sharetrader
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44
  1. #11
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastern BoP..
    Posts
    1,808

    Default

    Mike Jaggers income is produced from willing fans.. Your investments are willing given into productive enterprises that will return a dividend.
    Dividends are not salary/wages.. If you can live off of your dividends well done.. You have earned and saved to make those investments.. You have payed tax on it.. and not dragging any one down..

    CEO's on multi million dollar salarys + mega bonus ??.. That is an entirely different kettle of fish..

    If there is a bonus for the CEO... Why is there not a bonus for the cleaner ??

    A fair pro rata distribution, based on hours put in, of some of the wealth created by the entire staff for the shareholders..

    Say... 10% of profits.. .. It maybe nickles and dimes to the CEO. but the cleaner would sure appreciate it..

    He/she may even reinvest it into the company..

  2. #12
    Share Collector
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    3,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lizard View Post
    Slow response from me, but i am wondering where Winner will be when they bring out the guillotine. Okay, maybe not literally...

    I'm all for integrity and morality and philanthropy. I'm all for CEO and Directors salaries being actually about 3 times average incomes, but that's enough.
    So you'd be all in favour of passing a law to stop Mick Jagger performing, or to stop me investing?
    F.P, I'm unsure why you're quoting me in here - I thought it was clear I was not a fan of wholesale protest. And my post referred to a view on extremes in salaries rather than wealthy per se. As for how something should be done about that - I would have thought that was first the responsibility of shareholders like ourselves to lobby for sensible salaries.

  3. #13
    Share Collector
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    3,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by janner View Post
    A fair pro rata distribution, based on hours put in, of some of the wealth created by the entire staff for the shareholders..
    I guess shareholders might have mixed views as to how much wealth has been created for them over the years and how much has been soaked up by unprofitable expenditure.

    Pro rata distribution on hours sounds fine if everyone was prepared to work equally hard, was equally productive, had spent equal resources on their training and had invested equal amounts of capital in the company. It doesn't take much imagination to see the consequences of paying everyone the same when they differ on any one of these things.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Halebop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    I think the whole argument is about timing. We could tolerate paying someone millions for a 50-60 hour working week when unemployment was 4% or 5% and even semi skilled people could make a good living gibbing walls. When the chips are down this becomes problematic, particularly when the same CEOs earn millions for putting people out of work and cutting costs to maintain the bottom line. Add the demographic bubbles of educated young muslims and 1st (or less) time employed Gen Y's wondering why they loaded up with debt to earn what the cleaner gets (or less) and suddenly a few more people than the old 'normal' think to ask some questions...

    Baby boomers are looking a bit weary, their capital is avoiding risk and we are entering an expensive part of the cycle - simultaneous higher education, healthcare and welfare costs. Taxing capital is almost inevitable if and when other sources of income fail to fire up.

    One thing I do find interesting is that often people who argue that the rich already pay an unfair burdon of tax tend to focus on share of tax paid rather than share of income (including capital gains) earned. Methinks there is an obvious reason for this?

    The only troubling bit is that like all pendulums it may well swing too far the other way.

  5. #15
    Share Collector
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    3,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halebop View Post
    The only troubling bit is that like all pendulums it may well swing too far the other way.
    Yes, I guess that is my fear. From some of the rhetoric, it sounds as though there are those who think the Cultural Revolution/French Revolution/Democratic Kampuchea/Soviet Revolution were all great ways to achieve change and greater equality.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    962

    Default Upheaval

    Quote Originally Posted by Lizard View Post
    Yes, I guess that is my fear. From some of the rhetoric, it sounds as though there are those who think the Cultural Revolution/French Revolution/Democratic Kampuchea/Soviet Revolution were all great ways to achieve change and greater equality.
    The French revolution and the Soviet revolution were definitely the only way to achieve better equality. Egypt, Libya, Iran, etc. are struggling to achieve the same goal.The unfortunate fact is that in times of great upheaval some megalomaniac or psychopath is likely to take advantage of the situation and achieve control aka Napoleon, Hitler. Stalin, etc. If the excesses of Wall St. and the non productive money shifters are to be controlled it will depend on the actions of democratically elected governments.
    Don't hold your breath if right wing parties have power.
    Westerly

  7. #17
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    3,115

    Default

    A couple or random thoughts:

    It is possible to go from nothing to rich -Key being the perfect example, Or Hart.

    That was always the american dream - the problem is that everyone wants it to happen to them and that is just not possible.

    all those stats are related. Obviously the wealthy earn the most money as that income comes from their investments.

    They are in part protesting about corporates - yet I am sure a lot of them have iphones etc. Luxuries are now 'necessities'
    Free delivery worldwide with Book Depository http://www.bookdepository.co.uk

  8. #18
    Share Collector
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    3,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westerly View Post
    The French revolution and the Soviet revolution were definitely the only way to achieve better equality.
    Maybe I am obtuse, but I fail to see how what we have now could be a worse starting point for a better society than years of militancy, fear, oppression and bloodshed. Sure, I acknowledge all the things that are not working correctly - I think this article says it well: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...t-2011-10?op=1

    But don't tell me that the only option for equality is a reign of terror before at least trying to use the levers that democracy provides. For my part, I've selectively voted against what I've considered excessive remuneration on a number of occasions - but from the reported results, it has been difficult to see that many shareholders actually cared enough to take even this small act of protest.

  9. #19
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    It's a bit vague what they hope to achieve. I would have thought that wealth/income disparity is the main issue and whether people who have worked hard and made sacrifices AND succeeded should contribute more to society. Also the concept of endless growth. Is mild deflation really that bad unless your heavily leveraged.

    Unfortunately it requires a bit of effort to read and try to understand the policies of political parties and their effects on our communities before voting. I wouldn't mind betting a large chunk of the protesters are living of the state and their fellow citizens and that protesting is more exciting and easier than trying to form a view on the best way forward for their countries.
    NZ is a good example of why voters get what they ask for. We have a National government set to win the next election yet they increased a regressive tax(GST) to lower income tax rates(including the top rate) and refuse to consider a tax on wealth. The wealth/income disparity is obviously not an issue in NZ either that or there a a lot of deluded people in NZ(they probably still believe in the trickle down effect). Or maybe it is more a reflection on the quality and policies of the opposition parties.
    Last edited by Aaron; 18-10-2011 at 07:45 AM.

  10. #20
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    We have a National government set to win the next election yet they increased a regressive tax(GST) to lower income tax rates(including the top rate) and refuse to consider a tax on wealth. The wealth/income disparity is obviously not an issue in NZ either that or there a a lot of deluded people in NZ(they probably still believe in the trickle down effect). Or maybe it is more a reflection on the quality and policies of the opposition parties.

    Like it or not, money and incomes do trickle down.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •