Constructive gadfly
Published on December 24, 2009 By stevendedalus In Politics

Stockholders are apathetic in permitting huge salaries, bonuses and perks to company executives. The only way to combat these nonsensical obscenities is for the government to tax the wealthy at the old FDR, Truman, Eisenhower 90+% rate coupled with tax credits for worthy domestic investments.


Comments
on Dec 26, 2009

Problem with those 90% rates - no one paid them.   But tax shelters got rich quick!

Stupid people dont get rich.  But stupid people pay taxes.

on Dec 28, 2009

I'm curious, whether I'm rich or poor, why does anyone need to care about how much wages or bonuses I get with the company I work for? I can understand companies giving what some would consider outrageous bonuses when they A) are going bankrupt, B ) took money from the Gov't to stay afloat and C) are giving bonuses to the same idiots who messed everything up in the first place. With that said, why does every other company who is not A) going bankrupt, B ) taking money from the Gov't and C) giving money to idiots who messed everything up in the first place, have to be restricted at all? Last I checked the money the give as bonuses and raises or salaries is their money and they should be able to do as they please with it. Or am I understanding this wrong?

on Dec 29, 2009

But tax shelters got rich quick!
The irony is that when the rate came down tax shelters grew tenfold and didn't matter what the purpose was. Still there's nothing wrong shelters for retirement and future education costs.

"Or am I understanding this wrong?" There's a limit to free wheeling capital. It would be nice to have some priorities. 

 

on Dec 29, 2009

The irony is that when the rate came down tax shelters grew tenfold and didn't matter what the purpose was. Still there's nothing wrong shelters for retirement and future education costs.

Actaully no.  YOu are referring to productive shelters - like retirement.  Not stupid ones - Like boxcar buys.  The reduction in the tax rates was a contributing factor in the S&L collapse (the first real estate bust).

on Dec 30, 2009

How would a 90% tax make stockholders more interested in the salaries paid to the managers of the company they own? If anything it'd do the opposite - they'd need far more shares for the savings achieved by keeping a closer eye on the salaries to be worth the effort with a 90% tax than without it, meaning the problem would actually be worse, before you even consider the standard negative impacts of a 90% tax

on Jan 05, 2010

How do you account for the most productive years in the fifties? Besides as doc implied hardly anyone paid this marginal rate; it encouraged greater endowments, charities, reinvestment, wages and salaries.