declining standard of living in Australia

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by kazenatsu, Jul 10, 2017.

  1. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hear what you are saying.
    It feels fundamentally unfair, particularly when savings at the bottom (retrenchments) are passed onto the top (CEO remunerations.)
    Maybe if a company can afford to pay tens of millions to their top echelon then maybe they can afford a higher rate of corporate taxation.
    But the argument used by companies does have some merit - CEO's aren't in their jobs for long, and they have to be chosen to run multi-billion dollar companies.
    Paying a CEO a super-low salary, or taxing him at say 99% will have the consequence of a company paying peanuts but winding up earning peanuts.
    Would you, as a Chrysler worker, have agreed to pay Lee Iacocca $15M at the same time many workers were losing their jobs? Or out of principle would you have put one of your union bosses in charge and watched your company vanish?
    Also, forcing a peanut salary on high wage earners sends the signal that the study, diligence and effort are not worth it. You are best to join the political party which has this fabulous power over others. Socialist rulers have something far greater than Rockefeller "owning" 1.5% of the wealth of America - you can own the entire economy yourself.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2018
    Moi621 and crank like this.
  2. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Solution:
    Tax as Tax Code was when Eisenhower, a good Republican, was President.
     
  3. culldav

    culldav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't believe "profit" is a dirty word. However, you don't need to be a despot and pay CEO's $millions in salaries to prove a point either. Education, knowledge and skills should always be valued, but it should never be used as symbol for someones $dollar worth. CEO's who earn $multi-million dollar salaries would starve without hard working farmers and agricultural workers, who earn meagre wages. Take away farmers, and CEO's would be fighting over scraps in trash cans. So, who should really be entitled to multi million dollar salaries - CEO's who do nothing besides put these high salaries in their own pockets, or the farmers and food producers, who keep us all alive? The pyramid has turned upside down, and we are now paying useless people high salaries and productive people low salaries.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2018
  4. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obscene benefits and Golden Parachutes too.

    I am amazed a CEO gets bonuses when he manages a company into ruins and leaves.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  5. culldav

    culldav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes. That philosophy has been a contributing factor in the destruction of every major Australian company for decades, and no one has be bothered to ask the question: why?

    It doesn't make sense unless its all been planed.
     
  6. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The cure.


    A Progressive Tax Code.
    Not a :blahblah: progressive tax code but a real one ala Eisenhower Tax Code.
    The joke then was a raise put someone in a higher bracket that resulted in a net loss for them.
    I have heard it never happened. A raise was always net gain too.
    Just that it may be taxed at a higher rate.
    Mad Men commented on this.


    For some strange reason it is NOT Redistribution of Wealth
    when the monied accumulate more and more of the nation's total wealth
    but it is, Redistribution of Wealth when you try pass a truly Progressive Tax Code.
    It might have been called The Bernie Sanders Tax Code.
    But, Bernie's is gentler on the wealthy than Eisenhower's as Sanders points out.


    I like to imagine there are 100 pennies to a nation's economy.
    Even Australia's.
    How many of those pennies can be concentrated with the few and still have a healthy economy.
    A healthy economy being when you have the willingness to spend on consumer items.

    It is obvious to Moi that if you take too many of those pennies are out of daily life transactions, the economy suffers for all. Even them.

    It's about a healthy distribution of wealth.
    Not equality.
    Not capitalists' "Animal Farm" either
    and that is historically managed by a good tax code.
     

Share This Page