Posted on 03/29/2011 8:57:23 PM PDT by Christus_Rex
Don’t expect a reply from Christus_Rex. It has been zotted. I noticed a reply up thread saying the same article had been posted at the DUmp.
Super rich, you mean like George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc?
Very true, but very hard to do.
The box is as confining on the Right as it is on the Left.
Look at this reply.
Here is the same article on DU. The y LOE his ideas like you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x595132
32 posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:21:11 PM by BunnySlippers (I love BULL MARKETS . . .)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2696783/posts?page=32#32
I grew up in a poor family with seven children in the fifteis. I now have two sisters who have over a million dollars in wealth (both big libs by the way) working for a big corporation. My other sibs are doing very well also thank you. So my family members are gotten a lot richer alongside the superrich. Millions of other Americans are in the same situation. Everybody, on average, has a lot more than they did fifty, sixty years ago. I’m supposed to be upset by the fact that there are rich and superrich? I don’t think so.
They (the rich) should pay more for milk at the grocery store as well.
Right?
Garbage article.
I’d be happy to see changes within large company cultures, that make them more likely to hire more workers (particularly if they’re relying heavily on unpaid overtime), or at the very least come to some kind of accommodation with existing workers so that if they are regularly pulling double shifts to the company’s benefit, they at least get a day back here and there by way of compensation.
But, and here’s the big but, I don’t see any need for government to get involved in that; these changes should be driven by the shareholders and investors, who aren’t always aware of just how INSANE and SHORT-TERMIST some company spending priorities invariably turn out to be.
Two examples:
The last American company I worked for, a multinational corporationm, paid me for 35 hours a week but I worked far more than that, without any concessions on their part. I was in the office at 8am, never left before 6:30pm, was regularly asked to work late (i.e. till midnight), and was frequently called at the weekends. Never got a bonus, never got TOIL, never got promoted. Saw three line managers come and go, in three years - two were brought in from the outside, and the third was a classic example of the Peter Principle in action.
(Over in England it’s sometimes easier to promote an ineffective employee with 5+ years’ service to management and then fire them if they are still ineffective, than just fire them, so “promote the prat and see what happens” is a common tactic).
After a few years of this, I got poached and in a panic, the company hired two graduates for me to train up and offered me a promotion to occupy the (again vacant) management role.
It got me thinking - what would a shareholder make of this? Put it in monetary terms.
To keep me on, AND grow the team, AND get an experienced competent manager who knows the company, would’ve cost the company, what? £30k? I’m including the cost of hiring two graduate placement students (£12k apiece) for me to train up, so they could share the workload and learn from an expert, freeing me up to transition into the management role.
They chose instead to spend: £10k in wages and management recruitment fees on hiring managers from outside who had NO internal knowledge of the company or department, £10k in wages on promoting an internal hire who didn’t have the commitment and turned out to be a duffer, £30k at least on wages and recruitment fees on two complete new hires at my level (with all the risks that entailed)...
In other words they didn’t save any money at all... in fact they wasted £20k AND lost an asset to the company into the bargain.
Another example:
One of my biggest contacts in the USA is a venture capital effort. The VCs have taken their eyes off the ball as regards customer services, after-sales support and product development and thrown money into cold-calling to sign up new customers. This is because they’re planning to sell the company by 2012 and move onto something else.
Of course, whoever buys that company is going to have to spend millions of dollars addressing the fact that the product hasn’t advanced in any way, shape or form, for 18 months - and its reputation for poor customer service has been undermined by underinvestment.
Meanwhile, one of their competitors has tripled the headcount in their R&D division, built up a worldwide customer services division, and implemented a “wish list” so that existing customers will define what goes into the next release.
Out of the two companies, long term, which one would you rather invest in? The one that’s spending a few million bucks that it should make back, or the one that’ll need a few million bucks spent on it just to get it back to where it was 18 months ago?
GM should have been allowed to fail. The banks should have been allowed to fail. Just as I am allowed to fail. There is now a system where once you get to a certain level, the Fedgov will protect you from competition and make sure your losses are paid by the tax payers, and your profits are allowed to go private.
This is not a free market system we are living in. Hasn't been for a long, long time.
While I support the proletariat, being a member, I support them not by taking over the means of production or redistribution of the wealth, but by providing opportunity to leave that financial level.
It's called “Capitalism”. It's called “Freedom”.
You confuse unethical behavior and criminal behavior, abuses of that system, with somehow the enforcement of taxes. You haven't done much but show you hadn't read my post and hadn't thought it through. Income vs. wealth, Individual vs. corporation, etc.
Plus, you have ignored the role of government and taxes. Somehow, in your indoctrination classes, you absorbed the concept that the money belongs to the state, not the individual. You win a red ribbon to wear on your lapel for the revolution, but fail to win a red white and blue one for the concept of freedom. Wealth belongs to the individual, not the government.
You want to fix things? End entitlements. End the corruption of government. But leave Marx outside in the trashcan. It has never worked anywhere else, and if you hadn't noticed, it isn't working here. So don't promote it here.
The rich do pay a lot in taxes. I don’t blame them for seeking tax shelters. Actually a flat tax is what we need instead of proressive taxation and all these fancy tax avoidance scheme
The rich do pay a lot in taxes. I don’t blame them for seeking tax shelters. Actually a flat tax is what we need instead of proressive taxation and all these fancy tax avoidance scheme
Damn! I didn’t even get a chance to sing him a song.
Since he missed your dulcet voice, it was his loss. ;-)
You could always sing to the rest of us.
I suspected that all along. Any time a post begins with I disagree with the author’s opinions, but he raises some good points, it sends out some red flags. Wealth redistribution has become the clarion call of the Left. They are getting ready for the class struggle in the 2012 elections. Their policies have created more poor people and now they are going to blame the Reps. “Workers of the world unite, all you have to lose is your chains.”
The commies will be in for a shock here when the revolution starts. We’re not England and we’re not Greece. We shoot commies dead.
Hello? Taxation IS theft, especially the magnitude we are exposed to. You want more of it? Feel free to send in your ‘fair share’.
Some of our problems involve the OVER-taxation an the subsequent flight of money out of the country. Income taxes are evil, pure and simple. Surprised to hear someone here advocating the increased use of them.
Meals tax——dine in or take-out.
Not only was the troll, illiterate, economically ignorant, and ignorant of his own ignorance, all to shamelessly and militantly display to the world, but to top things, he thought he was ‘Christ the King’ himself!
While you're at it...tell me what you think super rich is.
TIA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.