IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Easy
If the tax base (could be) shifted to a wealth tax, rather than income/outoings tax, what would we see change?
Corporate execs would get crazy perks. Like free use of the jet, residences in every city they've got a major presence, etc. etc etc. Now this kind of wealth can't be handed down to your kids, and makes execs more likely to want to stick with a company for a while. Hmm, might not be such a bad idea after all.
===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Hmm.
Yabbut the corp would have to pay tax on such things. But I like the idea that it would encourage loyalty. Job recriuters might have to find new jobs...

Wade.


Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
 
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please



-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

· my ·
· [link|http://staticsan.livejournal.com/|blog] ·
· [link|http://yceran.org/|website] ·

New I don't like that idea much.
It seems to me that company employees should get their compensation mostly in salary, with some profit-sharing thrown in as an incentive (in the form of stock or cash), and some small fraction in other benefits (a Thanksgiving turkey, deeply discounted merchandise or meals in the company cafeteria, etc.). Businesses shouldn't be providing lodging, entertainment, etc., etc. except in hardship cases (e.g. for branches in foreign lands, etc.).

(Heading off on a tangent...)

The tax system shouldn't be structured to prefer non-salary compensation because it introduces complications and makes things less transparent. What's the use of a corporate a Central Park West apartment decorated with Van Goghs worth? Why shouldn't the owners of the company and the employees benefit just as much from the company's success?

I don't buy the argument that corporate executives need to be paid tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in total annual compensation for a company to be successful. I think the objective evidence is that [link|http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4526.html|executive compensation has almost nothing to do with actual success of the company].

Cheers,
Scott.
     CRC: Truth/cars link - (Ashton) - (48)
         Excuse me? - (bepatient) - (4)
             Eh? - (Another Scott) - (3)
                 My first take - (bepatient) - (2)
                     Ford had a 500 in the 50s-70s (1957 Fairline 500). - (Another Scott) - (1)
                         Flashback - (jbrabeck)
         Re: CRC: Truth/cars link - (pwhysall) - (42)
             I'll accept alternatives: I ain't The LRPD - (Ashton) - (41)
                 What's wrong with capital-accumulation? - (pwhysall) - (40)
                     Society has costs that have to be borne by someone. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                         50% of the costs are borne by less than 2% of the people - (boxley)
                         Re: Society has costs that have to be borne by someone. - (pwhysall)
                         Consider Microsoft? - (pwhysall)
                         Re: Society has costs that have to be borne by someone. - (pwhysall) - (11)
                             Struck a nerve, did I? - (Another Scott) - (10)
                                 Re: Struck a nerve, did I? - (pwhysall)
                                 please prove point one - (boxley) - (8)
                                     Why 200 years? - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                         Now explain why your examples - (boxley) - (6)
                                             And ask Carnegie about giving back - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                 Thing about Carnegie - (drewk) - (1)
                                                     Standard view of society - (bepatient)
                                             I guess I'm not making myself clear. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                 I dont think you understand economics very well - (boxley)
                                                 Re: I guess I'm not making myself clear. - (pwhysall)
                     Its great to talk about personal freedoms to a point - (bepatient) - (4)
                         No - if they gave it away for parks and museums . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                             Right, those whose free choice wasn't the one you wanted;-) -NT - (bepatient) - (2)
                                 No 'free choice'? Exactly!___when the current math + laws - (Ashton) - (1)
                                     There is a choice - (bepatient)
                     Rich people use more of the commons - (tuberculosis)
                     What's wrong with capital-accumulation? - (Seamus) - (17)
                         tax it once is the only fair method, even the freakin mob - (boxley) - (16)
                             Money is taxed many times - (JayMehaffey) - (15)
                                 it wasnt your money then was it? - (boxley) - (14)
                                     Bah. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                         couple of points - (boxley)
                                         Taxation affects economic development. - (static) - (3)
                                             Easy - (drewk) - (2)
                                                 Hmm. - (static)
                                                 I don't like that idea much. - (Another Scott)
                                     No, but I'm the one paying - (JayMehaffey)
                                     Wasn't yours before you inherited it either, was it? - (CRConrad) - (6)
                                         If you were willing to flat rate the tax Im with you -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                             Why should I? WTF does one have to do with the other??? -NT - (CRConrad)
                                         Cap Gains tas is lower not by coincidence - (bepatient) - (3)
                                             they are already building big houses they cant sell - (boxley)
                                             Is this *also* a coincidience? - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                 I'm not coming down on ANY side. - (bepatient)

We get more play than a 6-disc changer in a bitchin' Camaro.
118 ms