ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Uhh-h, nice try but the burden of proof is on you to show how executives do NOT earn their pay.
The amount of fraud conducted in corporate offices should suffice. If that doesn't work, the fact banking an insurance executives whose companies lost billions in the last 2 years should put an end to that.
Of course, you deflected, foggy. The claim that liberals oppose hard work is still completely unsubstantiated and is dismissed until you guys can come up with a good reason for anybody to believe it. You won't be able to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fogbuster
Should Brady work for $50,000 a year -- as his counterparts did 50 years ago -- when he can get $15,000,000 today???
Thanks in large part to his union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fogbuster
Don't let jealousy and envy spoil your day.
Nice evasion. Haven't you guys learned how to avoid at least the simplest errors in reasoning yet?
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
The amount of fraud conducted in corporate offices should suffice. If that doesn't work, the fact banking an insurance executives whose companies lost billions in the last 2 years should put an end to that.
Of course, you deflected, foggy. The claim that liberals oppose hard work is still completely unsubstantiated and is dismissed until you guys can come up with a good reason for anybody to believe it. You won't be able to.
You'll have to prove your claim of all the "fraud" you say is conducted. Be specific if you want to be taken seriously. Barring that, your entire post is meaningless, nothing but hot air.
//
__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."
You'll have to prove your claim of all the "fraud" you say is conducted. Be specific if you want to be taken seriously. Barring that, your entire post is meaningless, nothing but hot air.
The logic breaks down when you reach the conclusion that some rich executive that's driven to work on Christmas eve or a couple of hours after he wakes up from major surgery will lose all motivation if he has to face a 2% increase in the Capital gains tax. What's most likely is that he'll be motivated to find a way around the tax.
Was Andrew Carnegie stopped by taxes? Unlikely. Lets also make note of the fact that taxes on the rich back then were quite a bit higher. I'd say he got bored with adding yet one more zero to the end of his bank balance. Now did taxes lead to Carnegie distributing his wealth? I'd say almost certainly; but out of that society got Carnegie Hall and Carnegie Mellon University. Not exactly a bad bargain considering the fact that Carnegie's descendants are all still loaded.
Carnegie earned his wealth before there was a federal income tax, he died 3 years after the 16th admendment was passed.
Thanks for the liberal analysis....
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Carnegie earned his wealth before there was a federal income tax, he died 3 years after the 16th admendment was passed.
Thanks for the liberal analysis....
The interesting thing is that according to Infoplease, Carnegie was worth $4.3 billion in today's dollars. The advent of the income tax, which put more money into people's pockets and developed our infrastructure, has led to far, far greater wealth. We could of course return to the old days without income tax, when the poor were slaves, indentured servants, or strikers being murdered by Pinkerton's and National Guardsmen, and the wealthier were far fewer and far between, but I don't think that's a good idea. The income tax has allowed our nation to develop at an impressive pace, and many people have benefited from it, and not just the poor, but the people that many conservatives care about too, such as insurance company investors, Wall Street brokers, those whose family wealth is based on their old slaveholdings, etc.
Is it all about money to you (becoming "rich)? If so that's our basic disagreement. Money is nice, but it's by no means the main reward. I know rich people and I know poor people, and their economic status has absolutely no relationship to their happiness.
I always figured you were a bit wealthy ... the Cambridge thing ...
Just kidding ... I know you are a sharer.
The interesting thing is that according to Infoplease, Carnegie was worth $4.3 billion in today's dollars. The advent of the income tax, which put more money into people's pockets and developed our infrastructure, has led to far, far greater wealth. We could of course return to the old days without income tax, when the poor were slaves, indentured servants, or strikers being murdered by Pinkerton's and National Guardsmen, and the wealthier were far fewer and far between, but I don't think that's a good idea. The income tax has allowed our nation to develop at an impressive pace, and many people have benefited from it, and not just the poor, but the people that many conservatives care about too, such as insurance company investors, Wall Street brokers, those whose family wealth is based on their old slaveholdings, etc.
Government coercing money from people has retarded economic development not encouraged it. IMO The economy hs grown due to technological development not due to government.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
IMO The economy has grown due to technological development not due to government.
The nation had many growth spurts, the technology boom was just one of them. The data seems to show that regardless of the economic principles in play at the time, our nation has had fairly steady growth.
Whoopy, a couple of internet "reports" that single out a mere handful of execs out of ... how many are there in America??? 200,000?? 500,000?? A million?? A few rotten eggs does not an entire hen house make.
Fail.
//
__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."
Re: Who are the rich exectives?
Linear Mode
