Why do American CEOs get paid so much?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by LafayetteBis, Aug 21, 2018.

  1. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everyone pays property tax. Its part of your rent, and included in the price you pay for goods and services. 100% pay property taxes directly or indirectly and there are no exceptions. Your emotions do not refute the results that speak for themselves. Good day sir.
     
  2. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are incorrect. If you pay an employee and they don't perform the work you hired them for, its not complaining. Its holding them accountable.

    You blamed Republicans alone. That is false even if this was my first day on the forum.
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are incorrect as a matter of objective fact.
    Only a portion of the improvement value portion of property taxes can be passed on to tenants. A tenant on unimproved land pays no property tax, as the land value portion cannot be passed on. This is a fact of economics that has been known for over 200 years, and is not seriously disputed by any competent economist. It is merely a fact that is not known to you because you do not know any economics.
    But there are people who are self-sufficient, and do not buy any goods or services, and others who are dependent on charity, and likewise do not buy any goods or services. They may live on untaxed property such as Indian reservations and church property, thus paying no property tax whatever, either directly or indirectly.
    I just identified some exceptions. You are objectively incorrect.

    Your emotions do not refute the results that speak for themselves.

    But thank you for sharing your ignorance of economics.
    < Y A W N >
     
  4. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Simplistic nonsense. If the employee is not apt to do the job, then they should never be hired. And if they were apt, then the company should know they can perform correctly if trained properly. Thus, despite training, if they cannot, then it is fault of the company. And an intermediary is required to make intervene to determine who is at fault.

    Companies "contract" workers, and the contract should indicate the above "rights of employment". The hiring company is in a employment contract with the worker and must observe the rules. (That is, if a country is developed enough to know and make lawful the work-rules that are fair and equitable - meaning they protect both sides of the work-equation.)

    Just because you hire someone does not give you absolute rights over prescribing quality of their work if they have not been sufficiently trained to perform. If those rules have been met, and the quality of work is insufficient then a contractor has every right to sever the employment-relationship.


    I blame Replicants for many aspects of wrongdoing ineptitude but the worst of all is the manner in which their presidents have continually done nothing the the disparity between upper and lower pay-scales. America's Income Disparity is the worst of any developed country on earth. See National Income Inequality chart from the OECD here. Note that the US is the highest of any comparable economy!
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2020
  5. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you're an economic genius and the best argument you can muster is cheap insults? You are still incorrect:

    The Tribe purchases goods and services from companies that pay property taxes and pass that cost on to the buyer.
    A tenant pays rent that is used to pay the property owners property tax.
    Those dependent on charity are still part of a stream of money where a portion goes towards property tax.
     
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You use many words to say very little. Bottom line, you make whatever your time is worth.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only in a world of perfect information, at least according to the laws of supply and demand...
     
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree entirely but its time to abridge this useless non-sensical exchange.

    Have a nice dayyyyyyy ...
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you are aware that I have proved you objectively wrong with indisputable economic fact and logic.

    I'm normally gentle on economic ignorami, but you came across as so arrogant and full of yourself, so unapologetically an apologist for landowner greed, privilege, and parasitism, that I just couldn't resist demolishing and humiliating you.
    No, I am of course objectively correct:
    But the self-sufficient and charity cases are not buyers and they therefore pay no property tax. You lose.

    Furthermore, you seem to be unaware -- because you do not know any economics -- that only a portion (probably less than half because supply is quite inelastic) of the improvement value portion of property taxes can be passed on. None of the land value portion can be.

    You also did not address the case of untaxed church property, where again, the recipient is often a nominal charity case, pays nothing, and is therefore indisputably not paying any property tax. You are wrong. You lose. You have lost. I am not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
    Irrelevant. In the case of unimproved land, the rent is the same no matter what the property tax, so the tenant is not paying it. Again, you do not know this because you do not know any economics.
    But they pay nothing, so they cannot possibly be paying any property tax, so I am right and win, while you are wrong, and lose. You lose. You have lost. At some point, you need to figure out that when you are in way over your head, you had better stop digging.
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Plus whatever you are legally entitled to take by dint of privilege, without making any commensurate contribution to production in return.
     
  11. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are reaching far distances to make a point, but you are still incorrect in every case. The church survives on donations, all of which is paid with money people are left with after paying property taxes. (Directly or indirectly.)

    You failed to show a lack of revenue and presented the fallacy that land owners do not pass the tax expense onto their tenants. Your cheap jabs only reveal your inability understand simple points. One of my rental properties has had no improvements since the home was built in the 1930s. Please tell me where I get my money to pay property taxes on that home?

    Your emotional rants are mildly entertaining, but it doesn't take an economic genius to see the irresponsibility our government is known for. In spite of Californians paying the highest taxes, we are the poverty capitol of the US. Schools rake with the lowest and roads are crumbling. CA cities are on the brink of insolvency and here you are complaining that they don't have enough money to work with because of prop 13. Results speak for themselves.

    Good times.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False.
    So what? The fact that people's charitable donations are made with after-tax money does not mean the recipients are paying the taxes, sorry, that is just absurd. Charitable donations are presumably made after paying ALL taxes and ALL OTHER expenses. That doesn't mean the recipients are burdened by any such costs unless you can show that the donations would be lower if the other expenses were higher, which you can't.
    That was Prop 13's purpose.
    That is not a fallacy. It is a fact:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

    As the elasticity of supply for land is 0, a tax on land up to its full rental value is paid strictly by the landowner, and no one else. As I said, that is a fact of economics that has been known for over 200 years, and is not seriously disputed by any competent economist.
    <yawn> I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not.
    HAHAHAHAA!! So a rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowner loves Prop 13....

    Shocker.
    <sigh> Would you charge your tenant any less than the market rent if you magically didn't have to pay the property tax? If not -- and you know very well you would not, why would you? -- then he is not paying any of the property tax. He is not made worse off in any way by it. Only you are. Suppose you didn't have to pay any property tax, so you used the rent money to play the ponies instead. Would that mean your tenant was somehow made worse off by your gambling habit? And if the property tax does not affect the amount of rent he pays any more than your luck at the racetrack does, how is he paying the property tax, any more than he is paying for your dubious opinions about the virtues of various nags and their riders? Try to find a willingness to understand that.
    < Y A W N >
    "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" is puerile tripe.
    Your claims continue to be objectively and provably false:

    https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494/

    CA does not even make the top 10. Only the personal income tax rate is highest in CA. Other taxes, especially property taxes, are higher in many other states.
    Because of Prop 13, as already explained so very clearly and patiently. And often.
    Because all spending on schools and roads goes to landowners like you, not to the public who use them.
    They can NEVER have enough money to work with because of Prop 13: they have to give it all to landowners. It's like trying to keep warm by burning your clothes. That is very much the point. Try to find a willingness to understand that.
    They do indeed.
    Not for CA as long as Prop 13 is in effect. Take it to the bank.
     
    gottzilla likes this.
  13. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Results speak for themselves. I see why you don't own property.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ownership? Often a reflection of how rent seeking reflects inheritance
     
  15. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    He just gave you the opportunity to learn about tax incidence, very enlightening information, and you choose to ignore it. Now you do pure ad hom rather than discuss content and ideas. Pathetic behavior.

    The principle of supply and demand doesn't magically cease to operate when government levies a tax. How the burden is shared depends on how elastic or inelastic supply and demand are. Mixing up accounting and economics is absurd. Stop doing it.

    I'm going to do this very roughly now rather than in minuscule detail: If you buy a $500 bicycle and sales tax is 10%, then you may falsely think in the accounting sense that the entire tax was passed on to you, as you paid $550 rather than $500. But, in the economic sense, the $550 IS THE PRICE. The burden is shared by both parties: The bicycle industry responds to the tax with reduced supply to increase prices, hurting consumers, and consumers respond with reduced demand, hurting both the bicycle industry and consumers, resulting in decreased overall wealth.

    BTW, the above is a large scale process of which the individual company may or may not be aware, I assume, depending on how well informed they are.

    Something like a tax on cigarettes may actually be largely passed on to consumers, I assume, as it's an addiction people cannot so easily reduce. Supply is elastic while demand is relatively inelastic.

    Let's get back to land. Supply of land is fixed, meaning the landowner cannot decrease supply to artificially increase rent to make up for the tax on land value. He's a pure price taker. If the the land portion of the rent is $1000 and we now have a fully implemented land value tax that recovers those $1000, then with regards to what the the land "owner" takes from the tenant, it will merely mean for the tenant that the rent for the land portion is still $1000, but is now, instead of being parasitically taken and kept by the land"owner", merely collected by him and paid to the community that makes the land valuable in the first place. The land"owner" will not be able to magically increase the rent for the land to $2000. He could try, if he was too stupid, ignorant and greedy to take his own financial well being into consideration, but would definitely fail and be stuck with vacant land and still pay $1000 to the community. Good luck with that, Doofenshmirz.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
    bringiton likes this.
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Overly simplistic! If cost plus pricing holds then the tax is likely to be fully passed on. Also behavioural concepts refer to anchoring. A firm can pass on a tax and actually expect no long term demand reduction.
     
  17. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I already edited and corrected/adjusted my post a bit before I saw your response because I had already noticed an error. Respond to the new content, if you wish.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My comment stands. Your comment is overly simplistic, ignoring the fact that marginal cost pricing does not hold and that behavioural concepts can be used to predict tax burden without provoking demand effect.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, they do. The contrast in CA's trajectory before and after Prop 13 passed in 1978 could hardly be more obvious.
    I am a landlord. Are you willing to learn from your errors?

    I also oppose patent and copyright monopolies even though I have made significant money from them.

    You see, not everyone judges matters of public policy based solely on how their own narrow financial interests are affected. Some people (not you, obviously) care about liberty, justice, truth, economic efficiency, and the health and prosperity of the whole community.
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As being wrong.
    <sigh> Wrong again. He stated that the supply of land is fixed, so there is no marginal cost. You just don't know enough economics to understand that.
    But not accurately. As the supply of land is fixed, there is nothing but the demand effect.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False. As Einstein observed, "Everything should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler." What gottzilla wrote was of course simpler than the messy reality of people's actual behavior, just as the simple truths of Einsteinian special relativity are simpler than quantum mechanical reality. But it was pitched at an appropriate level of simplicity for Doofenshmirtz (if indeed it was actually simple enough for him to understand), as D has shown at best minimal capacity to comprehend basic economic concepts. So while simple, gottzilla's post was not overly simplistic. As usual, you are merely nitpicking in order to muddy the waters and prevent the less sophisticated from understanding the facts of economics.
    gottzilla was talking about market pricing, not cost plus. We know lots of economic laws do not hold if the market does not set prices. A man might sell his car to his nephew for $1 even though the Blue Book price is $3000. That doesn't mean the Blue Book price is wrong or the market doesn't set prices for used cars.
    Again, that assumes non-market behavior. You are trying to make the concept of tax incidence overly complex in order to evade the fact that a periodic tax on land up to its full unimproved market rental value is borne strictly by the owner, and cannot be passed on to anyone else through market forces. Why do you feel it is so important for you to try to prevent people from understanding even that minimal amount of economic fact?
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    gottzilla referred to Econ 101. That amused me. Geoists do not seem to know much economics. We know that marginal cost pricing doesn't hold. We know that firms adopt 'cost plus' pricing. We therefore know that a tax can indeed be completely passed on to the consumer without any notion of perfectly inelastic demand. Its a shame that you're trying to support poorly thought out neoclassical grunt ;)
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which already taxes Doofenshmirtz's abilities, so your claim of oversimplification was just false, another one of your impressively numerous attempts to deflect from the facts about land.
    :lol: Your supercilious airs are wearing a bit thin, given that you can't get even the simplest things right.
    I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for being honest enough not to claim that people who are not followers of Henry George are Georgists.

    In contrast to the geoists, your problem seems to be that, to paraphrase Twain, you know so much that ain't so.
    So gottzilla was right.
    <yawn> How's that working out for the fracking companies, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

    Why can't you ever remember that the facts of objective physical reality just flat-out prove you wrong?
    You are again trying to deflect from the actual point -- perfectly inelastic supply -- because you know that it proves gottzilla right and you wrong.
    Ricardo, neoclassical? Have you been drinking?
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think Econ 101 poorly done is good debating habit? Crikey, that's a laugh ;)

    There was nothing in your comment to respond to. For example, you're clearly completely ignorant over 'cost-plus' pricing and how it challenges the neoclassical orthodox. That you didn't know his comment was actually reliant on perfectly inelastic demand, mind you, was a giggle.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    gottzilla's post was better done than anything you have ever written, or ever will. Maybe you are simply jealous of someone who can communicate without sneering, or who can be in the same room with himself without feeling loathing.
    You just love projecting, don't you? Your comments about others' comments invariably describe your own.
    I repeat: how is that working out for the fracking firms, hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
    That you don't understand his comment was not reliant on perfectly inelastic demand is not even a giggle, as it is completely predictable.
     

Share This Page