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 3)

Draginol

on Feb 16, 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.

You mean like Democratic candidate, John Edwards who makes his money by having all his fees put into an LLC and just pays himself dividends even as he attempts to get the INCOME tax rate raised which would affect him not at all?

Draginol

on Feb 16, 2007

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.

Sigh. And this is why people like me run the world and people like you complain about it impotently.

Your friend has an alternative: He could go work somewhere else. Thus depriving Gerbes of a good employee which makes them less competitive.

Draginol

on Feb 16, 2007

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.

If the company is run by the government, then yes, I have a problem with it too because that company is probably not operating under normal market rules.

I am not a laize faire (sp) capitalist. I believe in certain amounts of regulation because not all industries have competitive markets. But in any case, it's still not the government's job to tell people how much they make. At most, the government should be trying to make sure that particular industries have enough competition to keep market forces going.

I mean, look at our resident "hell yea" socialist deference above. He's arguing that the government should go after a grocery store chain. That is, rather than individual empoyees take on the responsibility of going to a different job, the "guvment" should come in and "take care of it".

joetheblow

on Feb 22, 2007

I think people see all that money and think to themselves, "I could use a little of that." One person having a billion dollars or even a few million seems so unfair to most when people are getting by with 30,000 dollars a year.

They see the cars, boats, houses and say, "ok, that's enough, what more can you want? You have enough money for you you kids and the next generation and you want more?"

But here is the real problem (actually 2). Learning about how money works, the economy and business is not really taught in schools. So people just see the large amounts of money and figure it can be better used somewhere else. So far evidence shows that goverment wastes more of that money than the rich could ever do... but they don't know that because they don't know about the economy or how money works.

I do feel sometimes that 210 million dollars a year is just a little too much pay for a CEO or 30 billion dollars in profit is a little crazy (and lets not talk about how Citco is giving away oil to the porr while Mobil-Exxon hasn't done a thing). But at the end of the day isn't it better to have it in people's hands instead of the goverment? though taxes? No more million dollar ball players, no more expencive cars... no more anything. Everything lux gets taxed to a point where there is no point to really get it.

Yeah, that's better. Now no one can be rich. I'm all for taxing larger for larger incomes (to a point) but the reason why the economy is so big is because of how many people can be involved in it and how high they are allowed to go.

The problem with the poor is that they are not taught about how money works. Even the history of taxes will tell you that the goverment is NOT the place to put money into.

Noumenon72

on Feb 22, 2007

Sigh. And this is why people like me run the world and people like you complain about it impotently.

Exactly it is. People like you who can get a quarter million raise run the world, and people like him who can't get a quarter raise complain, and you blame them for it and call them losers. If you had John's life experience instead of your fairy tale of capitalism, you would not feel the way you do. I know you were conservative when you were poor, but being young and poor is not the same as being stuck for years in the poor and realizing it's not going to change. For one thing, just being surrounded by people who know they're not going anywhere changes your psychology.

Frogboy

on Feb 22, 2007

Perhaps you should read my working history:

http://draginol.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?AID=20053&s=1

Unlike most of the people posting around here, I grew up poor (i.e. where eating 3 meals a day was sometimes an issue). I realize you mention this above but in my experience, most people who stay poor all their lives are losers.

People who think they have no control over their own lives tend to get their way.

In fact, as I get older, the more obvious it becomes that it takes relatively little talent to be well off. It just requires people thinking for themselves and not doing stupid things.

And ultimately, it's irrelevant because all I'm saying is that "the government" should not be the one telling people how much they should make.

Noumenon72

on Feb 23, 2007

I have read that, Frogboy. I've been here a long time.

Draginol

on Feb 23, 2007

Then perhaps you can tell me how my life was a "fairy tale of capitalism"?

I could have stayed working at the B. Dalton all my life if I had wanted to. There were many times where I could have let intertia take hold.

If there's some "lucky break" you read in that article, i would like to hear it.

Just a recap:

First job was at 6 years old taking out the garbage for people in my apartment (mostly welfare mothers btw) to the dumpster for 10 cents per bag.
First "real job" was working at an excavation company painting fences, cleaning toilets, helping fix "shovels" (mechanized ones), etc. Used money earned from that to buy a really crappy car. I was 13 when I started, 16 when I stopped. Worked during summers.
Second real job was at a B. Dalton book store from 16 to 19 or so as a store clerk.
Third real job was driving a van for the bank to bring checks from branches to the central bank office all day every day. Highly tedious.
Got promoted to working a "proof machine" which paid better but was incredibly monotonous.
During college worked multiple jobs at once to pay for college including a Babbages clerk + Student assistant to a professor
Later in college learned how to build my own computer to save money since I couldn't afford a "real computer" like others, then started "Stardock Systems" to start building computers for other people. Was still working other jobs.
Bought "Teach Yourself C in 21 days" and started programming a game for OS/2 called Galactic Civilizations.
Galactic Civilizations on OS/2 was successful but was never paid by the "publisher" (John Schaeffer of Advanced Idea Machines -- we's despises him foresever!! <g>).
Used fame from popularity of game to release a collection of shareware programs called OS/2 Essentials which made enough money and attracted the notice of IBM who asked me to make them a game for their Family FunPak which I did.
Took money from Family FunPak project to publish an OS/2 program that was originally called WorkplaceShell ToolSet/2 which I renamed "Object Desktop".
Object Desktop was a big hit and made lots of money. Used that money to publish Galactic Civilizations 2 for OS/2.
and so forth.

The closest thing to a "lucky break" I had was the IBM Family FunPak but they only approached me after I had already written, largely on my own including artwork, an OS/2 game.

Highschool GPA was 3.1. College GPA was 2.6.

There was nothing special about me as a kid or young adult other than not being inclined to allow inertia control my destiny.

Paladin77

on Feb 24, 2007

Then perhaps you can tell me how my life was a "fairy tale of capitalism"?

It is so sad to read that you gave up a promicing career at B. Daltons just to write a computer program. Lucky for you it paid off making you an overnight success. Lets not bother about they years and hard work that went into your overnight success. Like Tiger Woods was an overnight success after only 18 years of hard work to get him there. Yeah it was all luck.

Frogboy

on Feb 25, 2007

Well it all goes back to Sean's original gripe about his friend not getting a raise and his solution to be the government to come in and take care of it.

There's a saying "The meek may inherit the earth but not until the rest of us are done with it." I don't see why I and others like me should have to pay for those who are too weak or too stupid to take control of their own destinies. If some guy working at a grocery store is going to let himself be worked without adequate pay, then that's his problem.

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!