To: TimF who wrote (324386 ) 2/3/2007 5:14:09 PM From: tejek Read Replies (1) | Respond to As for bonuses they are part of compensation for services. If the compensation is to high that's an issue for the board and the shareholders. They are the ones giving the compensation. If they overpay for the work done, it isn't a fundamental injustice for society as a whole any more than if I overpay for a TV or a new car. The majority of the wealthy in this country didn't earn their wealth, they inherited it. "Yes, it is true. Of course, there were studies that came out of Rand and Brookings that claimed like you that it wasn't true but those studies included people who make $100K per year which is more bull and did not consider the super, super rich: Two studies that do their best to muddy our understanding of wealth, conducted respectively by the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution and widely reported in the major media, found that individuals typically become rich not from inheritance but by maintaining their health and working hard. Most of their savings comes from their earnings and has nothing to do with inherited family wealth, the researchers would have us believe. In typical social-science fashion, they prefigured their findings by limiting the scope of their data. Both studies failed to note that achieving a high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages. Those coming from upper-strata households have a far better opportunity to maintain their health and develop their performance, attend superior schools, and achieve the advanced professional training, contacts, and influence needed to land the higher paying positions. More importantly, both the Rand and Brookings studies fail to include the super rich, those who sit on immense and largely inherited fortunes. Instead, the investigators concentrate on upper-middle-class professionals and managers, most of whom earn in the $100,000 to $300,000 range — which indicates that the researchers have no idea how rich the very rich really are. michaelparenti.org They have one of the lowest tax rates in the world under Bush. He's given his rich friends a free ride If you mean freely insuring it against any risk, then we shouldn't do it, but we don't. What do you get out of it? 1999 data - You are not screwing them......its the cost of doing business in a country where the politics are orderly, the monetary unit is relatively stable, there are rarely major upheavals, the quality of life is decent, etc. "As I argued earlier this year in an issue of NC Policy Brief, the data confirm the two Americas argument. During the last two decades of the 20th century, the after tax incomes of the top 1% of Americans has increased by more than 200%. The after tax incomes of the bottom fifth have increased only 9%. Today in America, the top 1% (about 2.8 million people) own more than the bottom 40% (110 million people) combined. These trends slowed slightly during the Clinton years, but have picked up again under President Bush as, even during the recession, incomes for the wealthy continued to rise. These trends contrast dramatically with the 1950’s and 60’s when the income gaps shrank or held steady." ncjustice.org 2 - You don't need higher taxes, or even our current level of taxes to have a stable decent country. You could do so with lower taxes than what we have today. If I was advocating a top tax rate of near zero, than maybe you argument would have some relevance, but since I'm only arguing against tax increases it doesn't.
