Study: Most prefer wealth distribution similar to Sweden

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Regardless of whether the study was flawed or not, if you want to distribute wealth equally, also distribute work contributions equally.

I don't want to distribute wealth equally, and neither did 92% of the study participants. What they did want to see was a distribution that wasn't as extreme as here in the U.S. Do you really think a hedge fund manager or Wall Street financial wizard works 1000 times harder than a teacher?

We choose the fields we want to work in, and they are not always for the $$$. Medicine, and teaching are honorable professions, though not always the same remuneration. The problem with this wealth distribution you speak of is that it relies on stealing from those who have it, no matter how you look at it.

Let's face facts, the person is rare who will not take something for nothing!

Nmysys wrote: We choose the fields we want to work in, and they are not always for the $$$. Medicine, and teaching are honorable professions, though not always the same remuneration. The problem with this wealth distribution you speak of is that it relies on stealing from those who have it, no matter how you look at it.

Let's face facts, the person is rare who will not take something for nothing!

No, it doesn't depend on "stealing from those who have it". In other countries, top earning executives are paid salaries that are much closer to the average middle-managers salary than they are here. No one is suggesting we tax high salaries more to make things more "equal", just questioning why other first world countries seem to get along just fine paying their executives and financial managers more reasonable salaries.

All of you keep thinking this is about taxation, it isn't. It's about a situation that has developed rather recently in this country where there appears to be some kind of rigged game for those at the very top, paying themselves salaries unheard of even a decade or two ago. I know they say it is because they have to have "top talent" in order to compete in the world economy. So what are German executives, bottom and crappy talent? They seem to be competing just fine and their execs make a fraction of what they do here. I don't buy this story that these guys are somehow "worth it". They are just in a position to give themselves insane raises and bonuses and perks, so they DO. Some of it paid for by taxpayer bailouts, I might add!

Seems to me that if anything, these obscene "compensation packages" are making us LESS competitive, not more, as the money has to come from somewhere. And i suspect it is coming from squeezing the benefits and salaries of the poor peons below them.

AV:

You are making sense, don't think we are arguing it. The problem may well be a trend that unfortunately can't be stopped. Runaway compensations for some reason appealed to George Bush and are doing so to Obama and his administration. Personally I think it is part of the plan to loot the country and turn, we the people into sheep for the slaughter by our enemies.

The planned destruction of America.

Has hell frozen over?

I am agreeing with Nmysys.

They're getting what they can get while they can get it cause they know this ship is going down.

AspenValley wrote:

Nmysys wrote: We choose the fields we want to work in, and they are not always for the $$$. Medicine, and teaching are honorable professions, though not always the same remuneration. The problem with this wealth distribution you speak of is that it relies on stealing from those who have it, no matter how you look at it.

Let's face facts, the person is rare who will not take something for nothing!

No, it doesn't depend on "stealing from those who have it". In other countries, top earning executives are paid salaries that are much closer to the average middle-managers salary than they are here. No one is suggesting we tax high salaries more to make things more "equal", just questioning why other first world countries seem to get along just fine paying their executives and financial managers more reasonable salaries.

All of you keep thinking this is about taxation, it isn't. It's about a situation that has developed rather recently in this country where there appears to be some kind of rigged game for those at the very top, paying themselves salaries unheard of even a decade or two ago. I know they say it is because they have to have "top talent" in order to compete in the world economy. So what are German executives, bottom and crappy talent? They seem to be competing just fine and their execs make a fraction of what they do here. I don't buy this story that these guys are somehow "worth it". They are just in a position to give themselves insane raises and bonuses and perks, so they DO. Some of it paid for by taxpayer bailouts, I might add!

Seems to me that if anything, these obscene "compensation packages" are making us LESS competitive, not more, as the money has to come from somewhere. And i suspect it is coming from squeezing the benefits and salaries of the poor peons below them.

As always, you make good points. Yes, I did read that you are not for equal but for compensation packages that fall under the main part of a bell shaped curve. I suppose I'm with you on the extreme deviations. What I do not know is where extreme for a particular discipline begins or ends. And what about wealth accumulation through successful enterprise, say a google or fb? Do we subjugate them as well? If so would that not blunt the drive to succeed?

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

Nmysys wrote: We choose the fields we want to work in, and they are not always for the $$$. Medicine, and teaching are honorable professions, though not always the same remuneration. The problem with this wealth distribution you speak of is that it relies on stealing from those who have it, no matter how you look at it.

Let's face facts, the person is rare who will not take something for nothing!

No, it doesn't depend on "stealing from those who have it". In other countries, top earning executives are paid salaries that are much closer to the average middle-managers salary than they are here. No one is suggesting we tax high salaries more to make things more "equal", just questioning why other first world countries seem to get along just fine paying their executives and financial managers more reasonable salaries.

All of you keep thinking this is about taxation, it isn't. It's about a situation that has developed rather recently in this country where there appears to be some kind of rigged game for those at the very top, paying themselves salaries unheard of even a decade or two ago. I know they say it is because they have to have "top talent" in order to compete in the world economy. So what are German executives, bottom and crappy talent? They seem to be competing just fine and their execs make a fraction of what they do here. I don't buy this story that these guys are somehow "worth it". They are just in a position to give themselves insane raises and bonuses and perks, so they DO. Some of it paid for by taxpayer bailouts, I might add!

Seems to me that if anything, these obscene "compensation packages" are making us LESS competitive, not more, as the money has to come from somewhere. And i suspect it is coming from squeezing the benefits and salaries of the poor peons below them.

As always, you make good points. Yes, I did read that you are not for equal but for compensation packages that fall under the main part of a bell shaped curve. I suppose I'm with you on the extreme deviations. What I do not know is where extreme for a particular discipline begins or ends. And what about wealth accumulation through successful enterprise, say a google or fb? Do we subjugate them as well? If so would that not blunt the drive to succeed?

I have nothing against an individual inventing a google and profiting proportionately. What I have a problem with is that there seems to have developed a class of what I would consider parasitic frauds at the very top who make their livings not through innovation or providing any value but through looting in ways like bundling toxic securities, selling them to their clients, and then SHORTING THEIR OWN CLIENTS on the investment, and turning around when the whole thing goes sour and holding up the taxpayers of the United States of America with threats of destroying the whole economy if we don't make good on their debts.

Or a small gang of good old boys who float from the CEO-ship of one corporation to another, sitting on corporate boards, voting their cronies ever larger "compensation packages" with the serene assurance that no one will be able to stop them, so long as they slash and hack and produce impressive short-term results for the shareholders. Or actually, these days, even if they DON'T.

None of this is captialism, none of this is sound market economy principles, this is out and out CRIMINAL FRAUD, and no one, not ONE of these people is being prosecuted. It's pretty darned obvious that the fix is on, the organized crime has become institutional, and it's too late to do a damned thing about it other than to try to stand the hell ouf of the way when the whole stinking mess comes crashing down.

I could go on, but I'm guessing you've got the picture....

Or, you asked me to exert more effort than I am truly willing to exert to assimilate the significance of your research.

Hedge fund managers? People choose to pay them by investing in their hedge funds. Think their fees or compensation is too high, you are free to go elsewhere and not pay him.

Lower executive pay in other countries? I talked to a French executive about this and he says the taxes are so high on large incomes and the public backlash is so severe that they pay themselves an OK salary and pay themselves in excess in other ways, like their housing and transportation is paid for by the corporation.

AspenValley wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

Nmysys wrote: We choose the fields we want to work in, and they are not always for the $$$. Medicine, and teaching are honorable professions, though not always the same remuneration. The problem with this wealth distribution you speak of is that it relies on stealing from those who have it, no matter how you look at it.

Let's face facts, the person is rare who will not take something for nothing!

No, it doesn't depend on "stealing from those who have it". In other countries, top earning executives are paid salaries that are much closer to the average middle-managers salary than they are here. No one is suggesting we tax high salaries more to make things more "equal", just questioning why other first world countries seem to get along just fine paying their executives and financial managers more reasonable salaries.

All of you keep thinking this is about taxation, it isn't. It's about a situation that has developed rather recently in this country where there appears to be some kind of rigged game for those at the very top, paying themselves salaries unheard of even a decade or two ago. I know they say it is because they have to have "top talent" in order to compete in the world economy. So what are German executives, bottom and crappy talent? They seem to be competing just fine and their execs make a fraction of what they do here. I don't buy this story that these guys are somehow "worth it". They are just in a position to give themselves insane raises and bonuses and perks, so they DO. Some of it paid for by taxpayer bailouts, I might add!

Seems to me that if anything, these obscene "compensation packages" are making us LESS competitive, not more, as the money has to come from somewhere. And i suspect it is coming from squeezing the benefits and salaries of the poor peons below them.

As always, you make good points. Yes, I did read that you are not for equal but for compensation packages that fall under the main part of a bell shaped curve. I suppose I'm with you on the extreme deviations. What I do not know is where extreme for a particular discipline begins or ends. And what about wealth accumulation through successful enterprise, say a google or fb? Do we subjugate them as well? If so would that not blunt the drive to succeed?

I have nothing against an individual inventing a google and profiting proportionately. What I have a problem with is that there seems to have developed a class of what I would consider parasitic frauds at the very top who make their livings not through innovation or providing any value but through looting in ways like bundling toxic securities, selling them to their clients, and then SHORTING THEIR OWN CLIENTS on the investment, and turning around when the whole thing goes sour and holding up the taxpayers of the United States of America with threats of destroying the whole economy if we don't make good on their debts.

Or a small gang of good old boys who float from the CEO-ship of one corporation to another, sitting on corporate boards, voting their cronies ever larger "compensation packages" with the serene assurance that no one will be able to stop them, so long as they slash and hack and produce impressive short-term results for the shareholders. Or actually, these days, even if they DON'T.

None of this is captialism, none of this is sound market economy principles, this is out and out CRIMINAL FRAUD, and no one, not ONE of these people is being prosecuted. It's pretty darned obvious that the fix is on, the organized crime has become institutional, and it's too late to do a damned thing about it other than to try to stand the hell ouf of the way when the whole stinking mess comes crashing down.

I could go on, but I'm guessing you've got the picture....

Certainly, when you paint the scenarios as you have, but does that truly represent the general condition? I do not doubt such things happen and perhaps too often and those good old boys should be caught. Does it constitute the general situation in companies? The the point made by SS109 with regard to French execs, highlights alternative avenues that do not show up as compensation thereby skewing the more even distribution being sought. And what about athlete compensation? Talk about being totally out of whack. But, how do you curtail competitive bidding for services? Do you put ceilings on income?