Who should decide how much you make?

People with guns or your customers?

Published on February 10, 2007 By Draginol In Politics

Resident JoeUser communist, Col Gene writes a steady stream of left-wing anti-Bush, anti-Capitalistic articles that are very interesting to read in that they really show the point of view of the very far left in this country and elsewhere.

In a recent article, he discussed how Exon's profits should be taxed at an exceptional rate because of their recent $30+ billion profit (on $300+ billion in revenue). The article could be boiled down to this: Exxon is greedy and the government should punish them for their greed by taking away their profits.

He also added how "greedy" it is for CEOs to make 50 to 450 times how much the average workers make.

Okay, so who should decide how much people make? The government at the point of a gun? Or owners through the performance of the company made by individual choices of customers?

Some movie star or ball player or CEO making a gazillion dollars doesn't hurt me at all. Why should anyone care how much they make? The money they make isn't taken from someone else. It's made through the voluntary transaction between consumers and producers. Someone wants a product and service, someone else produces product or service and sells it at price X. The free citizen can choose to pay for the product or service or not.

Now, in the case of an Exxon, market forces are severely restrained because you can't just start up an oil company. But it's pretty hard to reasonably charge "Greed" to a company whose profit margin hovers around 10%. In most industries, that's considered unacceptably low. But no doubt, because of the weak market forces, the CEOs of such companies have to be wary of increasing their margins lest they be regulated even further.

But let's be real, the word "greed" is recklessly thrown around by the economic losers of our society. It's the word used by people who don't produce at those who do produce. And rather than trying to provide an alternative or choosing a different product/service they would rather that the men with guns (the government) confiscated the wealth generated by producers to give to the non-productive class.

A free society should always be very wary of having decisions restrained at the point of a gun. Free people can decide for themselves what's best for themselves.

Comments (Page 2)

bakerstreet

on Feb 12, 2007

"We are borrowing every cent we gave the oil companied in tax credits."

LMAO.. there it is in black and white. NOT taking TAX money is GIVING money. Why? Because the money we earn isn't ours, it is "the people's" or some such nonsense.

Draginol

on Feb 12, 2007

What I suggested is to STOP Tax cuts to an industry that does not need a tax cut and for which the taxpayers do not benefit. We are borrowing every cent we gave the oil companied in tax credits. Apply a higher tax rate to these increased profits that were developed not from offering a better product or from increased productivity by increasing the retail prices to a helpless consumers-- individuals and business. That added revenue would be used under my suggestion to provide Alternate sources of energy that would benefit the population overall.

Exon Mobile paid more in taxes last year than any corporation on Earth.

Dr Guy

on Feb 12, 2007

One other observation on the "obscene" profits. Simply put, with inflation, if some corporations are not making record profits EVERY year, then we are either in a recession or depression.

Record profits is hyperbole that means nothing. ROI means something. But then no one has been talking about that for Exxon or Texaco (or is it BP?).

Heydre

on Feb 13, 2007

An interesting link to CEO compensation:

Link

Even better... Link

Jythier

on Feb 13, 2007

If we were able to pull off a communistic society without guns to our heads, we would have done it already. Welfare and social security came into being because somewhere along the line, people stopped caring about the poor. This was probably about the time when the poor started living in clumps instead of spread out through small towns. So now, we have welfare programs that do not really help and we have social security because people do not take care of their elders (or themselves) anymore. So the government takes over the care that people used to provide each other. Now, instead of a beautiful society of givers who help each other, we give to an unfeeling government that gives back without helping anybody. And none of us like giving to the government, because we know they waste our money.

Even the unproductive are human beings. They have needs that need to be met. However, with the current system, it is just as easy for them to buy drugs or go to a movie with the handout rather than buying food and clothing.

Paladin77

on Feb 13, 2007

Will someone please give me an example of communism that works? I don’t mean in theory but in reality. What communist country is able to stand on its own without massive help from capitalists? Sure capitalism has flaws but even with its flaws any poor person with drive and determination has a chance to become wealthy. To get the same result in communism you have to kill someone.

Gilford Tuttle

on Feb 13, 2007

what would drive you out into a field with a gun???

hopefully not the same silly labels that have divided and conquered us for too long

this article gave me a new perspective to view this issue on, and that is a dern fine thing.

Paladin77

on Feb 14, 2007

Who should decide how much you should make?

ME! just leave your money with me and I will tell you how much you deserve to keep. I am fair and honest and just plain wonderful. You won't need to trouble yourself with thought I will do your thinking for you at no extra cost.

Draginol

on Feb 14, 2007

You are incorrect on many fronts:

1) You NEED to quit using the word "need". Need is subjective. Tax cuts are not free money. They are simply areas where the government is taking less.

2) The oil industry is one of the heaviest tax industries in the world (other than cigarettes, it may be the most taxed).

3) It is not up to the government to decide what is the "best" form of energy. That is what the market is force. Politicians would spend the money on what was most politically expedient (look at Ethanol!)

Deference

on Feb 15, 2007

It boils down to this - if one is making dividends hand over fist, one should relinquish all tax breaks. No more corporate welfare. End of story.

Deference

on Feb 15, 2007

I've got a 40-year old friend who works for one of our local Gerbes (Kroger subsidiary) stores. He was pulled into the office two days ago and given lavish praise (raise with a P!). The store has seen over double the profit expected this last year. Because of this, the hiring / promotion freeze is over and 'John' is seeing a bit of a promotion. He is now a shift manager (12 hour shift manager) with much more responsibility (read:it's your ass) and paperwork duties.

John, a highly motivated worker, exclaimed, "Great!", so how much extra will I receive for these added tasks - a quarter?

The Store Manager looked around as if he was deaf and dumb.

"A quarter? A quarter what?"

"You know, a quarter cent more an hour," John replied.

"Oh, no more money, just added responsibility - still - a promotion!" the Store Manager replied.

More risk at getting fired, harder work ethic required, and longer work hours being the actual requisite for the job and my buddy John asks for a fucking quarter and he's told NO!

That is the attitude in the U.S. today. Work one's ass to the bone, work longer, harder hours and for cheaper pay - looks like there's somebody who isn't a team player - and that person isn't my buddy John. It also looks like this is an example - a finger in the face of, American Meritocracy.

Should Gerbes get taxed much more for it's failure to share revenues with self-sacrificing employees if it's profits are spiraling upward at the expense of it's employee's time, health, and wealth?

YEAH.

Big time Fucking - HELL - YEAH!

*Cue tambourines, cowbells, and worker's anthem hymns*

Eat IT!

Or they won't.

schekker

on Feb 15, 2007

The main problem I have with your article Draginol, is that it assumes capitalism is just working fine with regards to the CEO payments. In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't.

Although I do have a problem with Microsoft as a company for example, I have no problem with the obscene amounts of money Bill Gates made of it. He built the company, he took the risk(!), he is entitled to it. If Stardock comes with a killer product and you become a billionaire because of it, I'm happy for you. Would I have worked for Stardock and not really share in your new found wealth, I don't have a problem. I judge my job by itself and as long as the pay is competitive with other companies and the work is fun, I'm happy.

But, if the director of a hospital or a public servant is starting to make far more money than our first minister, I do have a problem. And similar for a lot of companies for which there is no real free market possible. Since basically those people are parasites, their pay not based on their capacities, but on their social network. And I don't have a problem with government policies aimed at curtailing them. Or public action against such payments which in the end are payed for by you, the customer. But you have to be careful, very careful.

bakerstreet

on Feb 15, 2007

" It boils down to this - if one is making dividends hand over fist, one should relinquish all tax breaks. No more corporate welfare. End of story."

Welfare is giving money to people who haven't earned it. Tax breaks are NOT TAKING MONEY AWAY from people who earned it. People who can't see the difference are morons, and people who refuse to are dishonest. That isn't your money, or the government's money, it's the oil company's money.

What stupid people refuse to see is that this would simply be a tax on consumers anyway. Oil companies would pass the added taxes onto us. Then Joe Q. Factory worker would just be paying more taxes in the form of higher gas prices.

But... you can't expect Utopians to really understand reality, can you?

Paladin77

on Feb 15, 2007

It boils down to this - if one is making dividends hand over fist, one should relinquish all tax breaks. No more corporate welfare. End of story.

Ok lets do it your way. We remove the tax brakes and what will happen? How about the oil companies raise the price of gas to make up for the tax breaks they lost. You see the tax breaks were given to lower the price of gas. The profit margin has not changed in decades. The oil companies by law only make ten cents on a gallon of gas. 87 cents is made by the government on every gallon of gas. The rest of the cost of the gallon of gas is the cost of producing a gallon of gas. The oil companies make so much money because of volume sold not the cost of the gallon of gas. To make hundreds of billions of dollars selling at ten cents a unit is a lot of units sold. It does not matter how much you tax the oil company the profit margin will still be ten cents profit on one gallon sold. The cost of gas to the consumer will go up but you will not reduce the profit of the company. When they sell less gas they make less money.

Dr Guy

on Feb 15, 2007

It boils down to this - if one is making dividends hand over fist, one should relinquish all tax breaks. No more corporate welfare. End of story.

See that is the big lie. Welfare is when you take money from an EARNER and give it to one who did not EARN it. Corporations EARN the money, so it is not welfare. It is just a smaller amount of excessive confiscatory punitive taxes. No one has GIVEN a dime to any oil company. Period.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!