Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (338989)	6/8/2007 6:53:38 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575034

Another example the rich dems are not going to raise taxes on themselves. washingtonpost.com about 1 million families would be hit with a 4.3 percent surtax on income over $500,000

To: tejek who wrote (338989)	6/8/2007 7:11:45 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575034

There is the same correlation between salaries of the rich and poor as there is between two people driving on the same block of the same street at the same time. By that do you mean there's no correlation? Your meaning isn't clear. If there actually was no correlation then it would support my point. The salaries of the rich wouldn't be bringing the salaries of the poor down. If there was a positive correlation, it would also support my point. Only if there is a negative correlation do you have an argument, and you need to go beyond correlation to causation if you really want to support the idea that "the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor". "Any fixed schedule would itself be arbitrary. The particular salary under the fixed schedule might not be, it would be set by the schedule, but the setting of the schedule would be." You are arguing here for the sake of argument. Salaries of chancellors are negotiated; they are arbitrary. There is no fixed schedule that says a chancellor should make X amount of money. You seemed to be implying that there was something wrong with salaries being "arbitrary" in this way. You also said they where arbitrary because "there is no fixed schedule that says a chancellor must get X amount of dollars", but a fixed schedule would itself be set at some arbitrary level, so the whole idea of a fixed schedule is useless to your argument.