ahzdeen Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 This is stupid. Why would anyone work in the public sector for less money than you would in the private sector? Alternatively, why would the public want to spend their dime on inferior talent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Can't plus you enough D-Money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanB Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It's not enough to have a television - we need 2 or 3. Flat screens...big ones. And cable, gotta have the cable, and not just standard definition either. And you absolutely need the PVR. And it's not enough to watch the games on this theatre-in-a-home, you have to shell out hundreds of dollars to go to a game. Nope, actually, lets spend thousands and go to a few. Wait, lucky enough to land seasons tickets? OK, tens of thousands!... ...Truth is, we don't need any of that, and could be a lot freer if we just read books, hung out in the park, and watched the game on a 20" TV with bunny ears. We don't need the new car - heck, we might not need a car at all. We don't need the big house or the 3-bedroom condo - heck, we might only need a 1-bedroom suite. We could then work less, and then donate our time to noble things to help others. It would be a sacrifice, but we have plenty of money to live on, right? We'd still be better off than the vast majority of our fellow humans! Do you do that? Because if not, then who are you to point fingers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 As far as your last sentence, this is the internet - people can point fingers at anyone/anything they please. Now that that point is cleared up, you can relax, I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone. People are free to do what they want - but they can (and maybe should) expect to be called on some of the choices they make from time to time - it's called checks/balances in society. Now for your other points, I do not own a single item (or service) that you pointed out and I haven't been to an NHL game (any team) for over a decade. I realize I'm in the VAST minority here, but I make personal sacrifices for my own reasons and from time-to-time I don't think it's a crime to point out to others that there are differences between wants/needs (which you also pointed out in your post - at least I think that's what you were trying to point out?). Getting to the OP article, my point is that perhaps (and I do emphasize the term perhaps) there will be some people interested in working for the public sector even if they are aware that those jobs will be capped financially. Not everyone is in it for the paycheque as we can see by other professions (social workers, counsellors, teachers, nurses, etc....) and no, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone - merely bringing up the fact that it would still be perfectly reasonable to find qualified, hard working, successful people to fill public sector executive jobs if those said jobs are financially capped like many other public sector jobs already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Sounds good. The only problem I see, is that government businesses may then have trouble finding the best people to lead their organizations. If the public salaries aren't competitive with private ones, why would people work for public companies. Might be better off just taxing the upper bracket more across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Sounds good. The only problem I see, is that government businesses may then have trouble finding the best people to lead their organizations. If the public salaries aren't competitive with private ones, why would people work for public companies. Might be better off just taxing the upper bracket more across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Exactly. Only potential effect is to try to win over some lefties. Besides, smart rich people ALREADY tend to pay themselves a dollar a year. I suppose they could counter that by upping the taxes on dividends but that would be like putting up a giant "don't invest in France!" sign! Only effect these kinds of over the top limits and super high taxes will be is to drive business out of France. Le doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 so you are defending a system that allows this to happen The total collective net worth of the world's four billion poorest went down for the twentieth year running in 2007, to an all-time low of just under $US35. The net worth of the world's 946 billionaires increased massively from 2006, to a total of $3.5 trillion! Figures taken from the Forbes 400 Richest List, 2007 it is atittudes like yours that allow these greedy bastards to have more wealth than they could ever need while billions do not have a roof over their heads , clothes on their back and food in their bellies , right on ron . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 This. The top Federal tax rate in the States is 35%. In the 70's, it was 70%. In the 50's, it was over 90%. Why not jack it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I am not defending anything. I am simply explaining the effects of these causes. If your goal is to punish the rich it's kind of pointless to do so in a way that won't punish them at all but will make the country as a whole poorer. If you actually understood how things worked and really did want the lowest in society to have a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food in their bellies you would be cheering for the feds to stop printing money, balance the budget, and raise interest rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 buddy i am willing to bet i was taking accounting classes while you were still a baby .i understand that it is the greed of a few that has led to this Bailout costs more than Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, moonshot, S&L bailout, Korean War, New Deal, Iraq war, Vietnam war by Barry Ritholtz Global Research, December 2, 2008 Bailout costs more than Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, moonshot, S&L bailout, Korean War, New Deal, Iraq war, Vietnam war, and NASA's lifetime budget -- *combined*! In doing the research for the "Bailout Nation" book, I needed a way to put the dollar amounts into proper historical perspective. If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars. People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let’s give this some context. The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history. Crunching the inflation adjusted numbers, we find the bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined: • Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion • Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion • Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion • S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion • Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion • The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est) • Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion • Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion • NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion TOTAL: $3.92 trillion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 By all means bring back the old provisions that seperated out the investment banking from the savings and loan industry and that problem will be solved. You will note that your example this time is from the US where a post or two up I agree they could tax the highest earners a bit more. Incidentally, the primary reason those bailouts were needed in the first place was the historically low interest rates and easy availability of credit during that time. And go figure, those policies ultimately made it a lot harder to put a roof over your head or get a bite to eat. What will be fun is when you get to calculate the inevitable bailouts right here in Canada! P.S. If you were doing accounting classes when I was a baby then not only are you very old your views are so out of whack you should consider retiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 are those provisions you are talking about the one's president clinton gave away when he signed unprecedented legislation to deregulate the finance sector in the gramm-leach-bliley act that dismantled the new deal segregation of commercial and investment banking under the landmark 1934 glass -stegall act. it was these measures that directly abbetted the massive securitization of debt that triggered the 2008 economic meltdown . you say that you agree with the notion that we should tax the highest earners in our societies a "little" bit more , maybe it it might amuse and sicken you ,as it did to me , to learn that when warren buffet complained to no less a free-market propaghandist than former nixon white house speech-writer ben stein that , in the process of filing his annual tax return in compliance with the tax code -without the benefit of a nimble fingered accountant or tax adviser-he pays much less of his earnings in proportional terms , than any of the workers he employs . "how can this be fair ? how can this be right?" buffet wonders . when stein offers the standard conservative bs that introducing such ideas into discussion of stabilising the federal budget amounts to class warfare , buffet retorts with " theres's a class warfare allright , but it's my class , the rich class , that's making war , and we are winning" . and i would argue that the bailouts were not needed that the same market forces these bastards used to rape everybody else with should have been allowed to reek the same amount of havoc on them Why Bank Bailouts Probably Were Not Needed By I.V. Baker, on July 23rd, 2010 The plain simple truth about the bank bailouts is except for the initial shock wave of foreclosures and economic downturn the bailouts more then likely were not needed. The reason for this is relatively simple. When an economy ( in a capitalist system ) is spending more then they make they are doing so on credit. It was this initial blast of people who could no longer pay their credit that threw the industry for a loop. It took about three months for Banks to regain their footing. Why so short a time? Well as soon as that shock wave of defaults hit them they did what anyone in that situation would do. They stopped giving credit out. This caused a severe retraction in lending, the next thing they did was even though banks could borrow money from the Fed at very low rates they increased the interest on existing adjustable loans for businesses. The company I work for happens to be one of them. Additionally people stopped living beyond their means and started pouring money back into the banks once they recognized that no more banks were closing ( and if they did their savings were secure ). This is not to say the small banks were fine, oh no indeed those are still struggling to make ends meet since they did not get anything to protect them from that initial shock wave and cannot compete with what the big banks are doing commutatively ( they don’t get the same perks from the Feds ). It appears that the bail outs for Banks was more a publicity stunt as far as the larger banks go then it really was an affective means of keeping them from closing down. This is not to say the bailouts did not help stop that initial three month shock wave. It did. But it would have been interesting to see what would have happened in the long term if they had not done that. More then likely one of the big firms that was too heavily leveraged would have failed that did not go down on that initial blast but in the end that is what should have happened. Bankers made horrible decisions and deserved top pay the consequence for their choices. People who bought houses at inflated values had to pay their own recompenses. Why not them? In the end the Bush administration did what was politically expedient. The Obama administration took the credit and used it as an opportunity to pass a four year pork barrel spending package ( in the name of job growth ). Which as of yet has done little to actually increase the wealth of the nation. Oh it gets money circulating which may be thought of as economic activity but the reality is true wealth does not come from taxation or deficit spending. It comes from people going out and getting to work producing something. The current administration seems bent on keeping these things from happening placing burden after burden on the wealthy and business in order to steam the rising tide of their spending. I understand the logic they think they are bringing to bear but it is a flawed logic that in the end brings nothing but ruin from the website the simple truth . by the way ron i was not talking about your chronological age , and i will sleep better tonight knowing someone like you , thinks i am out of whack . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Diem Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 this isn't unreasonable. I mean the lowest paid guy in a crown corporation would have to probably make 25k-30k, and 20x that is 500-600k I just checked the salaries for CEO's of BC's Crown corporations, the highest salary was BC Pavilion Corporation CEO who makes $597k/ year. In the private sector, I am also in favor of shareholders having more of a say in executive compensation as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Diem Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 This is stupid. Why would anyone work in the public sector for less money than you would in the private sector? Alternatively, why would the public want to spend their dime on inferior talent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Salaries in the very high end have a diminishing returns. In the private sector there is at least a chance for the CEO to make his company billions to justify his salary. This is not true for the public sector. At 20x the minimum salary should be more then sufficient to attract sufficient talent to lead Crown corporations, as I demonstrated in the previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.