Tens of millions of people have invested in US companies and continue to do so. All of it is driven by the concept of ROI and I'm guessing most prefer the government stay out of the process. Unless a particular investment is advertised strictly as a made-in-the-USA company, I'm guessing most investors do not care where the products and services are produced as long as there are profits to share with the shareholders. And out of these profits it is generally accepted that there are short term and long term expenses being factored in...including R&D. I also don't want the government picking and choosing which companies or industries might receive subsidies or investment policy...I want this process to be a function of capitalism in a free and open marketplace void as much as possible of government...
Hmmm, sounds like you don't care what happens to America as long as investors get rich. I'd say that sums up the Tea Party's vision of America.
I would anticipate a mass exodus of major corporations out of America as well as the high income earners that control these corporations. Always remember that the wealthy don't have to stay in the United States and draconian taxation is the quickest way of motivating them to leave. They are willing to pay their fair share of taxation to support the government but are not willing to pay the entire cost of government when they don't have to. General Motors, for example, could simply relocate to Mexico where many of its plants are already. Say "goodbye" to jobs in Detroit. Of course hign income earner overwhelmingly reinvest the money they take in as income and capital gains already. They do spend billions of dollars in consumption, creating jobs, but most of their money is reinvested back into the economy. Only a small percentage is retained in bank accounts and that is merely to fund their consumption.
Good, that would reduce entry barriers for new competitive, innovative companies and investors. I say if Bill Gates wants to move himself and Microsoft to Lesotho, go. We'll prosper more without his inferior products and antitrust violations. And of course with alll the rich leaving, the GOP won't have any campaign funds and will finally go extinct.
Last I read about 80 million Americans invest in stocks, bonds, etc. Maybe you would prefer that 80 million Americans just stuff their cash into their mattresses? I drink a cup of tea every single day...it's not a party...it's tea...
You're either belligerent or ignorant and I'm not sure why you come to these forums if this is all you have to offer? Good...that all corporations leave America????????????? Good...that Microsoft leaves America?????????????? If you believe the rich are only the GOP, you are about 100% off base in your assumptions...
I think the part which you are missing is that effective long-term investment cannot succeed in a free market without government support, it's own cost inefficiency drives it under before it begins to pay out. Improving our export status in this country will either require massive government investment (though not as much as the defense budget) or for major private companies to operate in the red for the next decade, which a free market will not allow.
With the money exiting the country and draconian tax laws where is the capital investment going to come from, the unemployed?
The single most important factor in increasing exports is the elimination of non-value added expenses related to production. The single most costly non-value added expense related to production has been identified as corporate taxation, predominately payroll taxes, and the related overhead costs to industry that they impose. It is estimated that when the entire supply chain is analysed that these taxes increase the costs of US goods and services by over 20% which makes US goods and services less competitive on international markets. The imposition of payroll taxes costs 80% of all US corporations 3.84% more in adminstrative expenses than the actual amount of taxes paid. In short, for a dollar of taxes collected the cost of the product is increased by almost five dollars. These costs add nothing to the value of the product on the market. This is a key point for those that advocate for a consumption tax with a prebate over our current income taxes. It would reduce the costs of US exports by about 20% across the board providing US goods with a huge cost advantage in international markets. Instead of exporting jobs we would be exporting more goods and creating more manufacturing jobs which are the real source of wealth for any country.
The whole point of doing something like this is to fix the ever growing gap between the super wealthy and the middle classes. As far as the basketball player goes, anyone who is lucky enough to make a living out of their passion would be entertaining to watch. I know a ridiculous contract might give more incentive to be the best entertainer/athlete, but isn't a million a year enough? The NFL just went through a lockout over greed... that wouldn't have happened if there were a reasonable cap. I just wish something similar to this hypothetical scenario had a chance to happen because the top one percent has taken so much money out of circulation we are all suffering, especially those who rely on government programs to live (and I don't mean those who take advantage of welfare).
Only those who have given up on being anything other than mediocre would wish to impose mediocrity on everyone.
No, those who don't buy into the whole "You can be filthy rich because you live in America" lie are not mediocre. To insinuate people who become rich in America are above average or more than mediocre is very naive. Especially since many successful businessmen write themselves bonus checks right after laying off employees. That kind of behavior hasn't been limited to business men either, I've seen it happen in numerous school systems. No one should be allowed to get rich from screwing others, but it seems that is the number one way to climb your way up the ladder. The majority of working class Americans aren't greedy, they just don't want to live paycheck to pay check or go unemployed while their bosses go on a few unearned vacations a year.
People just don't get it. It isn't the income differences that have tranferred wealth to the wealthy from the middle income and low income workers, it's inflationary monetary policies that utilize Federal Reserve notes. Here's exactly how it works. A person works for 100 hours at $20/hr and puts $2,000 in their savings account. With the expansion of the "money" supply by the Federal Reserve we might see a 5% inflation rate over two years. Now that $2,000 can only purchase $1900 worth of goods. Effectively the 100 hrs of labor that was being saved as dollars is now only worth 95 hrs of labor. The individual has lost 5 hours of labor that they've expended because they saved that labor as dollars. The wealthy also suffer a loss related to dollars that they have in the bank but they have a much smaller percentage of their wealth being stored as dollars. Most of their wealth is in investment in stocks, real estate, or commodities that "increase" in value with inflation. They gain from the average workers loss because their assets increase with inflation while the workers assets decrease with inflation. Want to fix it? Real easy. Start requiring the US government to redeem Federal Reserve notes with American Gold Eagles of the same demomination value as is currently required under US Statutory law (Title 12). Obviously the US government can't redeem all of the Federal Reserve notes at once as there are more promissory Federal Reserve notes than all of the gold ever discovered. Currently Federal Reserve notes represent literally hundreds of billions of ounces of gold. It would take literally hundreds of years for the US government to repay all of the borrowing against future revenues even if 100% of all tax revenues were used for this purpose. But the US government can redeem some of this debt by offering to exchange (1) American Gold Eagle for (1) Federal Reserve note each year for every worker. There are about 150 million American workers so that would equal 150 million American Gold Eagles. They could be $50 American Gold Eagles and that would equal 150 million ounces of gold being distributed or they could be $25 American Gold Eagles and that would be 75 million ounces of gold being distributed. Everyone would be treated the same and this distribution of actual, not promised, wealth would primarily go to the average workers raising their relative wealth when compared to the wealthy who would also be limted to one gold coin a year. Okay, $1500/yr for a gold coin isn't much but it is the only way to return the wealth to the workers who've had their wealth stolen from them by inflationary monetary policies.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here? "Isn't a million a year enough" If the business owner is making tens or hundreds of millions, why should the worker be happy with one million? "Were a reasonable cap" A cap of what? Don't you believe in capitalism? Free enterprise? If you and others pay ridiculously high prices for entertainment, filling stadiums, buying over-priced food/beverages, TV/radio revenues, etc. and this is basically done on the backs of the workers/athletes, why shouldn't the athletes demand a fair share of the pie? If you wish to 'cap' their pay to one million, then YOU and millions others need to stop paying into the system...
Funny how so many believe it's easier to bring down others rather than raise our own performance...in the end we get what you mention above...mediocrity...
I'm guessing that StrayDog would also cap the business owner's income at one million, the "excess" going to the government and/or the employees in the form of higher wages. Correct me if I'm wrong, StrayDog.
It would be stupid to cap the owner's income/profits! This would eliminate any incentive to invest and take risks. You CANNOT arbitrarily give more wages to employees. A company can pay a slight premium to maintain key employees but if you accept the concept of supply and demand, labor costs are partially determined in this fashion. All companies are competing with someone and the costs of labor are critical to keep under control.
I think it comes from the mistaken belief that the money belongs to the gov't and they're just letting us use it. Maybe we should be thankful they let us keep as much as they do, eh?
I thought maybe people would be happy to earn enough to provide for their families and save enough money for retirement and that's why I would agree with a million dollar cap on the businessman, but apparently people need to make hundreds of millions of dollars to have enough incentive just to make a contribution to society. Capitalism seemed to be working well in the 1950's, but why have corporations gotten so harsh, unwilling to take care of their employees, and cut so many corners since then? I honestly don't understand it, aren't there unions anymore? The entertainment industry is so successful, in part, thanks to the brief break from stress it provides. When there's a depression, guess what happens to alcohol sales... huge spike. Alcohol and entertainment are both used as temporary escapes from the daily grind. You seem to be a wiser man than I, but I'm humble and my concern lies with the hard working families in this country facing more hardships as time goes on. It doesn't take a whole lot of intellect to recognize unfair living standards, I simply want to know how to fix it. A million dollar income cap is likely to never happen, but it makes for (*)(*)(*)(*) interesting discussion.
I would cap everyone if it were up to me, but don't worry because it never will be I don't agree, however, that employees should make higher wages just because of an income cap. I wouldn't go so far as to tax 100% of income over a million, but it should be more than 50%. I don't have much experience in economics or the Federal Reserve situation, but I do know that our nation is pretty far in the red and a big continuous spike in revenue could eventually get us out of debt (without taking money from the elderly). So I guess it would go to the government, which in turn, would (*)(*)(*)(*) it away like they always do. But this is a dream world scenario and in my dream world, they would pay the deficit, pay back the social security trust fund they drained, and keep the programs we need alive. ...and maybe kick some bones directly to the school systems too because they're really going to crap.
So would big permanent cuts in federal spending. BTW, Money isn't the education system's problem. Education is the education system's problem. Money won't fix that. On a positive note, Texas has changed their education standards starting this year to make the curricula far more rigorous. I've been in one training session or another all summer.
A fundamental problem is that the US economy is no longer based upon money but instead its based upon fiat currency that has no intrinsic value. In the early 1950's a friend of my father's had a goal of saving $100,000 so he could retire. In the 1950's $100,000 was enough to retire on and it still would be today if it was in American Gold Eagles which are money. Today it would equate to about $3 million and while not providing a retirement life of luxury it would provide a good retirement. Fiat currency destroys the value of labor over time whereas money, which is a commodity, retains it. By the time someone entering the workforce today is ready to retire they're going to need $50 million or more in retirement savings. Many seem to forget this fact.
I have a real problem with the debt deal that just passed. Why social security and medicare on the chopping block? I mean, where else can federal spending be cut? Maybe we could use a few less military bases overseas? It's good to hear the education system in Texas is excelling. I threw the education system in as one quick example of where excess revenue would be well spent. That again is assuming the revenue would go where it is needed and not straight into pockets. I could explain further, but I don't want to stray too far from the main topic.
