Is it good to have wealthy businessmen in a country?

[OtherCheek]

Is it a good thing for America, or Australia, or France, etc. to have successful and wealthy business people in those countries?
Is it a good thing if those successful and wealthy business people remain successful and wealthy?

On one side of the coin, having wealthy business people can create class envy among many of the less wealthy. This is bad--maybe.

On the other side of the coin, having wealthy business people gives people someone to tax with a high progressive tax rate, and receive benefits from other peoples work. That is good--maybe.

Discuss. At what rate does "taxing" the successful, discourage them from future success, or encourage the successful to leave the country? France's new leader will be facing this dilemma.

To clarify, I'm talking about the industrious and successful business person.

[Sparko]

without rich people, there wouldn't be near as many jobs out there for the average Joe.

[OtherCheek]

I wonder where most of the wealthy French will move to, seeing as the New French President wants to tax them even more. I think the rising generation is about to see Socialism fail again. I wonder who is going to loan money to France so that they can end austerity measures?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/27841...d%2F%2Fproduct

[Psychic Missile]

The problem isn't wealth envy, it's rich people using their power to make themselves richer. People don't receive benefits from the work of others, people pay a country in exchange for the services it provides and it uses that money to continue its services. P.S. Programs like food stamps actually improve the economy, making rich people more money.

In France's case the disparity of wealth isn't that large, so it really becomes a game of finesse. 75% seems pretty extreme to me. If anything, it should be a gradual change.

[lilpixieofterror]

The problem isn't wealth envy, it's rich people using their power to make themselves richer.

I think you far far exaggerate how much they do this. Sure, I would agree that some people do that and others do not. I also find that OC is right there, much of it is envy.

People don't receive benefits from the work of others, people pay a country in exchange for the services it provides and it uses that money to continue its services.

Do you know ecnomics works PM? All of us have something to buy and something to sell, what do you suppose those things are?

P.S. Programs like food stamps actually improve the economy, making rich people more money.

I've heard that asserted before, but I really do not see how have millions of people dependent on the government for all their needs helps to improve the economy. Somebody has to pay for it somewhere and if they are not, guess who is doing it?

[Psychic Missile]

I think you far far exaggerate how much they do this. Sure, I would agree that some people do that and others do not. I also find that OC is right there, much of it is envy.

In 1980, CEOs earned 42x the average worker. In 2012, CEOs earn 380x the average worker.

Do you know ecnomics works PM? All of us have something to buy and something to sell, what do you suppose those things are?

I don't quite understand your question.

I've heard that asserted before, but I really do not see how have millions of people dependent on the government for all their needs helps to improve the economy. Somebody has to pay for it somewhere and if they are not, guess who is doing it?

Because the money the receive is going to be spent immediately on local businesses (in the case of food stamps). That's a much better investment than, say, giving tax cuts to the rich. Spending our money on food stamps actually makes the economy better than it was before, meaning everyone is going to be making more money in the long run. Food stamps allow everyone to win!

[Cow Poke]

When was the last time you (or anybody you know) were (was) hired by a homeless guy or a poor person?

[lilpixieofterror]

In 1980, CEOs earned 42x the average worker. In 2012, CEOs earn 380x the average worker.

So what? Do you think they didn't earn it at all? Donald Trump or Steve Jobs didn't get rich because they were stupid or didn't work. Shoot, many CEO's put in very long hours (there is a reason so many of them have at least one divorce under their belt). I wouldn't want to be one nor be married to one, but I am also not envious of their wealth either. Good for them, but I got better things to do with my life then envy those that make more money then I do.

I don't quite understand your question.

I'm not surprised, in short we are all buyers and we are all sellers of some sort of product.

Because the money the receive is going to be spent immediately on local businesses (in the case of food stamps). That's a much better investment than, say, giving tax cuts to the rich. Spending our money on food stamps actually makes the economy better than it was before, meaning everyone is going to be making more money in the long run. Food stamps allow everyone to win!

Funny, last I checked, the major grocery stores in my area and most areas around the US where many of these food stamps were spent in were rich, muti-billion dollar companies (the big ones here is Wal-mart and a chain owned by Kroger, both billion dollar companies). So I guess instead of giving 'tax cuts to the rich' we'll just give it to them another way, but giving out food stamps, so they can get money out of the food stamps. Brilliant! Seriously though, I love assertions, but I would rather give my money to a charity group that actually helps the poor over a bureaucrats in Washington DC. Sure, it does great, it creates a group of people dependent on the government for aid, who in turn, vote for people to keep giving them their aid and the circle continues. I have no problem with helping the poor, I just do not believe it should be done by the government, but should be part of our daily duty to help those with less either directly by voluntary duty or by giving to groups that help directly.

[KingsGambit]

The most common definition of "wealthy": "Anyone who has a little more money than I do".

[Cow Poke]

In 1980, CEOs earned 42x the average worker. In 2012, CEOs earn 380x the average worker.

What do you propose the limit should be? Was 42x OK? How much is too much?

[OtherCheek]

In 1980, CEOs earned 42x the average worker. In 2012, CEOs earn 380x the average worker.



I don't quite understand your question.

One thing that most people either need to sell or to buy is labor. The employer buys while the employee sells.

Skilled labor happens to be more valuable than unskilled labor. It doesn't mean that the person's soul is worth more, but that the labor itself is worth more. That's just a natural and universal economic law that must be respected and if that law is violated, then failure, scarcity, starvation, and misery occurs like happened under Joe Stalin.

[Psychic Missile]

When was the last time you (or anybody you know) were (was) hired by a homeless guy or a poor person?

There are plenty of people in the middle and upper economic classes who were poor or homeless at one point.

So what? Do you think they didn't earn it at all? Donald Trump or Steve Jobs didn't get rich because they were stupid or didn't work. Shoot, many CEO's put in very long hours (there is a reason so many of them have at least one divorce under their belt). I wouldn't want to be one nor be married to one, but I am also not envious of their wealth either. Good for them, but I got better things to do with my life then envy those that make more money then I do.

Them earning it isn't the issue. CEO salaries skyrocketing disproportionately is the issue.

I'm not surprised, in short we are all buyers and we are all sellers of some sort of product.

The same can be said of the government in a way.

Funny, last I checked, the major grocery stores in my area and most areas around the US where many of these food stamps were spent in were rich, muti-billion dollar companies (the big ones here is Wal-mart and a chain owned by Kroger, both billion dollar companies). So I guess instead of giving 'tax cuts to the rich' we'll just give it to them another way, but giving out food stamps, so they can get money out of the food stamps. Brilliant! Seriously though, I love assertions, but I would rather give my money to a charity group that actually helps the poor over a bureaucrats in Washington DC. Sure, it does great, it creates a group of people dependent on the government for aid, who in turn, vote for people to keep giving them their aid and the circle continues. I have no problem with helping the poor, I just do not believe it should be done by the government, but should be part of our daily duty to help those with less either directly by voluntary duty or by giving to groups that help directly.

Okay, so I shouldn't have said local businesses (implying independent businesses). Those are domestic companies, are they not? The money is still going to the economy. It's not going directly into someones pocket. When the government helps the poor, it helps the country. The more people who are doing well, the better the economy.

What do you propose the limit should be? Was 42x OK? How much is too much?

I've heard the idea of capping pay only on people who didn't found the company, that seems like a way to improve competition. As for actual numbers, I'd say around 60x as a limit, with a goal of around 20x for the country average. I'm basing these numbers on countries with higher economic equality.

[JimL]

What do you propose the limit should be? Was 42x OK? How much is too much?

The problem Cowpoke is that as the CEO's pay has skyrocketed, the average workers pay flatlined. In other words the class warfare is being waged by the wealthy on the middle class and the poor, not the other way around, and it is a huge factor in the overall economic decline of the Country. Not to mention that after hording all the wealth, they hide it in off shore tax shelters further depleting the country's revenues. Anyway, just to throw the question back at you: What do you propose the limit should be?

[Jaecp]

I almost want to make a drinking game out of OC making Mitt Romney posts, and this is a stealth Mitt Romney post.

Anyway,

The primary issue here is that, since around the 70's, worker compensation stopped increasing as productivity increased.

The corollary issue is the skyrockting CEO pay, especially when the companies that they are running are losing money. Why do we see examples of these guys getting fat bonuses while crashing a company? It's messed up, plain and simple, and it hurts the little guy

[OtherCheek]

I almost want to make a drinking game out of OC making Mitt Romney posts, and this is a stealth Mitt Romney post.

It's more of a "don't remove the incentive of enterprise" type post. And recent rumblings from France inspired it. But I guess it is also in Romney's favor since he is successful, financially.

Anyway,

The primary issue here is that, since around the 70's, worker compensation stopped increasing as productivity increased.

About the time robotics came into being in the auto plants.

The corollary issue is the skyrockting CEO pay, especially when the companies that they are running are losing money. Why do we see examples of these guys getting fat bonuses while crashing a company? It's messed up, plain and simple, and it hurts the little guy

That phenomenon might be attributable to greed. But greed isn't a condition unique to the Free Enterprise system. Check out Communist Russia, for example, or Socialist Europe. Greed and corruption about there as well. But in America, you can also find plenty of examples where high salaries to CEOs WERE justified because the company was salvaged, and turned to make a profit. And people were employed and able to provide for their families. Take the example of the Utah Winter Olympics. This was, to my understanding, the only Winter Olympics (and maybe Olympics period) to have turned a prophet in recent history. And here I go, plugging Romney again, so have a drink. If Romney had taken a salary at all from the Utah Olympics, don't you think it would have been justified?

You can try to legislate morality, such as curbing greed, but if more and more people want to BE greedy, that won't really work as a long term solution. The solution to problems of the heart, is solutions that address the heart. And sometimes, only natural consequences such as hitting bottom for a long time can do that. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people also suffer when that happens. But I know of no economic mandate or policy that can change the heart of a person.