Nah, it’s government interference…
Do you actually not think corportations lobby the government for favorable bills?
Whatever favorable treatment they get, if they even get it, pales in comparison to the cost of doing business in the United States from just a federal regulatory perspective. Add in state and local regulatory costs and it’s amazing we even have an economy.
Of course they do, as they should. Lobbying isn’t wrong, despite what your college professors told you.
1 Like
Lol, no kidding. It’s just a cost of doing business here. Plus this whole line of thought is just absurd anyway. Lobbyists have spent less than $30B over the past 14 years while Federal regulations cost the economy $2T annually.
Just sucking the life out of businesses.
1 Like
It isnt inherently wrong. But when you have oil companies lobbying against climate change…as an example that is wrong
I’m sure Aero is for unions, which lobby against businesses, but that’s irrelevant I’m sure.
I don’t understand this line of thinking at all. Do people think their elected officials are experts in every segment of society and can write legislation without input from lobbyist groups?
Who exactly is wrong here?
Ya, lol. If you call your Congressman you’re literally lobbying for whatever it is you want. When businesses do it, it’s bad… Does not compute.
2 Likes
How many of our tax dollars were wasted on Sylandra? You cool with that?
Jesus, if you are saying climate change doesn’t exist and you think lobbying in favor of industries which block innovation in these fields, then we aren’t talking anymore. I’m not going to waste my time with someone who is willfully ignorant. Good luck man, don’t buy property in the South East.
Im not familiar with Sylandria. I also support nuclear and solar over wind.
Holy mental gymnastics, batman! Please tell me where I said that.
This made me laugh, way too hard.
I doubt that.
1 Like
Then you’re sadly mistaken. ExxonMobil for instance has produced research in a LOT of areas including innovation and clean power. It’s not a fact that is popular with many on the Left, but it is a fact. In fact, Exxon has given more money to university reaearch in geology and other associated environment heavy fields than any other single entity except federal dollars. Which, incidentally, often produces research that would go against their lobbying interests.
Look–Exxon isn’t a good company. Or an evil company. They’re a company. You need to check your facts about “blocking innovation”.
4 Likes
I have plenty of issues with how lobbying is set up to work here in the US. However, you can’t draw an arbitrary line on random things that you can lobby for or against based on the fact that you like or dislike them, otherwise that is essentially just personal opinion passed as law. And, as we all know, that would mean that it changes based on who is in power at any given moment and what ther personal opinion ona topic was. Lines on lobbying should be made with something else as a basis.
4 Likes
Before we get started, I haven’t talked all the way through this in my own head to figure out all of the pros and cons. Just spitballing as we go.
At the most basic common-sense one-variable-at-a-time level, IMO, this tax makes sense from the following perspective: it would discourage (not prevent) a boardroom of evil high-earning corporate execs from giving themselves a gigantic pay increase every year while retaining a staff of minimum-wage-labor that runs most of their company. If the company is doing really well and the CEO wants to give himself a big pay boost for the next year, he can’t do that unless the underlings at the bottom of the company also get a boost as well [actually, since this is based on the “median” salary, you could retain a staff of minimum-wage underlings at the bottom of the pyramid, as long as enough of the middle managers all get an increase].
Yes, usmc, I see you over there pointing out that in very large corporations the CEO’s pay divided amongst all of the remaining employees would work out to very little. I understand that; I don’t think the point is just that execs should distribute their pay to everyone else one cent at a time. I think the point is to discourage CEO’s that want to give themselves a fat pay raise from doing so without making sure their employees are also taken care of. I’m sure there are varying opinions here, but I would be at least somewhat nonplussed to learn that my company’s top executives received a 200% pay increase in any given year while the underlings received a pay raise ranging from 1.5-3.5% per year. Your opinions may vary
Which brings us back to Skyzyk’s question: how will the tax actually help? Will CEO’s actually decide that they need to adjust all of their company salary structure to make sure that the CEO cannot take home more than 100 times their employees’ median salary? Or, instead of actually seeing that money redistributed to the common man working in the company cafeteria / janitorial staff / IT department and so on, will this just become tax revenue for the city? As you’re implying, this only “redistributes” the wealth to the underlings if the CEO’s follow the former path, not the latter.
Like I said - that does not nearly address all of the issues with this proposal, and I haven’t really given the whole thing enough thought to consider all of the side effects. Just sorta thinking out loud.
So you’re denying facts?
And calling others insignificant assholes.
lmao
1 Like
Not even remotely close to true, in any real sense unless you’re talking about the Fed/Congress connection. And even then, people are creative and will work around it.
You have zero real world experience, and obvious leftist indoctrination, no doubt from “college”.
This is 100% false as well. No matter how much interference from regulation, or degree of central planning, the market runs it’s course and there are winners and losers. If this basic fact wasn’t true, the USSR would be the dominate world powerhouse, Cuba would have flourish and Venezuela wouldn’t be the current shithole it is.
Seriously, read something that isn’t leftist propaganda. I’d start with an Econ 101 text book.
Yeah, it’s called not spending your money with companies you don’t like. Or, starting your own that competes with that company and beats it because your ideas are superior.
hmmm… Let’s see.
Fax Machines
Personal Computers
Email
Automation
Globalization
Also, increases in health insurance, payroll taxes, PTO, flex time, auto allowances, and the whole host of other “non-cash” increases to compensation packages…
But you’ll ignore all this.
“implies” =/= fact.
Jesus Christ
No, but you prove you can ignore the reasons for the numbers.
Stop projecting.
My ego has nothing to do with it. My education and real world experience in this field actually shows me where the numbers come from. But, please tell me I’m wrong some more, and I’ll tell you how to code. Deal?
5 Likes
I did read the article. None of it disputes my point. All segments of the population got richer. It’s just that some got richer faster than others. That means no one lost ground unless you think the only point of wealth is to have more than somebody else. If the point of wealth is to have enough to have the things that you need and take care of the people that you love, then everyone is gaining ground.
And this bears repeating, because it is so antithetical to the message that the occupy Wallstreet types like to push. Everyone is getting richer. The lower class is better off than 40 years ago.
4 Likes