Ruminations - 17feb2008

George Rebane

In The Union a gentleman commenting on Jeff Ackerman’s 12feb08 column 'We need to hang together, or just plain hang' posted the following remarks.

Let's Cut Back on Spending, by Corps, in the Form of Dividends
Now there where there might be some real savings. If the corporations weren't pumping out all the excess profits as dividends, it might be easier to say, "hey, that's unreasonable, and ought to be taxed." Corporations buy themselves all kinds of perks by paying dividends, including hiding where the money is going.

It's funny that 50% of teachers quit within 5 years, but CEO's don't step down until asked. Do you suppose the high wages might be a motivator for staying on? That excuse is used to justify paying thm high wages in the first place when they are hired. The rest of the world is never motivated by high wages, just the CEO's. Why if you paid those teachers who a quitting, a million dollars a year, they'd still walk off the job.
by Keachie on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:42:27 PST

This worthy is an example of America’s “dumbth” (as characterized by the late Steve Allen) by an individual who most likely takes his wisdom regularly into the voting booth.  He can identify the level at which profits become “excessive”; he doesn’t know that dividends are already taxed; he thinks corporate “perks” come out of paying dividends to shareholders; and then figures that corporate earnings can be hidden through the declared and recorded payment of dividends.

A further peek into his curious store of knowledge reveals that only corporate CEOs are motivated by high wages.  And alas, he then goes merrily sailing off the cliff of reason in a jumble of words attempting to characterize the financial behavior of teachers.  The unhailed benefits of a pluralistic democracy, oh my.

Lawyers Embrace U.S. Climate Practice at $700 an Hour - First create a swamp, then force everyone to wade through it, and finally, count the leaches that cover the bodies of those who are able climb out on the other side – not all will have enough blood left to make it.

Comments

[George Rebane]

Email from a correspondent in NZ re the 'Lawyers Embrace ...' -

"Open notice to China. Train lawyers, not engineers, and send them to America. Cc to India with note to also improve language skills before sending any Indians over."

[Mike McD]

George, thanks for pointing out the faults of an individual void of reason. So often I shake my head at the leaps taken by opinion writers when they attempt to make a broken argument whole (in this case "hang together..") his argument probably sounded better before the his buzz wore off; most likely in the "munchies" stage.

[Douglas Keachie]

Here's a newer idea. Figure out what it costs to be an individual in a given area, who has adequate housing, a means of transit to and from a job, food via groceries 13 out of 14 days, healthcare, and some more for clothing. Now add 10% for savings or whatever.

Once that number is established, figure out what having one's potential working hours tied up for 40 hours a week generates in terms of income at the employer's chosen rate. Whatever the differential is, if it is negative to the employee, the difference is paid to the government ahead of paying anything to the shareholders. Otherwise the corporation involved is sucking taxpayers other than themselves for the services that the workerbee citizen will get one way or the other.

Do You Support Corporate Welfare Chiseling? Anytime an employee requires welfare, and that employee is tied to working at sub-subsistence wages, the Corporation is part and parcel of causing other tax payers to pick up the slack. Walmart even published guides for their employees on the in's and out's of screwing the government, rather than pay a living wage.

I can't believe that you are such a jerk as to leave out the "'t" in can in your own blog, and none of your readers caught it. In case you did mean for me to figure out "excessive profits," I just gave you a much simpler system. Identify the costs of the employee that the corporation is trying to foist off onto the taxpaying public to boost its bottom line.

[He can identify the level at which profits become “excessive”; he doesn’t know that dividends are already taxed; he thinks corporate “perks” come out of paying dividends to shareholders; and then figures that corporate earnings can be hidden through the declared and recorded payment of dividends.]

Dumbth my arse!

The point about dividends is that coporations always make a big deal about how little money would be saved if all their exec's were $1/year men, when in fact the real money goes out the door as dividends. yes, I have always been fully aware of all the inter-connections you list.

Good Luck in November, you'll need it.

and locally, vote Charlie Brown!

BTW, if the corporate heads are shareholders, then, in a sense,

"he thinks corporate “perks” come out of paying dividends to shareholders"

they do. But in generally they are written into the contract between the corp and the CEO, CIO, or whomever. What on earth caused you to read your version about perks into the information I posted?

[Douglas Keachie]

Go Rebane, censor what you can't take?