You do realize that the desire to "soak it to the rich" is what caused us to get stuck in this horrid mess of a bloated government, and insane income taxes in the first place right?

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

That doesn't even make sense.....

I think it makes perfect sense, though the punctuation might be... missing or incorrect.

Though, let me rephrase it.

Do you realize that it was the desire to "soak it to the rich" that caused us to get stuck with the income tax system?

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

Social Security taxes can be collected from either a flat tax or a sales tax, no problem there. Its just part of the tax. Same with Medicare.

State income taxes would be the same as now. Most states have it and a few do not.

Property taxes are collected by each county by the county tax assessors office. So, nothing would change there either.

If the federal government would reduce its spending to the 1995 level, we could eliminate the income tax all together without converting over to another form of taxation.

Here, check it out:

Real Tax Reform - Laurence M. Vance - Mises Institute

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Oh I get it "soak the rich" or sock it to the rich" is what you are trying to say.

I'm trying to say, why does anyone need to make a million dollars a year or more in personal salary?

If the rich would stop trying to "soak the less wealthy" or "sock it to the less wealthy" in order to get even richer things might not be at this level.

If these corporations had paid less to their executives and kept more money invested in their company or dare I say in the bank in case of emergencies they wouldn't need bailed out in the first place.

These same people that need millions of dollars a year to survive are the same people that want the bible and god involved in everything. Now isn't greed a flat out sin? WTF?

The companies had plenty of money, the people running the companies decided to take the excess cash as pay. I guess they kind of screwed themselves. Why should they drag the rest of us into it?




I need to find a state to live in where there is medical marijuana and there isn't state income tax with counties that do not have property tax.

If it is a public company I could agree with you, but as of now if it is a public company the shareholder could bring these things up at there annual meetings they could sell off their shares driving down the price. There is some recourse, not a lot but the idea behind it is that the company IS supposed to be responsible to it's stakeholders, but I think like the voting public apathy the same parallels in corp america and you get what we got.

However in order to get qualified candidates the salaries offered need to comparable with CEO of private firms. Why should ANYONE be limited or capped on what they have the potential to earn? Some people can and some people can't, some people can work on cars some can't, if he finds a way to work on unlimited amount of cars saves everyone on the costs of these repairs and does it with integrity, why can't he make $10 billion a year? And if he is capped out should he be forced to work on the extra cars that don't pay him?

yes, it is and karma?. Like has already been said, Obama's plan will decrease taxes for most Americans. Decreasing taxes for business is a great strategy if your economy is experience rapid growth and people in are in a position to grow and develop new businesses. It also helps if the business' use that money as they are intended to and don't take advantage of those breaks When people can't pay their mortgage and heating bills, you build from the bottom up.

Bush operated under the mindset that business' should have tax breaks and he gave tremendous tax breaks to the wealthy. For his entire Senate career McCain supported deregulation for business. Now that we're paying a $700billion bill for failed private insurance business', McCain has had a change of heart and is for regulation. He's for more regulation but wants to give them more money to play with. So now we have McCain who is for regulation and Obama, who really only wants to undo the tax break that Bush enacted. A tax break that was a proven failure.

So we tried giving breaks to American business (which was really American banks, brokerage houses and oil companies) and that didn't work out to well. Why not try giving that to schools, clean energy research and health care and let's see where that gets us.

__________________

Can we at least clean up the education bureaucracy and clean up the way they waste the money they are given, I am pretty sick of he water faucet spending and schools being built on toxic waste dumps that can't be used and fancy new bureaucratic offices when there are plenty of vacant office buildings within the counties and cities they SERVE

Oh yeah and the $100 aspirin, I mean at least let me send a family member down to walmart to pick up some to replace the ones I needed..... I'm pretty sure I could get a little better deal

So are you saying it perfectly acceptable for these heads of these companies to suck all the profit off the top and call it "salary" and then when the company gets in trouble the taxpayers can just bail them out?

Remember that saying "save for a rainy day"? Well it's raining like a motherfucker and a lot of these compaines can't stay afloat because the salaries of their upper management are draining them dry.

If they want to run their companies like that, so be it, but don't expect the rest of the world to come to their rescue when the shit hits the fan.

Like I said, if it is a 'public' company then NO these CEO are, like I said before, responsible to the shareholders (the guys that invested THEIR money into a company that they felt would be able to repay them with with interest), these shareholders also have the right to call into question these expensive executive salaries at their shareholder meetings or the right to sell off their stocks if they don't believe these salaries are in the shareholders best interest. What I said was that they have some recourse, not a lot but they do have some, but most shareholders (like the voting public) do not force these issues, as they should have. I also said these salaries should be competitive with privately held companies so that they are in a good position to compete with these companies. I didn't say they should exceed or push the market norm or be stupidly high, just said competitive. I also think that if a company is in trouble financially the first area of employee costs savings should start with those that have the highest and most expensive salaries to shore up losses, from a business stand point it makes for the MOST sense from an efficiency stand point. Maybe set up something for all Publicly traded companies where if they plan on lay-offs they take a look at the $ savings these lay-offs will have and before they implement these they are required to cut this figure in 1/2 and take it directly from executive salaries first and then down through upper management and middle management right down to where the lay-off are to be most effected, capping these executive reductions to the top of the highest paid employees affected by these lay-offs. If this doesn't add up to 1/2 the costs of the proposed lay-offs then they are allowed to proceed with lay-offs. This would be a good start in making executives truly responsible to those they affect the most, employees and shareholders. Those that don't agree with these type of measures just don't need to be a public company and don't need the publics investments and remain a privately held company.

It is just plain stupid to allow an executive to be paid when they don't perform or god forbid they only work a few days and only get a few day's pay like any other employee of a company, instead of getting their contract price when the company fails or is shut down, a la WaMU!!! It should be criminal that a Newly hired employee, no matter what the position is, get paid huge sums when they didn't earn it.


Now, having said that, if it is a privately held company and the owner wants to take profits as salary, then so be it, they own the company and if they want to could close it down and do the same thing anytime they wanted to or decided they don't want to have to work anymore anyways, so where is the big deal?