Washington Post Special Report: Breakaway Wealth

Sorry, the thread is moving fast. That was in reply to this:

 

90 percent tax on incomes above $5 million.

As late as 1963, the top income tax rate was 91 percent, and as late as 1980 it was 70 percent. I have to believe this became a factor in the boardroom, when there was little personal gain for someone to maximize every last dollar of income potential.

 

Thank you for not answering my question. My question is how you make the leap that to keep an American company alive, the CEO must make $10 million to $50 million a year.

 

Apple sells at low margins? You'd be more persuasive if you weren't quite so blatant about insulting our intelligence.

 

Right, and an extra $50.00 per shoe would do what to their sales?

And, if their sales dropped, how many jobs would be lost as a result?

And, who's going to make sneakers for $10.00 an hour?

 

Yes, I would, if there was trade protection. I know, dirty word. But fair trade, not free trade, would help the U.S. a lot more than the shitstorm that's happened for the last 30 years.

 

Granted, Apple has better margins than a lot of other companies.

But, they're in a competitive environment. They can't just raise prices without consequences.

If they were manufacturing here, what would happen to their business model?

 

They'd have a lot more Americans with money to buy their products.

 

The company I work for filed Chapter 11 in late 2009.

It hasn't given employee raises in more than three years.

Yet, buried in the financials filed with the bankruptcy petition - if you knew where to look - was a nice little nugget showing the company CEO still got a huge bonus.

For running the company into Chapter 11.

That's the kind of thing that upsets regular folks. Why are we rewarding failure?

 

Yeah, forcing people to fork 90 percent of the income over to the Feds will raise the salaries of the working man...

 

Again, since you've ignored my question twice previously: And the top executives at Apple making the kind of money that would make LeBron James blush, this is necessary for keeping production costs down how?

 

People would pay $200, because they'd be making higher wages. More jobs, more demand for workers. Workers can demand higher wages. Instead of making mininmum wage at McDonalds, they'd be making twice as much in a factory.

One town that I lived in made shoes, and paid $7-8 an hour, in a low-income, low cost-of-living area in the 1990s. It was still considered, despite the low pay, a decent place to work because they offered benefits, and the wage wasn't considered half-bad.

They still shut down, and the jobs went overseas.

So yeah, people would still make $10 an hour to make shoes.