Time to tax wealth - Covid cost Solution

Wanderer78

ELM327 wrote: »

Sometimes it's embarrassing to see how little people on the left truly understand about employment.


The CEO on 2m (It's a free society so if the company decides he's not worth the salary and they decide to go with a guy for 1.8m then they can.) has a lot of responsibility. The company performance is tied directly to him, and he's accountable for it all. The monkey on 20k can call in sick, leave, doss etc but at the end of the day they can leave and get a different job or half arse this one while they are minding the kids or whatever.

published ceo pay is only chicken feed to their actual pay, which in many cases is largely stock options, this approach means that the actions of many ceo's to actually continually inflate the stock price of their employer, which in turn inflates their pay, is truly their primary objective. since the ownership of stock options, within and external to many large corporations is heavily skewed, this doesnt truly benefit many in society. this also causes flawed thinking within these corporations to continually behave as such, which has lead to activities such as stock buy backs etc etc. the true worth of businesses comes from the cumulative hard work of all of its employees, including its 'monkeys' and ceos, high level employees such as ceo's arent gods!

Bass Reeves

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

I expect a special budget mid-summer.
The majority of personal wealth is tied up in property assets.
They will target wealth via higher property tax.
Its too small a value, compared to other countries. Example of New Jersey, USA - its 2.5% of property value per anum.
Take an average property price in Dublin of 500K. Theres plenty of fat there.

Lets face it - this is an easy one. Revenue will collect it at source. People will not have a choice in the matter.

Property tax in the US is more strange than you think. First the local governments pay for education therefore people with children will move to an area where there are good schools which the children are school going age and pay high property tax. There may also be colleges there part funded by the local government. As people get older they move from these area's to places with lower property tax as they do not need the service any longer

Shefwedfan

Geuze wrote: »

I broadly agree with this.

In terms of incomes, CEO incomes in the USA are now 100x the average workers income, that ratio used to be 10x.

When I see CEO incomes in Ireland of 2m, something isn't right.

Does that person really do 100 times more work than somebody on 20k?


The same goes for wealth.

I disagree with MTR above 50%.

I feel wealth taxes have many practical implementation problems.

I guess you dont understand what a CEO does.....

ELM327

Wanderer78 wrote: »

published ceo pay is only chicken feed to their actual pay, which in many cases is largely stock options, this approach means that the actions of many ceo's to actually continually inflate the stock price of their employer, which in turn inflates their pay, is truly their primary objective. since the ownership of stock options, within and external to many large corporations is heavily skewed, this doesnt truly benefit many in society. this also causes flawed thinking within these corporations to continually behave as such, which has lead to activities such as stock buy backs etc etc. the true worth of businesses comes from the cumulative hard work of all of its employees, including its 'monkeys' and ceos, high level employees such as ceo's arent gods!

Stock options are not uncommon for many employees.

We have equity grants each year and part of my bonus and that of my team is paid in stock. I'm a senior analyst, not even management.



Stock buybacks are not needed for this, but stock buybacks can be prudent when the price is low... same as selling at a high is prudent.

GreeBo

Geuze wrote: »

Does that person really do 100 times more work than somebody on 20k?

Who cares what "work" someone does?
What matter is how much they earn for the company.

If pay was based on "work" then a lad in a mine would earn more than a surgeon.

Your posts are naive and embarrassing and sound like something a primary school would say. No basis in reality at all.

Cordell

Pkiernan wrote: »

What should happen to people who cannot afford this insane tax you are proposing?

Should their homes be taken from them, and given to lazy welfare scroungers?

People struggling to pay will be forced out, they will have to sell and either rent or buy something cheaper, but they will be purged out of "rich" estates. Again, the people working for a living will be the most impacted.

Wanderer78

ELM327 wrote: »

Private debt is in the hands of those creating it and is irrelevant to society thanks to personal responsibility.


Public debt is the sensible way to build infrastructure and in the cyclical boom bust economy we have, should be done more in the bust times than the boom times.

we have ultimately left the creation of private debt, to largely privately owned and operated financial institutions such as banks etc, baring in mind, private debt is the largest part of our money supply, some believing this is as much as 97% of our money supply, their aim is to largely accumulate as much profit and ownership of our most critical of needs, property and land being some of the most obvious ones, irrelevant, i think not! we need to shift our money creation back towards more democratic and public systems, we ve shifted too far to private ownership to the point of it being extremely dangerous. its now destabilizing our most critical of needs, economically, environmentally, politically etc etc. both private and publicly created debt are critical to have a functioning society, but if we continue with this imbalance, we will continue further destabilization

completely agree with your second statement

Wanderer78

ELM327 wrote: »

Stock options are not uncommon for many employees.

We have equity grants each year and part of my bonus and that of my team is paid in stock. I'm a senior analyst, not even management.



Stock buybacks are not needed for this, but stock buybacks can be prudent when the price is low... same as selling at a high is prudent.

it is good to see some employers including stock options as a regular part of employee pay, particularly at lower level employees, but this isnt always the case. i personally think all employees should have a very small percentage paid as stock options, no matter what level they are at, this reduces inequalities from expanding to dangerous levels, which current exists in some companies. i also think all large corporations should be made paid a small percentage of their tax revenues as stocks and shares, and utilise mechanisms such as sovereign wealth funds from there.

stock buy backs only truly benefit those that have ownership of large proportion of stocks in their portfolio, most employees simply wont have that, some wont even own any, as they cannot afford to buy them, as they require most of their pay to simply survive, a large proportion of their pay going on their accommodation needs.(

wait for it, personal responsibility

)

Shefwedfan

ELM327 wrote: »

Stock options are not uncommon for many employees.

We have equity grants each year and part of my bonus and that of my team is paid in stock. I'm a senior analyst, not even management.



Stock buybacks are not needed for this, but stock buybacks can be prudent when the price is low... same as selling at a high is prudent.

I have stock options, I can take a percentage out of my wages and buy stock at a reduced price, same from my commission. They do have another offering but never looked into it :P

KyussB

Geuze wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with running fiscal deficits, as long as fiscal surpluses and/or strong growth in nominal GDP happen afterwards to reduce the deficits and debt.

However, the evidence is that politics suffers from a deficit bias.

Politicians love running deficits, but don't like the difficult job of reducing deficits afterwards.

Thus the need for fiscal rules.

I don't want to pass on a mountain of public debt to my children.

Fiscal surpluses is the same losing narrative which pays lip service to balanced budgets (just in the form of: what you spend today, you balance out tomorrow).

Surpluses are nearly always a bad thing, as they promote building strong economic growth more on Private Debt instead of Public Debt (a surplus takes money out of the economy, leaving the private and foreign sectors to make up the shortfall - and the private sector will source that partly through debt) - and Private Debt is far far more dangerous than Public Debt.

The focus must always be on maximizing GDP, staying at Full Output and Full Employment, letting Public Debt expand as it needs to do this.
You pass on a poorer economy to your children by not doing this - Public Debt is usually rolled over forever, not paid down - with GDP growth eroding Public Debt vs GDP.

There is no economic 'left', that fails to fight against the various forms of budget balancing narratives (including at an EU level, given the purely political restrictions put in place - that serve no economic purpose) - anyone who fails to fight that, is mathematically putting progressive/left economic issues second, to making accounts balance to an arbitrary/meaningless number, which doesn't have anything to do with economic sustainability.

Geuze

ELM327 wrote: »

.

The CEO on 2m (It's a free society so if the company decides he's not worth the salary and they decide to go with a guy for 1.8m then they can.) has a lot of responsibility. The company performance is tied directly to him, and he's accountable for it all. The monkey on 20k can call in sick, leave, doss etc but at the end of the day they can leave and get a different job or half arse this one while they are minding the kids or whatever.

I fully agree that talent should be paid more...........but 100x times more????

The ratio has clearly increased over the last 50 years.

Also, the Board sub-committees tend to set pay rates, and so they favour their own.

The Swiss had a vote on capping CEO pay at 12x.

I'm not clear on the exact outcome.


We have a minimum wage, should we have a maximum wage?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Swiss_executive_pay_initiative

Cordell

Geuze wrote: »

When I see CEO incomes in Ireland of 2m, something isn't right.

Does that person really do 100 times more work than somebody on 20k?

The CEO on 2m before taxes pays probably 500k in taxes, with all tax optimizations and loopholes and all. The one on 20k pays maybe 2k? Does the CEO gets 250x more services from the state?
It doesn't do 100 the work, but its work is 100x more valuable, this is why he gets paid 100x. And that is true all over, someone on 100k probably does less work than someone on 20k, but less can also be more valuable.

So stop looking at the CEO pay, it's irrelevant. What's relevant is to make sure that the ones at the lowest pay scale are paid enough to be able to make a decent living - and taxing the wealthy is not the way to do it.

ELM327

Wanderer78 wrote: »

it is good to see some employers including stock options as a regular part of employee pay, particularly at lower level employees, but this isnt always the case. i personally think all employees should have a very small percentage paid as stock options, no matter what level they are at, this reduces inequalities from expanding to dangerous levels, which current exists in some companies. i also think all large corporations should be made paid a small percentage of their tax revenues as stocks and shares, and utilise mechanisms such as sovereign wealth funds from there.

stock buy backs only truly benefit those that have ownership of large proportion of stocks in their portfolio, most employees simply wont have that, some wont even own any, as they cannot afford to buy them, as they require most of their pay to simply survive, a large proportion of their pay going on their accommodation needs.(

wait for it, personal responsibility

)

Stock buybacks benefit the company though.
It shows confidence to the market in the price.


A lot of folks I work with actively trade in stiocks, options, CFD, forex etc in their spare time - so I don't buy the no spare cash model.


Also - stock options and stock grants don't always require the employee to buy them, you get them granted to you as part of remuneration (and pay 50% BIK!)

ELM327

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I have stock options, I can take a percentage out of my wages and buy stock at a reduced price, same from my commission. They do have another offering but never looked into it :P

ESPP - employee stock purchase plans are quite common in large MNC with NA headquarters too , I agree.

Geuze wrote: »

I fully agree that talent should be paid more...........but 100x times more????

The ratio has clearly increased over the last 50 years.

Also, the Board sub-committees tend to set pay rates, and so they favour their own.

The Swiss had a vote on capping CEO pay at 12x.

I'm not clear on the exact outcome.


We have a minimum wage, should we have a maximum wage?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Swiss_executive_pay_initiative

It's a free market. If no one else is available and suitable at a cheaper rate, then the pay is good value.

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

Fiscal surpluses is the same losing narrative which pays lip service to balanced budgets (just in the form of: what you spend today, you balance out tomorrow).

Surpluses are nearly always a bad thing,

As far as I can see, countries with a long history of persistent fiscal deficits do not have more successful economies.

Italy comes to mind.

A larger public debt means higher interest rates, higher public interest costs, less fiscal space, and weaker public finances.

I prefer my taxes spent on education/health/welfare/infrastructure, rather than interest on public debt.

By all means, use Keynesian expansionary fiscal policies when necessary.

But any suggestion of running permanent, large fiscal deficits is not sensible.

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

It's a free market. If no one else is available and suitable at a cheaper rate, then the pay is good value.

That's not really how it works though. Upper pay scales operate more like a cabal than a free market.

There are usually plenty of suitable individuals available at a cheaper rate, but they're not invited to apply, or they don't know anyone on the board. I don't need to go into it, but there is a specific cohort of people very overrepresented at the upper pay levels.

This is because people tend to hire people like themselves regardless of their suitability for a role. This is as true for hiring someone to pour coffee as it is hiring a CEO.

The argument that "we have to pay this much to get the best", is protectionism from CEO-types who know that if they pay less and still get good candidates, then their own inflated salaries are a sham.

Cordell

plenty of suitable individuals available at a cheaper rate, but they're not invited to apply, or they don't know anyone on the board

That is true. Also true is that, at that level, who you know is more important than what you can do. Usually much more important. 2 large companies are much more likely to have a mutual business relationship if their CEOs are playing golf together. And that business is what pays the wages for everyone.

kowloon

ELM327 wrote: »

The monkey on 20k can call in sick, leave, doss etc but at the end of the day they can leave and get a different job or half arse this one while they are minding the kids or whatever.

Aongus, is that you?

ELM327

kowloon wrote: »

Aongus, is that you?

No idea what you are on about

seamus wrote: »

That's not really how it works though. Upper pay scales operate more like a cabal than a free market.

There are usually plenty of suitable individuals available at a cheaper rate, but they're not invited to apply, or they don't know anyone on the board. I don't need to go into it, but there is a specific cohort of people very overrepresented at the upper pay levels.

This is because people tend to hire people like themselves regardless of their suitability for a role. This is as true for hiring someone to pour coffee as it is hiring a CEO.

The argument that "we have to pay this much to get the best", is protectionism from CEO-types who know that if they pay less and still get good candidates, then their own inflated salaries are a sham.

I suppose there is some of that too, but the burden is on each company to pay appropriate remuneration for CEO performance. It's a free market.

Wanderer78

ELM327 wrote: »

No idea what you are on about

I suppose there is some of that too, but the burden is on each company to pay appropriate remuneration for CEO performance. It's a free market.

only thats its not when inspected!

TheCitizen

KyussB wrote: »

As long as 'the left' see government spending as coming exclusively from taxation, and not from gigantic eye-watering deficit spending and Public Debt (which is perfectly manageable and preferable to the alternative, btw) - then we're all fucked.

As long as you pay lip service (directly or indirectly) to balanced budgets, or a tendency towards them - you, and everyone else, are fucked.

The entire narrative of needing to pay for coronavirus measures, and the recovery, through taxes - is a losing narrative. You will always mathematically lose that argument.

The only alternative is arguments that justify massive massive deficit spending - and to make that the focus. Forget taxation as a method of funding altogether - you use taxes to disincentivize bad things (growing wealth inequality, pollution, consumption that is harmful to health etc.) - as soon as you argue about using taxes to fund things, you lose - and will continue to lose until you change the narrative.

So now "the left" are being accused of being fiscally conservative? :pac: The groupthink and echo chamber on here at times is ridiculously skewed.

KyussB

ELM327 wrote: »

Stock buybacks benefit the company though.
It shows confidence to the market in the price.


A lot of folks I work with actively trade in stiocks, options, CFD, forex etc in their spare time - so I don't buy the no spare cash model.


Also - stock options and stock grants don't always require the employee to buy them, you get them granted to you as part of remuneration (and pay 50% BIK!)

Stock buybacks damage companies by redirecting funds away from R&D and other productive activity, into unproductive buybacks, by companies having increased Corporate Debt (Private Debt - the most dangerous form of debt in the economy) in order to do stock buybacks, and by depleting cash reserves for companies, which then go looking for bailouts from the government when they get in financial difficulty (e.g. during a downturn), having blown all their money on a completely unproductive/purely-financial exercise, that they could have used to avoid a bailout.

So ya, stock buybacks result in lower R&D, higher Private Debt, reduced company sustainability in the face of downturns (and general increased fragility), higher CEO fraud/malfeasance (when they are rewarded based on stock price), more bailouts of companies by the public, and greater risk of prolonging downturns due to the Private Debt burden.

Basically everything a financier loves - maximizing the rewards for a few (no matter the cost on actual productive activity), and offloading nearly all the risks onto others. Stock buybacks need to be banned.

Cordell

Wanderer78 wrote: »

only thats its not when inspected!

But it is. Of course, it not free as in anyone can successfully apply, but that is true for any job that requires skills and experience, right?

JPCN1

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

I expect a special budget mid-summer.
The majority of personal wealth is tied up in property assets.
They will target wealth via higher property tax.
Its too small a value, compared to other countries. Example of New Jersey, USA - its 2.5% of property value per anum.
Take an average property price in Dublin of 500K. Theres plenty of fat there.

Lets face it - this is an easy one. Revenue will collect it at source. People will not have a choice in the matter.

I doubt we'll have a government by mid-summer.

If we do the internal fighting will weaken it out the gate and it won't survive long. Bringing in new taxes will mean less votes when it falls so I expect nothing of the sort to happen.

TheCitizen

ELM327 wrote: »

Sometimes it's embarrassing to see how little people on the left truly understand about employment.


The CEO on 2m (It's a free society so if the company decides he's not worth the salary and they decide to go with a guy for 1.8m then they can.) has a lot of responsibility. The company performance is tied directly to him, and he's accountable for it all. The monkey on 20k can call in sick, leave, doss etc but at the end of the day they can leave and get a different job or half arse this one while they are minding the kids or whatever.

Yes, when the dust settles we should take the knife to the wage packet of the monkey on 20k first and cocoon the salary of the CEO with the 2m salary. :pac: Some clowns on here are going to get a rude awakening.

KyussB

Geuze wrote: »

As far as I can see, countries with a long history of persistent fiscal deficits do not have more successful economies.

Italy comes to mind.

A larger public debt means higher interest rates, higher public interest costs, less fiscal space, and weaker public finances.

I prefer my taxes spent on education/health/welfare/infrastructure, rather than interest on public debt.

By all means, use Keynesian expansionary fiscal policies when necessary.

But any suggestion of running permanent, large fiscal deficits is not sensible.

All countries have a long history of persistent fiscal deficits. Practically no countries run surpluses for long periods. Deficits are and have always been the norm.

The size of Public Debt has nothing to do with interest rates.

You are taxed more when you fail to maximize GDP, through Public Debt - you've got it backwards.

TheCitizen

KyussB wrote: »

All countries have a long history of persistent fiscal deficits. Practically no countries run surpluses for long periods. Deficits are and have always been the norm.

The size of Public Debt has nothing to do with interest rates.

You are taxed more when you fail to maximize GDP, through Public Debt - you've got it backwards.

voodoo economics

Wanderer78

Cordell wrote: »

But it is. Of course, it not free as in anyone can successfully apply, but that is true for any job that requires skills and experience, right?

the free market is a myth, theres no such thing, underneath markets lies monopolization and protectionism, particularly of plutocratic interests, this one has run its course, we ve enough evidence to support this now. as powerful as markets have been, we must now recognize that they arent whole or perfect, as they have inefficiencies in themselves

ELM327

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the free market is a myth, theres no such thing, underneath markets lies monopolization and protectionism, particularly of plutocratic interests, this one has run its course, we ve enough evidence to support this now. as powerful as markets have been, we must now recognize that they arent whole or perfect, as they have inefficiencies in themselves

But that's not related to the free market when it comes to job applications for CEO?!

Wanderer78

ELM327 wrote: »

But that's not related to the free market when it comes to job applications for CEO?!

as others have said, only a 'select' few will ever become ceo of large corporations, its effectively a closed shop, the free market depicts that effectively all citizens can become a ceo if they for example, 'work hard', this is bull****, so to is the dreams of many, what is regularly called 'the american dream', this ideology is a bust