Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
CptJake wrote:
Thanks for the attempt to correct me, but I chose the word I wanted.
Assumption: something taken for granted; a supposition. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.
I'll stick with it. I'm not a pedant and the definition meets my intent just fine.
Wait, you found a dictionary that lists conjecture, hypothesis, guess, postulate, and theory as synonyms of assumption? That is an awful dictionary.
I mean, even per the definition of assumption that you offered that doesn't follow. Hypotheses are not taken for granted, nor are guesses, postulates, or theories. I guess you could argue that conjectures are, but the connotation of the word is indefinite, or speculative, rather than foundational.
Either way, my point was that your intended meaning was misguided, and extended beyond the scope of the original comment, which was based only on the amount of revenue generated by alternative tax policy versus voluntary contribution. In that context claiming that one cannot illustrate the worth of a given dollar amount relative to something else, like national debt, because its unlikely to be used for that purpose is ridiculous.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kilkrazy wrote:A person in the situation described probably would not incorporate their company, though, as there is no benefit in it.
The point is that people shouldn't be considering incorporation just for the tax benefits, because such a decision should have zero tax effect.
Consider if the company was a start up, and the guy was willing to risk a million bucks starting it up, but not risk losing the family home if the investment falls through. He'd want a limited liability company, but risk facing a tax rate about double what he'd pay if he expected to take home about a hundred thousand a year. That's basically the tax system influencing a business decision it has no reason influencing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:At the time I was pulling the massive salary of $35K. I was reviewing personal financial statements and corp statements. You needed personal guarantees as the small business loans typicallyt required credit enhancement. Corp statements and tax statements had them making less money than me (and paying less taxes). Personal statements had them making ten times as much as me. Thinking back it still maddening, and my respect for "small business owners" is pretty nonexistent.
Heh. I had almost exactly the same start, taking my first job while I was finishing my degree, and earning almost the same amount.
I did the exact same thing, passing massive lists of bs expense claims, seeing two premium sedans being fully deducted against a single plumbing business, when you knew the only vehicle being used for the business was a beat up old van... And then you got onto the folk who weren't happy screwing the system over simply like that, they started setting up their own super funds, which owned their own property trusts, which basically paid their mortgage for them, tax free.
It's basically a problem of having a tax regime of self-assessment, and a lot of subjectivity in what business related expenditure is. Having tax authorities approve each deduction is impossible, basically, so I guess the solution is a greater audit regime and serious 'you will go to jail for bs' penalties, but the political will just isn't there to penalise people properly. I mean, you should have seen the bs Paul Hogan (the guy in Crocodile Dundee) got away with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:Huge assumption there. You assume the Fed Gov't decreases spending at the same time it increases revenue. That has not been the case and I doubt the current administration would use an extra $176B to reduce deficit or even better pay down the debt.
All you've done there is invent a mass of politcally convenient assumptions to justify your pre-determined decision not to pay taxes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Most people don't distinguish between dividends and capital gains taxes because they're the same rate. I'm assuming he meant dividends, not capital gains. However you're right, if he did mean capital gains (not dividends) then he's wrong on double taxation.
Note that the Bush tax cuts added the category of dividends, before that they were treated as ordinary income.
Yeah, I mentioned before how much more broken the situation was before Bush reformed it. This may be the only time you'll see me saying the problem was that Bush didn't go far enough
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I'm pretty confident in saying that this has happened in very few, if any, cases.
More than just being unlikely, I think it's actually impossible to lose your house because your lender went bust. In that instance, you're still committed to make loan payments same as you were before, it's just that the party receiving your payments will have been on-sold by the receivers of the bankrupt lending agent.
Meanwhile, bankruptcy is caused (from memory from an article I read a long time ago) mostly by medical expenses*, business failure, job loss, and divorce, in that order.
*US only, and not number one during the recent economic decline, where asset devaluation and job lay-offs overtook it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I wasn't talking about bankruptcy though.
No, you were talking about why everyone else assumes people are poor because of medical bills. I was explaining that medical costs were being used as an explanation for bankruptcy, not for poverty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
Definitely. There's the poverty trap, where the costs of being poor are such that it's near impossible to save* even if you've got a steady job. Then there's also a whole lot of hardworking people who have been conditioned into believing they're destined to be labourer's assistants all their lives, so they never look to take the next step despite being capable. Then consider the folk who work hard, but simply aren't smart enough to take the next step from being a labourer's assistant - sure enough it's best they stay at that level, but there's no reason we should have them earning $8 an hour.
*Consider a guy who can only afford a $500 car, and how much it costs to run that car until it finally dies, at which point the guy only has $500 to buy his next car. Consider all the predatory lenders who basically exist because of short term cashflow problems among the poor. Consider how much more it costs to rent compared to owning your own house.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2011/09/21 02:47:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
halonachos wrote:I was replying to that part, seriously its bad when you forget what you wrote yourself. This very ending is what I was responding to, he would be getting outside help because he is then disabled and unable to work which means he would be getting help to pay off his debt.
What? I think you may have skipped a word in your haste there. I was saying he could escape his debt only with the outside help, not presupposing he was already receiving help. In that scenario, where he's not disabled (So not receiving whatever disability funds), he can't escape the debt spiral with "hard work alone."
halonachos wrote:Chances they had a job if they're not poor and chances are that job provided health insurance and chances are they could afford home and auto insurance as well as life insurance.
I want those chances...
If you have a job like that, you are doing far better than many Americans, including those who are hard workers. Plus, it's not that rare of a scenario that sometimes people who have limited funds (ie, poor people) are forced to pick between important things like food, shelter, their car, medical care, and insurance. You can't simply assume that because they have a $15,000/year paycheck (A 40 Hour workweek, every week, at the minimum wage of $7.25/hour) that they can pay their own mortgage/various insurances.
Plus, automatically assuming that they will get health insurance by being employed is pretty presumptuous imo. While health insurance is nice, it's not (atm) required for employers to provide, and given your above acceptance of medical bills being a major issue, I'm sure you can see how this could become an issue should Mr. Jimmy break something important and have cheap health insurance that won't cover it (Again, nothing says employers have to get you good health care).
Imagine the feeling when you position your tanks, engines idling, landing gear deployed for a low profile, with firing solutions along a key bottleneck. Then some fether lands a dreadnought behind them in a giant heat shielded coke can.
So we have a tax system that increases the rate of tax with an increase in income? Maybe that's why we have poor social mobility, because people think it doesn't pay to make more money in some cases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote:
halonachos wrote:I was replying to that part, seriously its bad when you forget what you wrote yourself. This very ending is what I was responding to, he would be getting outside help because he is then disabled and unable to work which means he would be getting help to pay off his debt.
What? I think you may have skipped a word in your haste there. I was saying he could escape his debt only with the outside help, not presupposing he was already receiving help. In that scenario, where he's not disabled (So not receiving whatever disability funds), he can't escape the debt spiral with "hard work alone."
halonachos wrote:Chances they had a job if they're not poor and chances are that job provided health insurance and chances are they could afford home and auto insurance as well as life insurance.
I want those chances...
If you have a job like that, you are doing far better than many Americans, including those who are hard workers. Plus, it's not that rare of a scenario that sometimes people who have limited funds (ie, poor people) are forced to pick between important things like food, shelter, their car, medical care, and insurance. You can't simply assume that because they have a $15,000/year paycheck (A 40 Hour workweek, every week, at the minimum wage of $7.25/hour) that they can pay their own mortgage/various insurances.
Plus, automatically assuming that they will get health insurance by being employed is pretty presumptuous imo. While health insurance is nice, it's not (atm) required for employers to provide, and given your above acceptance of medical bills being a major issue, I'm sure you can see how this could become an issue should Mr. Jimmy break something important and have cheap health insurance that won't cover it (Again, nothing says employers have to get you good health care).
Ahem, first of all a few things.
You said "only" if and I said that they "would" get outside help if they were disabled, if I was saying that from the beginning then why would you bother bringing that up? They would be getting help if they're disabled so if they're unlucky enough to become disabled then they get covered.
A person who is working and has an accident while at work can get a thing called Workman's Compensation which will help pay for the damages. If a poor person has a car then they should have car insurance or else they're breaking a law in most cases. If a person cannot afford a car then they probably should not buy a car, some places have excellent public transport or can find jobs that are local. Emergency care is free in all states, even to those without insurance.
Long term care is given out of a disability fund.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/21 02:58:16
halonachos wrote:So we have a tax system that increases the rate of tax with an increase in income? Maybe that's why we have poor social mobility, because people think it doesn't pay to make more money in some cases.
Oh come on. I mean seriously, just think about what you're claiming there. First up, think about if you earned $33,950, you've got a wife who's looking after your two young kids, and you see a chance to take another job that'll give you another $5,000. Would you honestly say 'oh I won't bother with that, because then I'd lose 25% to tax instead of the 15% I'm losing now'?
Second up, just look at the tax codes in the rest of the developed world. They're much, much more progressive than rates in the US, yet they have much greater social mobility.
Please think about what you're posting before you press send.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/21 05:19:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The problem is you're assuming they qualify for disability pay of some sort. I was giving a scenario where someone was in financial trouble, needed outside financial aid, and was not eligible for any sort of disability pay.
As for emergency care, I think you are confusing "free" and "service before payment." True, you can get ER care without paying a cent, but you'll get the bill for your treatment later regardless of whether you have medical insurance that covers it or not.
Imagine the feeling when you position your tanks, engines idling, landing gear deployed for a low profile, with firing solutions along a key bottleneck. Then some fether lands a dreadnought behind them in a giant heat shielded coke can.
halonachos wrote:Emergency care is free in all states, even to those without insurance.
That's incorrect. Hospitals must screen for an emergency condition, and provide care without inquiring about the ability of the patient to pay. That doesn't mean they cannot then bill the patient for services rendered, as is generally the case.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/21 12:50:56
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
Maybe he meant these guys:
Though I doubt he actually knows any of them.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
Assuming you're painting all Republicans with a broad brush on the basis that at least one Republican would do so...then presumably some Democrats would as well.
In fact, I'd wager that some Buddhists would as well, so can we turn this into a religion thread?
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
Maybe he meant these guys:
Though I doubt he actually knows any of them.
Those dern Swedes and their meatballs!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
Assuming you're painting all Republicans with a broad brush on the basis that at least one Republican would do so...then presumably some Democrats would as well.
In fact, I'd wager that some Buddhists would as well, so can we turn this into a religion thread?
You keep your stinking hands off my Speghetti God you damned dirty ape!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/21 13:09:52
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
biccat wrote:
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune.
So you're saying that Republicans don't know what Communism is?
I'm not even sure half of them know what capitalism is (hint: we don't practice anything but a heavily watered down version).
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I think we can all agree Republicans have an idea about what communism is. Maybe its right and maybe its wrong, but we can also agree that spaghetti is not good for a kitten's digestive system
LordofHats wrote:I think we can all agree Republicans have an idea about what communism is. Maybe its right and maybe its wrong, but we can also agree that spaghetti is not good for a kitten's digestive system
Unless it has a proper marinara sauce.
Down TBone, I didn't mean dipping the cat in marinara sauce!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
...because being from another country than the US means that you've never spoken to a republican?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few people work their asses off rying to get ahead and not managing it because of limited resources. Just don't tell a republican that-- they'll call you a communist.
No, they'll call you a Communist when you want to force people to pay for others' misfortune. Private charity is a wonderful thing.
No, really, some Republicans do.
How would a Swede know exactly? Last I saw, there were not a lot of the Grand Old Party in Sweden. Democrats either.
...because being from another country than the US means that you've never spoken to a republican?
It means you've talked on the internet to anonymous posters who may or may not even be human.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
halonachos wrote:So we have a tax system that increases the rate of tax with an increase in income? Maybe that's why we have poor social mobility, because people think it doesn't pay to make more money in some cases.
Oh come on. I mean seriously, just think about what you're claiming there. First up, think about if you earned $33,950, you've got a wife who's looking after your two young kids, and you see a chance to take another job that'll give you another $5,000. Would you honestly say 'oh I won't bother with that, because then I'd lose 25% to tax instead of the 15% I'm losing now'?
Second up, just look at the tax codes in the rest of the developed world. They're much, much more progressive than rates in the US, yet they have much greater social mobility.
Please think about what you're posting before you press send.
I don't press send, I press "submit". Other nations also have salary caps for executives and proportional earnings based off of what others in the company make. A dishwasher makes x percent of what the executive makes for example.
I was also talking about business owner, there are those that screw the system but there are also people who don't try because if they don't screw the system they end up screwed themselves and fail.
If a person becomes disabled at the workplace then there are several ways to get money, suing, workman's comp(which is a pain in the ass but possible, and if its drastic enough, disability pay). A person who breaks their leg at work while doing something they were supposed to be doing in a manner that they were supposed to be doing it will get workman's comp at least. If you're supposed to get a box off of a high shelf and you climb on it like a monkey, fall, and break your leg then you screwed up by not doing what you were supposed to do.
Hospitals provide emergency care and can bill the patient if they have health insurance, in some cases they can't bill the patient(for example illegal immigrants) and as such the hospital uses money that it later tells the government it spent and is compensated for it usually. Also, we learned in our EMT class that the main reason why people don't wish to call an ambulance is because they were either doing something illegal or incorrectly think that it will cost them to get emergency care.
If all of these things [tax increases] were passed, guess who would still pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary? Hint: his initials are WB, and he lives in Omaha, Nebraska.
As the author notes, if you want to increase the rate millionaires pay, hit them with the AMT.
Interestingly, Buffett doesn't pay a rate close to the AMT. The only way he can do so is through careful selection of investments and donations (he probably has a full-time accountant/attorney who manages his fortune). If he's so concerned about paying a low tax rate, why does he structure his personal income in a way that he avoids so much tax?
biccat wrote:Referring back to the "Buffett Rule": Oops.
If all of these things [tax increases] were passed, guess who would still pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary? Hint: his initials are WB, and he lives in Omaha, Nebraska.
As the author notes, if you want to increase the rate millionaires pay, hit them with the AMT.
Interestingly, Buffett doesn't pay a rate close to the AMT. The only way he can do so is through careful selection of investments and donations (he probably has a full-time accountant/attorney who manages his fortune). If he's so concerned about paying a low tax rate, why does he structure his personal income in a way that he avoids so much tax?
According to his own words, he doesn't actually have his own accountant to manage his taxes. Dunno if that's true, but he did say such in an interview.
Frazzled wrote:It means you've talked on the internet to anonymous posters who may or may not even be human.
Right. As we all know, Frazzled for example is a sentient wiener dog.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:According to his own words, he doesn't actually have his own accountant to manage his taxes. Dunno if that's true, but he did say such in an interview.
Frazzled wrote:It means you've talked on the internet to anonymous posters who may or may not even be human.
Right. As we all know, Frazzled for example is a sentient wiener dog.
True, Frazzled is a sentient wiener dog, but he's a kind and slightly angry wiener dog.
halonachos wrote:I don't press send, I press "submit".
Other nations also have salary caps for executives and proportional earnings based off of what others in the company make. A dishwasher makes x percent of what the executive makes for example.
I don't think any country has any regulation tying executive remuneration to base level employee salary. It's a nice idea, but it'd be impossible to maintain and lead to all kinds of unintended market impacts. Studies do look at the difference between the two, and find some countries are better than others, and that almost everyone is getting
None of which has anything to do with social mobility, and how your relatively little progressive taxation might impact it.
Hospitals provide emergency care and can bill the patient if they have health insurance, in some cases they can't bill the patient(for example illegal immigrants)
A hospital is just as free to bill an illegal immigrant as they are any other patient. The fact that an illegal immigrant has no money means the hospital rarely gets anything from them, like most other poor people.
Which is just one of the things that has me so puzzled about the reaction to expanding healthcare to cover more people - they receive emergency care now (the most expensive way of getting treatment) and while they're billed for it, most people don't have tens or hundreds of thousands in equity readily available, so they'll likely go through very expensive bankruptcy proceedings, which will give the hospital very little of it's money back. Meaning the cost still falls on the regular taxpayer, and probably a lot more than if poor people could just see a doctor for their illness before it was life threatening.
So if you're already paying, why not just pay for treatment when it's cheaper, and when it doesn't end up putting the sick person in severe financial hardship?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:So you're saying that Republicans don't know what Communism is?
I would go so far as to say most people don't know what communism is. It's weird, but communism just seems like one of those things that everyone wants to have an opinion on, but that hardly anybody feels like they should actually learn anything about it first.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/22 00:42:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Emergency care isn't always the most expensive, especially when you have overdose or inadvertent reactions to drug use is unpreventable through hospital means.
Now why don't I want to pay for more care, well I kind of do, its called Medicare and Medicaid and more people need to start using it.
Now with the country's that relate incomes, I think Switzerland does. I'm trying to figure out what the policy is called and trying to find out if others do it.
Denmark has a pay-limit scheme, but I don't think that's it. It was a chart in an old book I had that described pay incomes in relation to each other where the lowest paid employee was paid a percentage of what the highest paid employee was. Also, America once had a salary cap for CEO's and that was during the second world war IIRC. I don't mind seeing a salary cap on CEOs of companies that are under government aid, in fact Congress is mulling it over although that probably won't happen because most of the politicians we have are corrupt pricks who need to leave office to make way for fresh blood.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/22 02:01:11
