Summations Only

...Because 10% of a million dollars is still $100,000, which is still a lot of money, more by far than I make in an entire year.I get to keep about 75% (as I recall, I'd have to look up my tax return to be precise) of my ~$65,000 annually (just state/federal taxes), so I get to keep around $48,000.So if I could invest a million dollars, I'd still get to keep about double what I take home right now.In short, "Yes, please."A person can only reasonably spend so much money. You can only buy so many houses and cars, hire so many maids, have so much jewelry. You only need to eat so much food. There are only 24 hours in a day in which to find ways to spend more money. The utility of money scales down even as the ability for money to make more money scales up. There is a reason that the wealthiest 5% will not spend nearly the percentage of their wealth that the bottom 5% will, and that is that the bottom 5% need every single penny of what they have just to get by, and the top 5% do not.I don;t necessarily advocate a 90% tax rate for those making a million dollars or more per year. Personally, I think it would make more sense to address some bits of the tax code that were clearly written before such incomes were nearly so common - like the fact that social security tax stops after around $300,000 of income (so a person making ten million dollars per year will pay the exact same dollar amount in social security taxes as a person making $400,000, which seems rather off), or the fact that the progressive tax brackets just stop at a little over $380,000 (a person making ten million dollars per year will pay the same percentage of tax as a person making $400,000).I think we should simply continue the scale of progressive tax rates; don't change anything for those making $400,000, but maybe the guy making $750,000 should pay 40% instead of 35%, and maybe the guy making ten million per year should pay 60% instead of 35%.The rationale behind progressive tax brackets, after all, is that those blessed with greater income can better afford to have higher tax rates; 10% taken from a man who earns $30,000 means far more for him than does even 50% taken from a man who earns ten million dollars. And the wealthiest are also those who most benefit from living in this country - the more wealthy you are, the more you owe the other citizens, both those living and those who came before and created the system you were able to take advantage of.I'd also like to see massive increases to inheritance taxes, possibly even caps on the amount that can be inherited:

quote:

---

"What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class." - Alexis de Tocqueville, French writer (1805-1859)

---

The "idle rich," the "trust fund kids," and the super-wealthy dynasties living on the fortunes of their forbears who produce nothing of value on their own should be a thing of the past.

We do?

He really is John Galt.Wouldn't want to work for him.

Do you work for a living, Percy?If I lose my job, or my salary decreases (hint - both of those have happened to me in the past when the company I worked for did poorly), my wealth does decrease.I live paycheck to paycheck. I have only very recently (within the last ~3 years) been able to afford making even a small contribution to my retirement.If my company does poorly, I lose benefits and salary, and eventually can be laid off, at which point I start using my accumulated wealth (what little there is) just to survive to find another job...until it runs out, and then I'm homeless.Yet curiously you suggest that the worker carries none of the risk in a company, unless that worker buys stock. If a worker buys stock, then magically that worker is now entitled to a share of the profits of that company, where simply performing his job was not good enough, even if he was exceedingly good at his job and made or saved his company millions of dollars.Blood, sweat, and tears don;t matter. Neglecting your family to work more uncompensated overtime doesn't matter. How much you make or save the company doesn't matter. According you you, Percy, the worker is nothing more than a cog in the machine, a dog who deserves a little pat on the head and nothing more.Without the workers, there is no corporation. The management and the owners are not the foundation of the business - the employees are. The engineers who create new designs, the marketers who sell the product, the laborers who work the factories and construction sites, and the support workers who let everyone else do their jobs efficiently.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John RogersI'm well aware of how the world actually works, Percy. I'm perfectly aware of my own position as a disposable resource. And, of course, the lack of loyalty companies show to me is why I feel no outstanding loyalty to them. The only way I can ever move up the ladder or get a meaningful raise (even enough to keep up with my healthcare costs!) is to jump ship and seek other employment...which is exactly what I do, around every three years or so.It occurs to me that if I were in management, I would do more to try to retain my employees so that I wouldn't need to spend massive amounts of wasted money finding, hiring, and training replacement workers. Instead, I would want to keep my workers at real market wages commensurate with their current experience and value, instead of losing them continually to my competitor who will actually pay them what they're worth, at least at first. I would give bonuses for good ideas that make or save the company money, and I wouldn't play asinine games like increasing salary but also increasing the cost of benefits by even more.Then I might actually be motivated, and might spend more time working at my current job, instead of hunting for new jobs and posting on web forums.After all...as you've said, my productivity doesn't matter. Whether I produce a little or a lot, I see none of it. I don't get raises or bonuses. I'm paid little enough that I only own a piddly, tiny amount of stock. My company regularly increases profits by 10% or more every year, even during the recent crisis...and after my low-raise-huge-healthcare-increase, I make less money, every year.So now I'll find another job making 150% or more of my current salary, because that's how much my skills are actually worth in the marketplace, and there's no way my employer will make my salary competitive to keep me. Businesses, Percy, should also objectively look at the way the world actually is. If you treat your employees like disposable resources, they'll be less productive, and eventually they'll quit, and find an employer who will pay them what they're worth. And then the employer has to find and train a replacement, which will cost tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes, they even have to pay the replacement the market salary that they refused to pay their previous employee!

I understand it quite well. Businesses, on the whole, are short-sighted, concerned with the profits of this year and this quarter at the expense of next year or five years from now. It's as simple as that - they're penny-wise and pound-foolish. That depends on your industry and location, and unfortunately, whether you currently have a job. The job market in California for IT Systems Administrators with the right skills is very good, if you currently have a job. If you're unemployed...well, good luck. I have no idea about other industries or areas. And that's a rough spot to be in. It sounds like you could use a union.But I'd wager your employers wouldn't like that very much. Hell, with what you've said so far in this thread, I wonder if you even support unions. Worker conditions don;t improve on their own, you know. See, that's interesting. I don't just get mad...I get my resume updated. And if I'm having trouble distinguishing myself, I look at what skill sets I can expand into that would make me more marketable, and then I start looking for new jobs again.I don't screw over my previous employers, even when I feel like I;ve been getting screwed over myself. I even always ask my manager if he/she can match what I;m being offered elsewhere. They've always said no, of course. That may be related to the fact that, most of the time when I'm switching jobs, it's for a salary increase of 30% or more...and employers don't want to pay you what you're worth unless you're a new hire, because managers are never allowed to budget for a 30% pay increase for an existing employee. I'm getting multiple recruiter calls daily, believe me I'm looking. Now if only I'd get more calls for opportunities in the right area...(we're trying to move to a different city, and most of the recruiters are calling for jobs in the city I already live in)