Watch Tonight for Tips to Save Money on Pricey Prescription Drugs at 10 p.m. ET on AARP LIVE! Watch Here

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

19 Views
Message 1 of 24

JakyE200455 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:  The words "stolen" and "property" have specific meanings. Your misuse of them negates any value your post may have had.

All words have meanings & stolen & property were used exactly as explained by Merriam Webster.  For example: "steal" means:  to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice.

 

So when Trump kept the pianos he ordered from a NJ piano store, as if they were his property, but refused to pay the agreed-upon contractual price, knowing full well that the piano dealer did not have the wherewithal to sue him, Trump stole the pianos (e.g., took the pianos wrongfully).  BTW, if you read the news about such Trump practices, you'll note they are habitual. 

 

Also, when one has nothing to add to a discussion, it's OK to just bypass it without comment.  Smiley Happy


it is when you intermix "property" and "stolen" into thinking about employer/employee relations you have gone far beyond a NJ piano shop.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

33 Views
Message 2 of 24

JakyE200455 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:  The words "stolen" and "property" have specific meanings. Your misuse of them negates any value your post may have had.

All words have meanings & stolen & property were used exactly as explained by Merriam Webster.  For example: "steal" means:  to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice.

 

So when Trump kept the pianos he ordered from a NJ piano store, as if they were his property, but refused to pay the agreed-upon contractual price, knowing full well that the piano dealer did not have the wherewithal to sue him, Trump stole the pianos (e.g., took the pianos wrongfully).  BTW, if you read the news about such Trump practices, you'll note they are habitual. 

 

Also, when one has nothing to add to a discussion, it's OK to just bypass it without comment.  Smiley Happy


great comment. Welcome to the nuthouse Smiley Happy my thinking is along those lines also..the laborer is the one that actually creates the wealth..anyone else is sucking off the property the laborer created. Production is  a collaberative effort of laborers, giving up their lifes to produce "something", then are oppressed by those who live well off that labor. most everyone works for a living, and and as the progenitors of labor and product deserve some perks such as a living wage at least. 45 k/year with beneifts all paid for is not TOO MUCH for working your butt off all your life, but it is too much for wall st to suffer lower profit margins.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Info Seeker

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

41 Views
Message 3 of 24

rk9152 wrote:  The words "stolen" and "property" have specific meanings. Your misuse of them negates any value your post may have had.

All words have meanings & stolen & property were used exactly as explained by Merriam Webster.  For example: "steal" means:  to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice.

 

So when Trump kept the pianos he ordered from a NJ piano store, as if they were his property, but refused to pay the agreed-upon contractual price, knowing full well that the piano dealer did not have the wherewithal to sue him, Trump stole the pianos (e.g., took the pianos wrongfully).  BTW, if you read the news about such Trump practices, you'll note they are habitual. 

 

Also, when one has nothing to add to a discussion, it's OK to just bypass it without comment.  Smiley Happy

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

114 Views
Message 4 of 24

saworld wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

There is only ONE solution to getting the profits of Corporate America once again divided equably between management and workers, and that is the REPEAL THE REAGAN TAXSCAM.


If I understand your theory, it is if only the government would seize a large portion of the property of the rich, they would pay their employees more. And that would take care of the corporate distribution of profits.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????


And if I understand your theory, the fact that stolen goods are in the possession of the thief, makes them the property of said thief.  For example, if top management uses their power to underpay workers & then use the funds to overpay themselves, that makes said funds the "property" of said top management.  Right?

 

Or more simply & based on specific happenings, when Trump used his power of the purse to pay less than the agreed-upon price to small business vendors AFTER securing their services or goods, that makes the services and goods rightfully Trump's "property" just because they're in his possession.  Correct?

 

Give us a break already rk!


The words "stolen" and "property" have specific meanings. Your misuse of them negates any value your post may have had.

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

334 Views
Message 5 of 24

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

There is only ONE solution to getting the profits of Corporate America once again divided equably between management and workers, and that is the REPEAL THE REAGAN TAXSCAM.


If I understand your theory, it is if only the government would seize a large portion of the property of the rich, they would pay their employees more. And that would take care of the corporate distribution of profits.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????


And if I understand your theory, the fact that stolen goods are in the possession of the thief, makes them the property of said thief.  For example, if top management uses their power to underpay workers & then use the funds to overpay themselves, that makes said funds the "property" of said top management.  Right?

 

Or more simply & based on specific happenings, when Trump used his power of the purse to pay less than the agreed-upon price to small business vendors AFTER securing their services or goods, that makes the services and goods rightfully Trump's "property" just because they're in his possession.  Correct?

 

Give us a break already rk!

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

381 Views
Message 6 of 24

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

saworld wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

saworld wrote:

The government needs to be involved IMO, possibly with a type of tax incentive for keeping salaries inline.  The crony circle will not give up their "rights" to determine their & their buddies' incomes unless forced to & that needs government action.  Perhaps the shareholders' rights idea could be enforced with the tax-incentive one somehow.

The owners of the stock are the owners of the company and have the RIGHT to pay all employees what THEY consider fair. I personally think the CEOs are overpaid, BUT I can't see the government involvement since they don't own the company (shareholders do). I own stock and get to approve (or disapprove) what the board of directors decide to pay the CEO but that vote is "just for fun" because the board of directors can override the shareholders. I think this is wrong, but that IS the current system.

Below are some thoughts from: http://fortune.com/2017/04/19/executive-compensation-ceo-pay/.  One is to make our shareholders' votes binding & the other is a tax idea.  Notice that in both cases the government has to be involved.  Who else can fix it?

  • "To induce boards to consider such radical change and to lower total compensation, Clifford suggests a federal luxury tax, a dollar-for-dollar tax on executive pay in any form above $6 million a year. Politically, that will be a tough sell. A less intrusive alternative, I think, would be to give more power to the shareholders who own the store. A rule enacted in the Dodd-Frank reforms requires nonbinding shareholder votes on executive pay. Why not tweak the rule so that on pay packages above a certain threshold—say $5 million—their vote is binding? Some companies would still pay more. But to avoid a vote and potentially messy publicity, a lot of boards would hold the line at $4.99 million."

Where the government should be involved is the passage of a law that REQUIRES a binding vote on all executive salaries by the shareholders (the true owners of the company). If the shareholders approve of huge executive salaries because of whatever the reason, they should allow it. On the other hand, companies who are NOT performing well would most likely have shareholders cutting executives salaries.

 

BTW, your link didn't work for me.


ahhh.. but the average person ( worker) has been convinced that regulating the stock market to make it more fair is Socialist. ANd they vote for less regulation to their detriment.

 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

382 Views
Message 7 of 24

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

saworld wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

I agree that CEOs are overpaid BUT the company (actually the board of directors) decides the CEO salary and not the government. The fix is easy. Just give the shareholders the RIGHT to determine the salary based on performance and make that binding. I'm not sure how this could actually happen but it would be FAIRER.


The government needs to be involved IMO, possibly with a type of tax incentive for keeping salaries inline.  The crony circle will not give up their "rights" to determine their & their buddies' incomes unless forced to & that needs government action.  Perhaps the shareholders' rights idea could be enforced with the tax-incentive one somehow.


The owners of the stock are the owners of the company and have the RIGHT to pay all employees what THEY consider fair. I personally think the CEOs are overpaid, BUT I can't see the government involvement since they don't own the company (shareholders do). I own stock and get to approve (or disapprove) what the board of directors decide to pay the CEO but that vote is "just for fun" because the board of directors can override the shareholders. I think this is wrong, but that IS the current system.


shareholders DONT care about employees..because management is all about the stock price. so are the shareholders. thats why jobs go to china, real pay hasnt increased since the stockmarket was what..1000? 5000? Ceo's are paid in stock options, which are not taxed as much as an employee gets taxed. the stock market and workers are diametricaly opposed. Most workers cant afford ANY stock..so most workers GET NO SAY since the war on unions under Reagan. so, since 1980..unions decline, wages and benefits go south, CEO pay spikes, stcks go to 25K. Toss in a few hiccups and the low and mid level investors go away broke, leaving only the high fliers in terms of gettin in on ipo's at the start etc. in 1980 we all heard it was time to move on from an industrial economy to a service economy..take 5000 jobs and send them overseas for more profit, and send the people laid off to flip burgers of change sheets..service work. Stall minimum wage, have a successful retail outlet become a bigger employer than GM, and have the govt SUBSIDIZE its workforce. 

 

Since Nixon at least..we have heard Trumps Mantra...MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. But thats not whats going on is it? Deregulation of the EPA is now the fad for more profits..of course wages will go up a bit, but not in line with the soaring profits. so now we trade clean air and water for the STOCK MARKET. 

 

Post WWII and Depression, the rules had been changed to benefit the worker, and the advent of the middle class. Workers had a voice in the system. why? WWII. MILLIONS of people trained in combat and sabatoge DEMANDING a more fair piece of the pie. it wouldnt have been pitchforks..lol. now they are gone,  people who remember the depression are gone, and WE let the robber barons back in the door.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

390 Views
Message 8 of 24

Olderscout66 wrote:

There is only ONE solution to getting the profits of Corporate America once again divided equably between management and workers, and that is the REPEAL THE REAGAN TAXSCAM.

 

 


If I understand your theory, it is if only the government would seize a large portion of the property of the rich, they would pay their employees more. And that would take care of the corporate distribution of profits.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

433 Views
Message 9 of 24

There is only ONE solution to getting the profits of Corporate America once again divided equably between management and workers, and that is the REPEAL THE REAGAN TAXSCAM.

 

The Republican fairytale about stockholders having a chance of solving the problem is to placate their lofo base who can't be bothered to examine the issue beyond what the GOPerLords tell them.

Here's how ownership of common (voting) stock is divided:

 

Individuals in the top 1%.................35%

Individuals in the bottom 99%.....  3%

Holding companies, mutuals ..........20%

Insurance Companies.....................  7%

Retirements accounts.....................20%

Foreign Investors............................15%

 

So how do you think the people who make the decissions for a Mutual Fund or the Brokerage that manages your retirement account or an Insurance Company will vote DIFFERENTLY than the individuals in the top 1% will vote?

 

What on earth makes you think those individuals will not be the same people who control how the Holding companies, mutual funds, insurance companies and brokerages will vote?

 

To the best of my recollection, the ONLY successful "shareholder revolt" EVER was when Henry "the Deuce" Ford threw out the Executives his daddy had put in place before his demise.

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: How Inequality Equals Theft!

468 Views
Message 10 of 24

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

saworld wrote: Below are some thoughts from: http://fortune.com/2017/04/19/executive-compensation-ceo-pay/.  One is to make our shareholders' votes binding & the other is a tax idea.  Notice that in both cases the government has to be involved.  Who else can fix it?
  • "To induce boards to consider such radical change and to lower total compensation, Clifford suggests a federal luxury tax, a dollar-for-dollar tax on executive pay in any form above $6 million a year. Politically, that will be a tough sell. A less intrusive alternative, I think, would be to give more power to the shareholders who own the store. A rule enacted in the Dodd-Frank reforms requires nonbinding shareholder votes on executive pay. Why not tweak the rule so that on pay packages above a certain threshold—say $5 million—their vote is binding? Some companies would still pay more. But to avoid a vote and potentially messy publicity, a lot of boards would hold the line at $4.99 million."

Where the government should be involved is the passage of a law that REQUIRES a binding vote on all executive salaries by the shareholders (the true owners of the company). If the shareholders approve of huge executive salaries because of whatever the reason, they should allow it. On the other hand, companies who are NOT performing well would most likely have shareholders cutting executives salaries.

 

BTW, your link didn't work for me.


I believe the binding vote is exactly the "tweak" that the article is referring to.  I could see trying that first but then I'd go with the tax idea.  

 

The link in my post doesn't work for me either but when I Google a passage, the article comes up & the very same link works from the search results.??????

Report Inappropriate Content