidd]

I could write books on this topic so most likely , most of the key points swirling around in my head wont be made cause ill forget but here goes:

The problem is that BOTH sides (GOP AND DEMS) try to act like its a zero sum game. Like our only 2 choices are to raise taxes on the rich, or cut taxes for the rich. Ive NEVER advocated one or the other as a means of a zero sum answer to all our problems. The problem i have with the article is that its written by someone with an obvious political agenda. I particularly despise people who are rich and complain they dont "pay enough" and magically we are supposed to regard them as some sort of saint.

this guy is full of shit. PERIOD. hes like Warren Buffet.


Hanauer takes home more than $10 million a year of income. On this income, he says, he pays an 11% tax rate. (Presumably, most of the income is dividends and long-term capital gains, which carry a tax rate of 15%. And then he probably has some tax shelters that knock the rate down the rest of the way).


Ok, lets take this. The reason this guy pays so little in taxes is because he has an accountant look for the CHEAPEST AMOUNT OF MONEY he is going to owe through deductions, loop holes, tax shelters, etc. He CHOOSES to pay as little in taxes as possible. He CHOOSES to accept DIVIDENDS as income. If he wanted to pay 35% INCOME TAXES like everyone else, all he has to do is write himself a SALARY , problem solved. BUt he doesnt, why? because he would rather pay 9% on capital gains than 35% INCOME Taxes. So spare me the "i wish i could pay more it wont bother me" rhetoric. If he wanted to he would be doing it.



With the more than $9 million a year Hanauer keeps, he buys lots of stuff. But, importantly, he doesn't buy as much stuff as would be bought if that $9 million were instead earned by 9,000 Americans each taking home an extra $1,000 a year.


Ok, then why isnt he donating his 9 million to 9000 people then? I mean its nice to argue how his personal wealth does nothing for the economy, then put your money where your mouth is, pay up sucka. But he wont, because hes not REALLY interested in helping anyone out. Its a talking point.

How come all these rich people that feel they have the world as their oyster and feel like their fellow poor men are so badly mistreated but REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING to help them out?

Furthermore, it is quite possible the DUMBEST statement in the entire article. The reason why he has 9 million dollars in disposable income is because of people below him who work. Someone has to handle his portfolio, manage his companies, run his iwebsite, buy his servers, do his maintenance etc. If he gave away all his wealth, he would be poor, and then all the people he gave money to, would eventually A) run out of ways to spend his money B) Be unemployed by him losing his wealth C) run out of things to buy because a company has left the marketplace.


By the articles thinking, what should happen is we should have the Govt write us all a million dollar check instead of doing Stimulus 1+2.

So, you must agree with President Bushes tax cut for the middle class where he gave everyone a $200-1000 check in 2006 right?


Business operates off DEMAND. With Demand you get innovation, with innovation you get investment, with investment you get a company which employs people. The Company depends on the customer just as much as the customer depends on the company.

HOW DO YOU GIVE THE CUSTOMERS MORE MONEY? You make them make MORE at their jobs , RIGHT? Who do they work for? the 1%. So while most people think that giving the rich more money is bad , they can rarely argue against trickle down economics because it has worked. Maybe not perfectly, but trickle UP doesnt work at all.

You make the middle class make more money by creating more jobs, creating more competition, lowering CORPORATE tax rates, closing loop holes, and making them competitive. the more companies that start up, the more jobs get created. the more wealth created by those companies, the more people they hire. the more people hired, the more people paying taxes, more people become consumers , etc.

Lastly, this argument about taxing the rich is bullshit. taxing the rich doesnt create jobs. It also doesnt do anything for the deficit reduction. its a talking point to pit the have nots against the haves. thats it.

What SHOULD HAPPEN, is they should:
Let the bush tax cuts expire
Lower corporate rates, but close all the deductions and loop holes that let dude pay 11% in taxes
they should cut rates for the middle class 2-3% WHO PAY
They should eliminate the "REFUNDS" for people who dont pay any taxes at all , we shouldnt be paying people for being poor


targeting the 1% (which BTW the 1% is people making $250,000+, not all of them are millionaires) solvess nothing, the facts are there

[Vteckidd]

Sorry. I can't sit here and say with a straight face that the billionaire that wrote this article knows nothing about business. Especially when he's not the only person who says this. Start up capital is an important part of starting a new business, but it's still small in the grand scheme of things. You don't have a business in the first place if you don't have a customer (middle class) to buy your product. Even before you go to the bank to get a startup loan. Business 101. That "job creator" myth is rhetoric the 1% use to justify keeping taxes ridiculously low, especially on the historic level. I've been saying this even before the occupy movement, raising taxes on businesses would be insignificant. Now that it's been proven by ivy league economists and businessmen and politicians alike, it's about time we use this. The problem is raising taxes on businesses will probably never pass through with the way the government is set up.

Show me where raising businesses COSTS (IE TAXES) directly translates to the middle class becoming employed by the private sector, and their wages increase.

$100 says you cant

[Vteckidd]

Imagine if Steve Jobs and Apple had only been able to sell their miraculous new iPhones and iPads in Bangladesh, where the average per-capita income is about $1,700 a year.

How many jobs do you think Steve Jobs and Apple would have "created" then?



Then i read dumb stuff like this. Jobs never would have made the iphone because he would have realized that people could not have afforded his product and its not worth it.

Christ the first thing you do in business is recognize your customer. Do you think Apple arbitrarily picked a number out of the fucking sky to price their product at? Now, they did MONTHS (PRoBABLY YEARS) of market research, weighed their manufacturing costs , their costs to make the product and deliver it to a store, etc and figured out what it takes to make a PROFIT (OOOOO PROFIT A DIRTY WORD).

This guy is writing articles like Steve Jobs had a dream one night about a smart phone and that was it. Like he was the only person involved.

Let me ask you a question:

HOW MANY APPLE STORES WERE AROUND 10 YEARS AGO?- (ANSWER, ZERO)

HOW MANY APPLE STORES ARE AROUND TODAY? -(I DONT KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I WENT IN 1 THIS WEEKEND WHERE AT LEAST 40 NERDS WERE EMPLOYED).

Apple made a product, that product resonated with people and they bought it. Apple depended on its customers, but the customers also depended on Apple to creat something they wanted.

He also says that


Apple's building of a better mousetrap, in other words, did not suddenly "create jobs." It moved the jobs. It moved the jobs from the companies that were making the older mousetraps to the one that was making the better mousetrap

BULLSHIT. If that is the case, then he thinks that new jobs are never created only transferred. If that is the case then we wouldnt have fluctuations in unemployment.

Simple question, DOES APPLE EMPLOY MORE PEOPLE TODAY THAN IT DID 10 YEARS AGO? (ANSWER IS YES) so , yes, it did create jobs.


This guy is so stupid , it gives me hope, that i too can become a billionaire. because if this is the intelligence that it takes, im way ahead of the game

[RL...]

The point of the article isn't that the rich feel bad about not paying enough taxes. The point of the article is that the middle class basically "makes jobs" not the top 99th percentile who make 500k+. Intelligence was never what it took to be rich, it's more about a little luck, having a good idea, and having a strong work ethic. I know plenty of book smart people who do dumb as shit like have 3 dui's, steal shit, etc...

There is no cut and dry method to fixing any of this though. But when it comes down to it, we can argue all we want but we can't do shit, about shit.

[Drummerboy]

+9 to mike for using facts and common sense.

[.blank cd]

Show me where raising businesses COSTS (IE TAXES) directly translates to the middle class becoming employed by the private sector, and their wages increase.

$100 says you cantShow me the inverse. Im not arguing that going either way will do either. People are just acting like companies across the U.S. are going to fold up and they're gonna have mass layoffs if their BUSINESS taxes go up to a pre 1980s rate and that simply wont happen.


Ok, lets take this. The reason this guy pays so little in taxes is because he has an accountant look for the CHEAPEST AMOUNT OF MONEY he is going to owe through deductions, loop holes, tax shelters, etc. He CHOOSES to pay as little in taxes as possible. He CHOOSES to accept DIVIDENDS as income. If he wanted to pay 35% INCOME TAXES like everyone else, all he has to do is write himself a SALARY , problem solved. BUt he doesnt, why? because he would rather pay 9% on capital gains than 35% INCOME Taxes. So spare me the "i wish i could pay more it wont bother me" rhetoric. If he wanted to he would be doing it.I haven't had to file capital gains tax yet, but in order to write himself a salary from his investments, I imagine he'd have to first make his investments in his company's name, or a shell company, the business pay the taxes on THAT, then after he writes his own salary, pay taxes on that again, then pay taxes on his income from his main company


someone has to handle his portfolio, manage his companies, run his iwebsite, buy his servers, do his maintenance etc. If he gave away all his wealth, he would be poor, and then all the people he gave money to, would eventually A) run out of ways to spend his money B) Be unemployed by him losing his wealth C) run out of things to buy because a company has left the marketplace.The article did say hes getting about 10mil in capital gains, which is probably investments. So im gonna assume, compared to that, he gets a pittance as far as his salary goes. Shit, if I were making 10 mil just from investments, I would've done what Jobs did and pay myself $1. But if he left and took all his income with him, his company would barely flinch. And we see this all the time when CEO's leave. The business is secure. Personal income is separate from that. Surely theres a chain of succession in a big company like that. CFOs and COOs, VPs, what-have-you. Dollars will still generate from business transactions. But on the flip side, if you cut out all of his workforce, or his customers, business would come to a grinding hault.



HOW DO YOU GIVE THE CUSTOMERS MORE MONEY? You make them make MORE at their jobs , RIGHT? Who do they work for? the 1%. So while most people think that giving the rich more money is bad , they can rarely argue against trickle down economics because it has worked. Maybe not perfectly, but trickle UP doesnt work at all.Can you cite an example where "trickle down" has worked for the the people making less that 300k? 100k? Because over the past 30-40 years, the situation looks to be in decline. "Trickle down" works, but I dont think we know who's really at the bottom of the funnel. OR, trickle down works, except that no one is actually trickling it down.


Simple question, DOES APPLE EMPLOY MORE PEOPLE TODAY THAN IT DID 10 YEARS AGO? (ANSWER IS YES) so , yes, it did create jobs.Yes, demand (middle class) for his product did create jobs. If nobody (the middle class again) wanted his stuff, there would not be a single Apple store in existence, and 40 less nerds would have jobs.

[Vteckidd]

Show me the inverse. Im not arguing that going either way will do either. People are just acting like companies across the U.S. are going to fold up and they're gonna have mass layoffs if their BUSINESS taxes go up to a pre 1980s rate and that simply wont happen.

Look at what Obamacare did to the private sector. Caterpillar, John Deer, Verizon, AT&T a TON of companies came out and said that they do not like obamacare and the implications its going to cause for them. And that legislation hasnt even gone fully into effect yet.

If you raise taxes on the rich 1%-10% is it going to bankrupt them and their companies , NO. Will it hurt them, probably not.

But that is not my point. my point is if you are really serious about CREATING JOBS, then you have to believe that taking MONEY AWAY from the "RICH", means taking away capital, investment money, etc. If you make 10 billion a year and you go from paying 9 million to 10 million in taxes, you probably dont care, but thats still A MILLION dollars. if that guy spent a million dollars of his own money on a ferrari, that creates jobs. If he spends it on a vacation, it employs people. If he spends it on a boat, it employs people. If he buys diamonds, it keeps osmeone in business.

Show me where that extra Million dollars in tax revenue the govt makes translates to helping ANY of the "poor" out. If help means "extending their unemployment benefits" , im of hte view that you help people by employing them, not keeping them unemployed. The fact is the govt has shown ZERO ability to spend extra tax revenue wisely. It WONT go toward the deficit, it wont go toward a social program, itll get wasted.


I haven't had to file capital gains tax yet, but in order to write himself a salary from his investments, I imagine he'd have to first make his investments in his company's name, or a shell company, the business pay the taxes on THAT, then after he writes his own salary, pay taxes on that again, then pay taxes on his income from his main company

It depends HOW he made his money. If hes like WB then his wealth generates more wealth and its only taxed when taken out of the system. My point is regardless, hes paying 11% in taxes by using the loop holes in the system which is perfectly legal. But if that is the case, he cannot sit there and argue that he wants to pay more. Tell him to cash all his investments out and go get a job. Pay 35% like everyone else. People start companies to make a profit, and some people use the company to shield their tax liability. I did it. Its legal, but i didnt go around whining about how i wish i could pay more.

I dont agree with people who have a self righteous attitude about how "I MADE 9 MILLION DOLLARS LAST YEAR, 9000 PEOPLE WOULD DO FAR MORE FOR THE ECONOMY WITH 9 MILLION DOLLARS THAN I WILL". If thats the case DONATE ALL YOUR MONEY TO PEOPLE THEN. Why wouldnt you? Its like KANYE marching with Occupy Wall Street . Kanye belongs to the BIGGEST corporate machine in the world , the MUSIC INDUSTRY. hypocrite doesnt begin to define him.



Can you cite an example where "trickle down" has worked for the the people making less that 300k? 100k? Because over the past 30-40 years, the situation looks to be in decline. "Trickle down" works, but I dont think we know who's really at the bottom of the funnel. OR, trickle down works, except that no one is actually trickling it down.

It depends how you measure it. Unemployment has consistently gone down since 1980 (until 2008), So wouldnt that mean it worked? more people found jobs right?

Average Median income has consistently increased until last year or 2009. So, AVERAGE income increased year to year. Doesnt that prove that people have made MORE money than ever?

its also a ton more complicated than that. There are jobs today that were not around 10 years ago, specifically the internet CEOs and compoanies that become millionaires overnight, or stock traders making probably more money now than ever before.

real estate. Look how big and booming real estate was last 15 years.

Heritage Foundation did a study about how POOR is POOR america. And they found that the POOR US citizens, actually are as wealthy as an AVERAGE european. they have Flatscreens, 1-2 cars, more than enough food, etc. So clearly they are doing better than before right?

Can you cite and example that shows trickle down has hurt the lower class? and how do we fix it with trickle up?


Yes, demand (middle class) for his product did create jobs. If nobody (the middle class again) wanted his stuff, there would not be a single Apple store in existence, and 40 less nerds would have jobs.

Again its circular. Chicken and Egg sir. You also cant relegate his entire purchasing group to the middle class because i bet a bunch of non middle class people buy his product, same with POOR.

The middle class didnt come to steve jobs and say "WE WANT AN IPHONE" and he said "OK ILL MAKE ONE". Demand only existed AFTER he made the product and people saw value in it. People didnt know they wanted an iphone before it even existed.

the 1%er (who used to be poor) made a product and created demand. If you raised Jobs taxes 20% TOMORROW, Iphones would either be raised in price, or he would lay people off to keep his product competitively priced. He wouldnt keep everything the same and try to find more customers.

[Vteckidd]

I mean if your argument is "the rich got richer" over the last 30 years, and the Unemployment figures show less and less UE, higher standard of living for the "poor" , and the average median income is HIGHER than it ever has been..........

One could absolutely theorize that as the rich got richer, so did everyone else.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2010.png


Now keep in mind that after things like 9.11 and the 2008 crash things tumbled so theres blips and stuff here and there. But look at the chart clearly MEDIAN (IE MIDDLE CLASS) income has risen over the last 20-30 years.
So if the left wants to use the mantra "THE RICH GOT RICHER AND THE POOR GOT POORER" they are only 50% right.

[TIGERJC]

I mean if your argument is "the rich got richer" over the last 30 years, and the Unemployment figures show less and less UE, higher standard of living for the "poor" , and the average median income is HIGHER than it ever has been..........

One could absolutely theorize that as the rich got richer, so did everyone else.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2010.png


Now keep in mind that after things like 9.11 and the 2008 crash things tumbled so theres blips and stuff here and there. But look at the chart clearly MEDIAN (IE MIDDLE CLASS) income has risen over the last 20-30 years.
So if the left wants to use the mantra "THE RICH GOT RICHER AND THE POOR GOT POORER" they are only 50% right.
I guess a 10k increase in income over a 30-year period is something to really cheer about, especially when the cost of living has gone considerable up to take away these so called increase in wages.

[Vteckidd]

I guess a 10k increase in income over a 30-year period is something to really cheer about, especially when the cost of living has gone considerable up to take away these so called increase in wages.

you realize thats MEDIAN income increase right? Not average.

I didnt say i wanted to stop there, id like the average median income to be $70,000 or more. But, thats depends on so many factors it would take us pages to talk about (work history, education, competition in the market place, training, etc).

I love how you guys completely CHANGE that argument because you cant argue back. The statement was that the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That the 1% DONT CREATE JOBS.

Ive just shown how that is FALSE. Go read unemployment figures from Carter until 2008. How UE steadily came down till it was at its lowest under Clinton and George W. Bush. How the poor have gotten better off in terms of assets and wages. How Median income has gone up over the last 30 years even when adjusted for inflation.

Now since i proved my point, you want to argue "its not enough". Dont put words in my mouth. The argument was about trickle down doesnt work, when indeed it does. Youre not making a completely different argument, without posting ANY facts what so ever.

Care to post any charts showing how the median income going up over a generation is wiped out by "cost of living increases". Id love to see it.

[Vteckidd]

oh and its been about a $15,000 jump, not $10,000.

you also realize that median income can only go up so much before inflation skews the numbers.

[ahabion]

Yay for da' Asians!

Greed = Taking or attempting to take more than what is earned.

Football analogy quote by Skip Holtz:
"I have never jumped on anybody for running up the score, and I'll tell you why," Holtz said. "When Bobby Bowden was at West Virginia, he beat my father (Lou Holtz) at N.C. State. My father was upset with him and said 'Bobby, I can't believe you'd run the score up like that.' Bobby looked at him and said 'Lou, it's not my job to keep the score down. It's yours.'"

Folks who make more money have probably done something to earn that money and it's not their job to make sure you make the same, it's yours.

[Vteckidd]

That's true but there is a growing section of people who believe they are incapable of making mindy or being wealthy because they feel the system is stacked against them.

I don't believe that personally

[.blank cd]

Folks who make more money have probably done something to earn that money and it's not their job to make sure you make the same, it's yours.Probably is the key word here...

[Vteckidd]

Probably is the key word here...

But even if they havent, lets say someone like Kim Kardashian (who we all know probably has the mental capacity of a sea urchin) who doesnt do ANYTHING for her money (lets face it she sells herself, which is a train wreck), how do you fix it?

So who decides who REALLY makes more money because of their education, experience , etc vs people who dont?

Do we set up panels that say "you can make XXXXXXXXX dollars but you cant"?

Part of our system is LUCK as well as hard work, some of it is who you know, etc. but why is that a problem?

As much as a i hate KK she deserves to make millions if she can convince people to buy her product (which is herself). Id rather live in a world where people can be KK than a world that passes laws that say she cant be who she is.

[BanginJimmy]

Greed = Taking or attempting to take more than what is earned.


First decent answer I have seen, still has a HUGE hole in it though. Who decides the proper way to earn? Is it the stock trader that throws a couple hundred dollars on a penny stock blindly, then that stock goes up 10k% over the next 6 months? How about the thief that spends months researching a place in order to steal something inside?

This is why I say anyone that breaks the law in order to gain something is greedy.

[.blank cd]

She wasn't the example I was gonna use, but I'll bite. Her whole success is hinged on her sex tape. Sure she's got her own perfume line and a store NOW, after the fact, but I'm gonna count that separate from her "winnings". And that's even stretching it, cause I highly doubt she's behind the scenes much in any of that business stuff, and I'm not seeing any kind of post-secondary education for her. With that said, I don't pay her. I don't buy her shit, I don't buy any magazines with her in it, I don't watch her TV show. And on top of that, if her product is HER, she really doesn't even look THAT great.

No. The govt can't regulate that kind of "success" (I use that word very loosely here). I blame stupid people for what she has. Her and Paris Hilton. The people can regulate it though. Stop paying her any attention, stop watching her mind numbing shows, and stop buying her shit. If society was more educated, I believe she wouldn't exist.

[.blank cd]

This is why I say anyone that breaks the law in order to gain something is greedy.
You don't have to break a law to be greedy.

If you sit 5 kids down and told them to share a cake, and one kid takes more than half the cake for himself, that is called greed.

[BanginJimmy]

You don't have to break a law to be greedy.

If you sit 5 kids down and told them to share a cake, and one kid takes more than half the cake for himself, that is called greed.

Ok now put that into context. How does your example fit todays america?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Firefightin_tC]

Ok now put that into context. How does your example fit todays america?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I'm looking forward to that answer.

[bu villain]

As much as a i hate KK she deserves to make millions if she can convince people to buy her product (which is herself). Id rather live in a world where people can be KK than a world that passes laws that say she cant be who she is.

What law has been proposed that would prevent her from being who she is or making obsene amounts of money?

[bu villain]

calling someone greedy is a moral judgement and its up to everyone to decide for themselves what it means. How about discussing policy instead of subjective labels.

[BanginJimmy]

calling someone greedy is a moral judgement and its up to everyone to decide for themselves what it means. How about discussing policy instead of subjective labels.

I agree. It is a piece of mindless rhetoric with no basis in fact behind it.

[Vteckidd]

I think you missed my point.

The KK reference was merely pointing out that even stupid people deserve to make money .

Blank,CD said "probably" in refernece to the comment that most people have a large sum of wealth because they are smarter than others. I was pointing out that even if people are stupid they have a right to make money

[stephen]

1% = guilt by association for "wealth"

"1%" is what's useless rhetoric, NOT GREED.
GREED is not a legal term or of legal reference...taking advantage of GENEROSITY is GREEDY.

the problem has ALWAYS been the fact that political figures represent a decent portion of THE WEALTHY. politicians are paid by the people, to represent the people... compare the INDIVIDUAL politicians' income to that of the average american HOUSEHOLD and tell me the people aren't MORE THAN GENEROUS. it's the politicians who fear having an income less than 200% of the the average american household (who pays them)...considering we're in an "economic crisis"...that's a bit greedy don't you think? using the term "1%" is useless rhetoric...the people didn't create that nonsense...politicians did. all of these folks that're being used as examples ARE THE PEOPLE...like the writer of the article, and he made it very clear, "i'm definitely part of this '1%', so raise my taxes."

[RL...]

Most people's income over the last 30 years has gone up, from the poor to the rich. But has the income of the poor vs. middle vs rich gone up equally relative to each other? No. Has minimum wage kept up with inflation? No. The gap between the middle class and the top 10% has definitely grown, although that's not 100% Washington's fault. Hardly any manufacturing is done in the U.S. nowadays and with so many goods being imported from countries like China, so many jobs and companies are no longer viable in this economy. I'm not saying that the rich need to be taxed more, and honestly the middle class doesn't really need their taxes lowered either. The reason why so many middle class peoples finances are fucked up is because people are fucking bad with money. They buy a LOT OF SHIT THEY DON'T NEED. Most of the time it's what I like to call "THEIR FAULT". If public education taught more relevant things like money management, time management, and critical thinking I think the whole nation would be in a much better state but that's a whole different topic so meh...

[bu villain]

I think you missed my point.

The KK reference was merely pointing out that even stupid people deserve to make money .

Blank,CD said "probably" in refernece to the comment that most people have a large sum of wealth because they are smarter than others. I was pointing out that even if people are stupid they have a right to make money

Absolutely. Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment based on your line about not wanting to live in a world where she can't be who she is. I think blank,cd's point was that his definition of who deserves money and how much is not the same as what free market principle says it is (which is basically you "deserve" whatever you can legally get). Everyone should be able to make a living and we should reward hard work but not everyone agrees our current system is optimal. For example, when companies fail and yet their CEOs receive millions in compensation, it just doesn't seem like they "deserve" it.

[Vteckidd]

. For example, when companies fail and yet their CEOs receive millions in compensation, it just doesn't seem like they "deserve" it.

no, and they shouldnt. Im against that. But how do we fix it?

Watch INSIDE JOB, weed through the BS, its a pretty scary documentary

[bu villain]

no, and they shouldnt. Im against that. But how do we fix it?

Watch INSIDE JOB, weed through the BS, its a pretty scary documentary

I wish I knew the answer to that. Something to think about for sure.

[Vteckidd]

One thing is to link the owners and CEOs money with the company. Many times these guys run the company into the ground which destroys the shareholders but they still get their bonuses. Im not for limiting executive pay, but there has to be a way that says "you bankrupt a company, you dont get paid"

[bu villain]

Yeah, that was somewhat the idea behind stock bonuses but tactics used to increase stock price are not always healthy long term for the company. There is a similar problem in politics where short term issues trump long term issues because all they are worried about is the next election.

It would be interesting to see a company who paid their CEO based on reviews from employees as well as stock holders. I know this must be my ignorance, but is it really impossible to find a good CEO who will accept only 500k a year? It just boggles the mind.

[.blank cd]

I'd do it for 100k

[BanginJimmy]

I know this must be my ignorance, but is it really impossible to find a good CEO who will accept only 500k a year? It just boggles the mind.

Yes it really is that hard, and expensive, for a major corporation to hire a CEO with the proper credentials and demeanor to not only deal with the day to day operations, but also deal with shareholders, the govt, and the media. You have to remember that the CEO of Boeing, or Citi Group, or Delta have to watch their every word. A 'private' comment made at a lunch with shareholders can easily find its way to the desk of a Congressman or reporter. One snide comment could cause Lockheed to lose standing for a contract and cost shareholders millions of dollars. CEO's that cost shareholders money typically do not keep their job very long.

[BanginJimmy]

You don't have to break a law to be greedy.

If you sit 5 kids down and told them to share a cake, and one kid takes more than half the cake for himself, that is called greed.


Ok now put that into context. How does your example fit todays america?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Still waiting for your answer to this one.

[ahabion]

First decent answer I have seen, still has a HUGE hole in it though. Who decides the proper way to earn? Is it the stock trader that throws a couple hundred dollars on a penny stock blindly, then that stock goes up 10k% over the next 6 months? How about the thief that spends months researching a place in order to steal something inside?

This is why I say anyone that breaks the law in order to gain something is greedy.

Society determines the proper way to earn and in part, passing laws to protect people from others and themselves. So I can see where you're coming from but greed is always a choice or decision.

[ahabion]

Still waiting for your answer to this one.

Just a note... economics is not cake... just because someone holds more money doesn't mean any other person misses out. Unless that person missing out is indebted to the someone who is holding all the money... then they are definitely missing out but not because the person holding the money was greedy... rather because the person borrowing the money was greedy. O.o

[Vteckidd]

I'd do it for 100k

I doubt anyone in here has the background to run a fortune 500 company.

Sorry.

100k a year is peanuts.

[RL...]

CEO's deserve to get paid well on under normal circumstances, but shouldn't be getting BONUSES nor bailouts while the company is going under or having bad quarters etc...

Also I've been hearing a lot of people saying that 100K salary a year isn't much....it's more than about 90% of Americans make. Considering there's about 350 million Americans, that's making more than 315 million people not to mention it's more than most people in the world make as well. Bottom line is that generally speaking the more money one gets the more corrupt as well...

[bu villain]

Yes it really is that hard, and expensive, for a major corporation to hire a CEO with the proper credentials and demeanor to not only deal with the day to day operations, but also deal with shareholders, the govt, and the media. You have to remember that the CEO of Boeing, or Citi Group, or Delta have to watch their every word. A 'private' comment made at a lunch with shareholders can easily find its way to the desk of a Congressman or reporter. One snide comment could cause Lockheed to lose standing for a contract and cost shareholders millions of dollars. CEO's that cost shareholders money typically do not keep their job very long.

Certainly it is a very unique skill to run a major corporation but it doesn't seem so unique that you couldn't find a skilled CEO that would accept 500k a year. I think the real answer is CEOs know they can get those insane salaries even though though would be willing to do it for much less. Still doesn't explain why CEOs get bonuses while destroying their companies though.

[bu villain]

Still waiting for your answer to this one.

I know this was not directed at me, but here is an example of what I would consider greed while not doing anything illegal.

If you are underwriting a loan for someone you get to look at their finances. If based on their finances and discussions with them, you see no way for them to realistically be able to pay off the loan and you write it anyways simply because you get to collect your origination fee and pass any risk to Fannie or Freddie, I would consider that greedy.

Generally speaking, if you take advantage of someone's ignorance or decieve someone in order to make money, that is being greedy in my opinion. If you don't feel it would be ethical to do it to your own family, why would it be ethical to do it to anyone else?

[.blank cd]

I doubt anyone in here has the background to run a fortune 500 company.

Sorry.

100k a year is peanuts.Maybe, maybe not. What's your definition of qualifications? The two biggest tech CEOs, Jobs and Gates, were college dropouts. So technically they have less qualifications then a lot of people here.

I'll stand by my challenge. I'll do any multi million dollar major CEOs job for one year for $100k or stock options. If business grows or doesn't do anything, my point is proven, and I'll have a job. If business falls, they still save money.

[BanginJimmy]

If you are underwriting a loan for someone you get to look at their finances. If based on their finances and discussions with them, you see no way for them to realistically be able to pay off the loan and you write it anyways simply because you get to collect your origination fee and pass any risk to Fannie or Freddie, I would consider that greedy.


Another pretty good answer but it still has a couple pretty big holes in it. 99% of mortgages are approved or disapproved by a computer program these days. The loan officer types in the family's incomes, debts, credit score, down payment etc and the computer tells them if the loan will be approved or not. In the case of FHA or any other type of govt backed mortgage, Fannie and Freddie are the ones that write the program's specs. Because so few banks actually see their mortgages through from origination to payoff, the loan officers are really doing nothing more than matching your circumstances up with the different mortgages that fit your situation.


Generally speaking, if you take advantage of someone's ignorance

Personal responsibility needs to break out at some point. Why would ANYONE sign such a long term and expensive document if they dont understand what they are signing? Which brings me to . . .



or decieve someone in order to make money,

This is a crime. Countrywide was a big violator of this and got hammered for it. Even a simple mortgage is a complicated process. If you dont take the time to read and understand what you are reading I have a hard time feeling sorry for you. It took me less than 2 minutes on the internet to learn the ups and downs of a 7/1 ARM. It took even less time than that to figure out that it wouldnt be the best solution for me.




If you don't feel it would be ethical to do it to your own family, why would it be ethical to do it to anyone else?


We agree here. Ethics is a major problem in business today. The problems are made even worse when you try to legislate ethics. The housing bubble is a perfect example of that. The govt wanted to push banks to give more loans to lower class families. In return the banks, with the help of the govt, created all these crazy loans and mortgage backed securities to flatten risk. We all know how that ended up.

[bu villain]

Another pretty good answer but it still has a couple pretty big holes in it. 99% of mortgages are approved or disapproved by a computer program these days. The loan officer types in the family's incomes, debts, credit score, down payment etc and the computer tells them if the loan will be approved or not. In the case of FHA or any other type of govt backed mortgage, Fannie and Freddie are the ones that write the program's specs. Because so few banks actually see their mortgages through from origination to payoff, the loan officers are really doing nothing more than matching your circumstances up with the different mortgages that fit your situation.

You clearly know more about the mortgage industries processes than I do. I wasn't trying to make an implication of the entire mortgage industry, just give an example of how my definition of greed does not rely on the law. What you are describing (bad loans approved based on an algorithm alone) is incompetence rather than greed.



Personal responsibility needs to break out at some point. Why would ANYONE sign such a long term and expensive document if they dont understand what they are signing? Which brings me to . . .

I completely agree people should be responsible for what they sign. However, I don't feel that an irresponsible customer absolves anyone from taking advantage of that irresponsibility/ignorance. For me, it's the opposite. If you are intimately familiar with an industry, you shouldn't enable someone to make a totally irresponsible decision without even expressing any concern. Based on what you described though, incompetence was the main culprit in our mortgage industry.


This is a crime. Countrywide was a big violator of this and got hammered for it. Even a simple mortgage is a complicated process. If you dont take the time to read and understand what you are reading I have a hard time feeling sorry for you. It took me less than 2 minutes on the internet to learn the ups and downs of a 7/1 ARM. It took even less time than that to figure out that it wouldnt be the best solution for me.

I don't feel sorry for anyone who took out a mortgage they had no hope of being able to pay off either unless they were deceived by the mortgage companies. Willful ignorance is not a good excuse.

[BanginJimmy]

You clearly know more about the mortgage industries processes than I do. I wasn't trying to make an implication of the entire mortgage industry, just give an example of how my definition of greed does not rely on the law. What you are describing (bad loans approved based on an algorithm alone) is incompetence rather than greed.

I really dont, that was just a few minutes worth of google. I'm sure I am a little off on the details. I guess I should change my stance a bit o the issue of 'greed'. I still believe it is a simply a piece of mindless rhetoric that has absolutely zero basis in facts. I still believe it is a word to vilify any anyone that has the audacity to make money, unless of course you donate to the correct political party. What I do need to change is that more people see the word as a basis of morality. That gets even more clouded when you think that these "greedy" Wall St. people typically arent the ones doing the things that people say are greedy. Looking at the mortgage industry again, those 'predatory' loans were typically written and pushed by people making 50k a year, not the people making 50k a month like their opponents would make you believe.





I completely agree people should be responsible for what they sign. However, I don't feel that an irresponsible customer absolves anyone from taking advantage of that irresponsibility/ignorance. For me, it's the opposite. If you are intimately familiar with an industry, you shouldn't enable someone to make a totally irresponsible decision without even expressing any concern. Based on what you described though, incompetence was the main culprit in our mortgage industry.

You are allowed, and in my experience encouraged to have your own lawyer there with you at closing. You can also get a copy of all mortgage documents several days before closing so you have time to go through them and read them at your own pace. As with any other salesman, I am only required to tell you the truth when you ask questions. I am not there to hold your hand. Again, this is a moral issue, not a legal issue.




I don't feel sorry for anyone who took out a mortgage they had no hope of being able to pay off either unless they were deceived by the mortgage companies. Willful ignorance is not a good excuse.

In this we agree completely.