1. Joined
    27 Dec '06
    Moves
    6163
    10 Dec '13 21:37
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What does one have to do with the other?
    payroll taxes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Dec '13 21:41
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    payroll taxes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States
    What does the type (in effect, just the name since a payroll tax is completely equivalent to an income tax) of taxation have to do with either a minimum wage or Social Security benefits?
  3. Joined
    27 Dec '06
    Moves
    6163
    10 Dec '13 21:53
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What does the type (in effect, just the name since a payroll tax is completely equivalent to an income tax) of taxation have to do with either a minimum wage or Social Security benefits?
    The social security payroll tax decreases the employee's income. The OP wants to increase employee income by increasing the minimum wage.
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    10 Dec '13 22:01
    Originally posted by bill718
    Too all those out there who think raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, consider this. While the minimum wage has slowly climbed in the last few decades (amid the whailings of multi billion dollar companies who claim they can't afford it) executive pay, even for medium sized business's has gone up much faster. This begs a few questions:

    1. Are these exe ...[text shortened]... w.faireconomy.org/news/ceo_pay_charts

    http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-ceo-compensation.htm
    You make a good point about the overpaid executives. Never thought about that.
  5. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    11 Dec '13 00:23
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What does the type (in effect, just the name since a payroll tax is completely equivalent to an income tax) of taxation have to do with either a minimum wage or Social Security benefits?
    Both the FICA tax, and the minimum wage bestow a blessing on the worker at the expense of the employer, making government look good. In both cases the costs are separated from the benefits, just as any good con man does.

    Finally, in both cases the government doesn't calculate the cost, or worry about it at all, as it doesn't about any spending item in the budget.
  6. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    11 Dec '13 00:37
    Originally posted by vivify
    You make a good point about the overpaid executives. Never thought about that.
    Let's for a moment presume that the executives are overpaid. That is, any shlub off the street could do their job as well or better. That means the company is overpaying, and is endangering its profitable future. In many cases this appears to be true, as the concerns are debt zombies, and will eventually go belly up, waiting for the next government bailout.

    However, what about the executive that seems to perform miracles? Alan Mullaly at Ford, Lee Iacoca at Chrysler, Jack Welch at GE. What if to save money the company had hired someone for a tenth the money, and the company failed? Then where are the workers? We basically only hear about executives of the top tier international companies, not even of the fortune 500.

    Bill runs a concern employing 3 workers, and thinks he knows how to run a concern that may employ a million, or millions.
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    11 Dec '13 06:42
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    The social security payroll tax decreases the employee's income. The OP wants to increase employee income by increasing the minimum wage.
    And?
  8. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    11 Dec '13 15:041 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Let's for a moment presume that the executives are overpaid. That is, any shlub off the street could do their job as well or better. That means the company is overpaying, and is endangering its profitable future. In many cases this appears to be true, as the concerns are debt zombies, and will eventually go belly up, waiting for the next government bai ...[text shortened]... ying 3 workers, and thinks he knows how to run a concern that may employ a million, or millions.
    No norm, I didn't suggest I know how to manage a company employing millions, again, you're straying off topic, but since you brought it up...what do you run norm?? Do you work for "the man" every night and day, or do write the paychecks? Its a lot different when you're sitting on the other side of the desk like I am!
  9. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    11 Dec '13 21:02
    Originally posted by bill718
    No norm, I didn't suggest I know how to manage a company employing millions, again, you're straying off topic, but since you brought it up...what do you run norm?? Do you work for "the man" every night and day, or do write the paychecks? Its a lot different when you're sitting on the other side of the desk like I am!
    I've been middle management, commissioned sales person, independent contractor. I'm now retired, meaning tired once again.

    I respect that you do hire workers, and pay them decently, but that doesn't make the rate you pay right for every job on the ladder. I seriously doubt any of your employees would consider taking a job at Mickey Ds if yours ran out.
  10. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    12351
    12 Dec '13 04:50
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Let's for a moment presume that the executives are overpaid. That is, any shlub off the street could do their job as well or better. That means the company is overpaying, and is endangering its profitable future. In many cases this appears to be true, as the concerns are debt zombies, and will eventually go belly up, waiting for the next government bai ...[text shortened]... ying 3 workers, and thinks he knows how to run a concern that may employ a million, or millions.
    Another good point. Although, who was it that voted to give themselves raises with bailout money, even though their failures brought about the need for a bailout? I bring that up only because I'm sure we can find just as many examples of people who don't deserve their outrageous salaries.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    12 Dec '13 06:38
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Let's for a moment presume that the executives are overpaid. That is, any shlub off the street could do their job as well or better. That means the company is overpaying, and is endangering its profitable future. In many cases this appears to be true, as the concerns are debt zombies, and will eventually go belly up, waiting for the next government bai ...[text shortened]... ying 3 workers, and thinks he knows how to run a concern that may employ a million, or millions.
    I don't think "anyone" could do the job better than, say, a Kenneth Lay. But surely quite many could for much less money. Now certainly not all CEOs are as bad as Kenneth Lay, but many are incompetent if not also corrupt. A Rick Wagoner (nomen est omen?) comes to mind.
  12. Joined
    24 Jun '04
    Moves
    9995
    13 Dec '13 23:20
    Originally posted by bill718
    Too all those out there who think raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, consider this. While the minimum wage has slowly climbed in the last few decades (amid the whailings of multi billion dollar companies who claim they can't afford it) executive pay, even for medium sized business's has gone up much faster. This begs a few questions:

    1. Are these exe ...[text shortened]... w.faireconomy.org/news/ceo_pay_charts

    http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-ceo-compensation.htm
    Of course they can afford it, and they're sitting on enormous amounts of wealth. They just enjoy exploiting workers and ripping the guts out of them if they can get away with it. Lots of people once enjoyed owning slaves. It's easier to send unskilled work (such as Nike factory work) overseas, than to do the same to a CEO; plus the CEO makes a lot of the decisions, for personal benefit. A CEO doesn't have the best interests of the corporation at heart, and that's a moral hazard. There's no excuse not to regulate corporations so they can't do this stuff. IMO a corporation is FAR too big if it exists in more than one country, thus making it harder for a single government to regulate it.
  13. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    14 Dec '13 08:18
    Originally posted by karnachz
    Of course they can afford it, and they're sitting on enormous amounts of wealth. They just enjoy exploiting workers and ripping the guts out of them if they can get away with it. Lots of people once enjoyed owning slaves. It's easier to send unskilled work (such as Nike factory work) overseas, than to do the same to a CEO; plus the CEO makes a lot of the de ...[text shortened]... t exists in more than one country, thus making it harder for a single government to regulate it.
    Surely it wouldn't be practical for a country like Liechtenstein to have it own car manufacturing, clothing production etc.?
  14. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 09:32
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Surely it wouldn't be practical for a country like Liechtenstein to have it own car manufacturing, clothing production etc.?
    No - Liechtenstein should stick to dentures.
  15. Joined
    24 Jun '04
    Moves
    9995
    15 Dec '13 00:201 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Surely it wouldn't be practical for a country like Liechtenstein to have it own car manufacturing, clothing production etc.?
    They can import cars from a country that manufactures them.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree