SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TigerPaw who wrote (9696)1/25/2006 9:18:50 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541346
 
That doesn't mean that a salaried person's worth ends with their death while a CEOs worth is part of a legacy.

The worth of the salaried person is what he saves and invests of his salary, his assets. That worth endures and it treated just like the assets of the businessman at death. You forget that the businessman draws income from his business while he is alive just as the worker draws a salary. The businessman's assets are only what's left over after he has drawn his income. That's the same as for a salaried person. It's just that one pays himself from his business and the other is paid by someone else from that someone's business.



To: TigerPaw who wrote (9696)1/25/2006 12:26:46 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 541346
 
"The former ends when you quit making payments."

You are really restating the definition as posed by the current system.


No she is stating something inherent in the nature of the asset or activity.

If you work for hire you are getting paid for your work. If the work ends (you quit or die are fired, or retire) than the wages end (you might have a pension but that isn't wages).

That doesn't mean that a salaried person's worth ends with their death while a CEOs worth is part of a legacy.

A salaried person's wages end with death. His assets can get passed on. The CEO's wages also end at death and his assets can get passed on. They are treated the same way.

Tim