quote: do you seriously believe the Republican party, at least in its current form, doesn't actively operate to protect the interests of the rich and cater to the prejudices and fears of the Religious Right?
That's like asking somebody if they have stopped beating beating their wife. There's no good way to answer it.
posted
bev, there is a generally accepted (from all sides) concept known as the Laffer Curve. This curve is an abstract description of the effect of tax income vs. tax rate. The theory is that depending where you are on the Laffer Curve, you could actually GAIN more in tax revenue if you cut taxes, all other things being equal. At some point however, you can get to the apex of the curve, where cutting taxes nets less revenue. These ideas can be seen by looking at the extremes of the LC; if the tax rate is 100%, people wiill flee or hide their money, or stop gaining income to move into the 100% bracket, since it won't actually help them. If the tax rate is 0%, obviously no money is collected, period.
This has been a favorite concept to trot out when trying to enact tax cuts.
Now in reality, no one knows where the "sweet spot" of the LC is at any given time. Those "other things being equal" do not stay equal for long, causing the highest efficiency rate to move. Often you aren't able to tell if the tax cuts effected some positive economic change, or it was, say, increased defense spending by the govt.
I think a simplified tax code would be beneficial to all, but financial planners... I think getting rid of some of these loopholes COULD hurt some wealthy people, causing a cascading effect that affects poorer people, at least in the short-term. However, I think that eventually, except in exceptional circumstances, those people will distribute themselves to other work, and the wealthy person will find ways to stay wealthy (if they were wealthy solely due to a couple tax loopholes, then, IMO, they didn't deserve to be wealthy). The markets, and people, are much more resilient than many theorists factor. We used to have 90% tax rates in America (yes, during the 30s/40s) and somehow the economy and the country muddled through. Now, I don't recommend going back to those rates, but I don't feel like taxes ought to be flat, or low across the board. And there are good times to keep taxes around, like when the state of MA repealed 3-4 separate taxes/tolls in 2000, in part because of the feeling that the Roaring 90s would continue into the far future. Funny, an economic downturn a couple years later, and the state is in the red hundreds of millions of dollars.
I think another side effect of our byzantine tax code is that the very wealthy can jump from loophole to loophole, because there are lots of little ways to hide money from tax collectors. Shut down most of them, and they'll have no place to hide (except off-shore, but then any sort of claim of patriotism goes out the window, since most off-shore tax shelters are in countries whose peoples are rather poor, so it's not like those countries have exemplary economic policies either).
-- As for your Democrat/liberals believe that Republicans are trying to remove taxes on the rich, I'd have to say that is being unfair to that side. In fact, I'd say that you'd be no different than Lalo in that regard. First, many Democrats don't believe that, and many Liberals don't; further, one could be a Dem without being Liberal, and vice versa. I think that Republicans who champion tax cuts all the time are a vocal minority that appeal to others who aren't as rabid about the idea, and that they believe there are good reasons to drop the tax rate as often as possible (LC efficiency, belief that a free market can do a better job than the govt. at some all things that the govt. does, etc.)
I don't buy it. Life is too short for me to try and work the system, in order to give money to more efficient non-profits to help feed the hungry, house the poor, especially in far off places. If I were to find one as far-reatching as the US govt., odds are it'd be as costly as paying my taxes, and in the case of the govt., I can help vote out the one's in charge if they are mismanaging things.
quote: Beverly, do you seriously believe the Republican party, at least in its current form, doesn't actively operate to protect the interests of the rich and cater to the prejudices and fears of the Religious Right? I can see a weak free-market justification for voting Republican in response to social programs proposed by Democrats, but given how prone the Republican government has been to bailing out big industries, driving the country into impossible debt, slapping the wrists of corporate criminals (though to be fair on this one, just because Bush refuses to publically admonish them without a nod and wink [if that?] doesn't mean others in the government aren't trying to prosecute them for their crimes), and doing the occasional protectionist demonstration, I really can't see any self-respecting free market proponents allowing themselves to register Republican, much less vote that way.
Sounds every bit as paranoid as me saying that those horrid Left Liberals are out to destroy family values and religious freedom. But I wouldn't say that.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, you wouldn't say it, out of politeness, at the very least, but do you in some way BELIEVE it (this is putting you on the spot, feel freel to refrain from answering it altogether )?
I'm interested, because lots of people across the political spectrum (include myself at times I'm sure) use some form of this statement to deflect the argument, yet if it's true, in some way, then isn't it valid to bring up.
posted
Sorry, Bok, for lumping them together like that. I just get tired of hearing it.
It is clear to me that you know far more about how taxes work than I do. That is one of the reasons why I refrain from having strong opinions on politics and the like. I just don't know enough.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, Bok, to answer your specific question, I disagree with some of the values that seem to be commonly held by Liberals. And I have no problem with those who are Liberal disagreeing with some of the values held by the Conservatives. I am not sure where I fall on the spectrum or exactly what I believe. But when I hear such sweeping accusations, I just go Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Oh, and while I've tried to make clear where my opinion was interjected in the above tax talk, I may miss stuff, even subconciously. So don't take my word on it And don't use ignorance as an excuse to learn; wading into a conversation like this is often the best way. I've found this particularly true for myself here at Hatrack.
I give my answer to the same question: I feel extreme exasperation at many conservatives, particularly over their persecution complex. I feel that a lot of little issues (like pledge of allegiance, God on our currency) get blown out of proportion because there is this idea that seems to imply that omission equals denunciation, when, to me, I feel that it's clearly NOT the case. The more license you give or create (gay marriage, adoption, even abortion, though less so) means you can still refrain from exercising it. I see the govt. of necessarily having to cater to everyone, and the healthiest way is to increase options, rather than restrict it.
quote:As for your Democrat/liberals believe that Republicans are trying to remove taxes on the rich, I'd have to say that is being unfair to that side. In fact, I'd say that you'd be no different than Lalo in that regard.
posted
Bok, I think I can understand why people feel as you have stated there. I hope, though, that they also understand how the opposite side feels on those same issues. (Even if you strongly disagree.)
posted
The link fil gave is accurate enough, even if it doesn't always fill in the blanks lying between the big differences. It is a pretty well-known fact among the higher tax brackets that the higher the fiscal value, the more tax break opportunities are available. Those who don't take advantage of those tax break opportunities either require huge income to make up for the cost of having so much, or they quickly decrease in value. This is noticable with some pop and rock stars who, when given huge amounts of cash, don't properly spread out their worth, and within ten years, they aren't worth very much economically (though are far from being broke, like some would have you believe). The more money you have, the more you have to manage it properly. Unfortunately, a lot of this managing is done in a manner to keep it out of taxable territory, which can easily be argued is not fair to those with less who have to pay more compared to their cost of living (not living well, just surviving).
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly,, bev, I really can't. It looks (rather feels) selfish to me. I feel that restrictions enforced from the governmental realm ought to be as rare as possible. I see extending privileges as still allowing people not to utilize them, whereas restricting something, even if it's been that way since the beginning of time, is restricting action with no inherent gain.
I can understand the gut feeling to be against something like same-sex marriage, but I don't let that excuse someone from acting on that gut feeling.
But I'm trying, every day, to learn a little more. One of the reasons I'm here at Hatrack.
Now, you may be right, but I think you have to pick and choose who and when you do so. Getting into virtual hysterics isn't more compelling.
This is all my opinion, so feel free to tell me to go take a flying f***.
Well, given that your opinion is one I respect, I'd be interested in hearing some examples of said demonization.
Or did you think it was virtual hysterics when I said the Republican party caters to the rich and the religious?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's cool. This probably isn't the thread to discuss each of those issues, but they will probably come up in the future (and I guess many of them already have.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, it's the broad brush strokes, to start.
Like mph said above, your statement about who the GOP represents is phrased in an intellectually abusive way. This is a regular occurrance. When you get folks like Dag constantly noting this, perhaps its time to keep the rhetoric in check.
Or maybe when you write something, think how the other side may criticize it, and amend it appropriately.
I dunno. Your posts just constantly exude anger, never any sort of constructiveness.
-Bok
EDIT: I'll note that I didn't always feel like you were this angry, but it does pre-date your age "revelation". I see what you type and _I_ know how others are going to react, and yet you never take a different tack.
posted
Well, fil's link supports my contention that it's social security/payroll taxes that contribute most to the disparity.
This makes intuitive sense. Employee share or payroll is 7.5% up to 82,000 or so, then zero. For the super rich, the percentage approaches zero because of all the income not subject to it.
For those making below the max for contribution, the y are paying 7.5% on almost all income. There are no deductions, although interest, dividends, and capital gains are exempt.
Sales tax in most states is below 5%, and is at most only on the post-tax portion of the income. Therefore it can't be as much as payroll taxes. Even allowing for consumer debt spending, over the long term the payroll taxes have a bigger impact.
Property taxes are deductible, which means there impact on post-tax income is less than their face value. Besides, the poorer the person, the less property to tax.
Dagonee Edit: I forgot the most important distinction - sales and property tax are somewhat within the taxpayer's control. Granted, you have to buy somethings to survive, but the only way to pay less payroll tax is to make less money or cheat.
posted
Take it as a compliment to you and an insult to me.
Though if the biggest complaint that can be made about me is that while I'm right, I come off as angry, I'll somehow learn to deal. Start complaining about my sex appeal next?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said you were right. You talk extremes, instead of nuane, and you yell it from the top of your articulate lungs. It's like a beautiful church organ being played by an over-eager 6-year-old. Those who sympathize with the kid will smile and admire the organ itself. Those that don't will complain about the awful din.
quote:But don't vote for people who will pass laws to take other people's money by Force.
[general rant]
The government creates an environment in which you can accrue wealth. While the actual dollars aren't theirs to begin with, whenever I hear anyone in the upper middle class or upper class complaining about high taxes I just go and immediately make a value judgment about that person's character. I suppose that makes me a bad person.
I just don't like to hear griping about taxes. Complaining about services you aren't getting is fine, but this whole notion that "the big bad government is out to steal my hard-earned money from me" is just ridiculous. Get over your fear of government already. The Revolution and Civil War were a looooooong time ago.
posted
twink, you're about to become very not popular
(and, of course, you know I completely agree with you. Taxes are the fee for living in your country. Get over it. )
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But he doesn't like people to complain about high taxes, which I think is every American's God-given right. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between complaining about paying taxes and complaining that you aren't getting the services the government promised you. But even if you aren't getting all of the services you should be getting as a result of your status as a citizen, you still get to live in a first-world country and enjoy the resulting amenities, and you also still get to live in an environment where wealth can be accrued. This is a direct result of the existence of your government and the taxes you pay to it.
Gripe about the services if you must, but not about the taxes. My attitude toward people who gripe about taxes is basically "suck it up." I'm 23. I've been paying my high Canadian taxes for four years and have yet to complain.
Of course, I'm a firm believer in strong centralized governments and public education, health care, and so forth. These things require high taxes; you folks south of us are far too paranoid about those, too.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. I glanced at the article fil linked to...
I'm somewhere inbetween on economics. I don't mind scaled up taxes and I'd prefer the poor to pay less taxes. I'd like to cut down corporate tax loopholes and super-rich tax loopholes.
But I can't stand estate tax. It bothers the hell out of me. And the article points out how lots of money can be gained from estate tax. But that's money that's been taxed several times over. I really believe that children deserve to inherit the money their parents die with. Not a small percentage after the government takes yet another chunk through taxation. But all of it. It's more important to me that everything gets taxed properly in the beginning, than this money gets "recirculated."
There should certainly be a reasonable cap for taxation of the super-rich. No matter how much money you make, I don't think you should be taxed 90%. That's absurd. Off the top of my head, I think anything more than 40% is unreasonable. But by the same token, I don't like all the manipulations that allow someone to end up only being taxed 10% of their million dollar salary.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm of a generally opposite feeling of the estate tax. I think the estate tax should take into account certain debt to value ratios, to address farmer concerns, and I believe a good portion should go to survivors.
BUT!
I think that so long as we have a (relatively) free market system, we should not reward children completely for what their parents did. You can easily end up with an "idle" class that never has to work (see: Hilton, Paris), and employs a few people to till the money inherited to increase it.
posted
The problem is that many, many small businesses need to be broken up. Someone who owns 4 convenience stores probably will be subject to estate tax when they die.
These types of businesses aren't going to make anyone idle and rich; but they do generate a hell of a lot of jobs. And the buyers usually end up being large corporations getting a deal because they're being sold under tax duress.
posted
That's a little more reasonable. There should be a good cutoff where one could argue was "extreme" amounts of money. But a few million doesn't fall under "extreme" for me. 50 million, or 100 million tax free could be extreme. I guess it's only on physical property, eh?
It just gets frustrating to realize how much money is taxed as it goes through the pipeline. Income tax, sales tax, property tax, estate tax. I wish they could just get it right the first time.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Gripe about the services if you must, but not about the taxes.
I don't gripe that taxes exist. I gripe that the governement uses my taxes to fund things that I think the government has no buisness doing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are things that everyone doesn't like our government spending their money on, and often it contradicts something someone else wants. So the best solution is often to come to a compromise (modify how the money is spent, and how much), rather than restricting everything.
posted
Dags, do you have any statistics on small businesses being broken up? It would seem to me many of them would be incorporated, and likely sold off prior to death unless the death came unexpectedly. Most people in their retirement years would probably rather the greater liquidity and care less about the involvement of managing a business for a yearly return, I would think.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't find any good stats. One site estimates that little less than one third of small businesses have to liquidate all or part of the business to account for the tax: NASE - Estate Tax (Note, not a disinterested source). Most others on this side of the issue quote something close. Most groups in favor of the estate tax don't quote the statistics by percentage of businesses affected, but rather by percent of deaths which affect a business (a very small number). To me this suggests that the real impact is small in actual numbers, but a large concern for a decent percentage of small business owners.
I know many small business owners (which includes farms, gas stations, convenience stores, small retail, small construction, and other services firms) want to leave their business, not just the profits from sale, to their children as a going concern. When I owned my business, it was something we had to constantly keep in mind. Had I stuck with it, I'd have to spend a good chunk each year planning for it.
Dagonee Edit: Incorporation doesn't effect this equation at all, by the way.
posted
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Bokonon about estate tax. In fact, I have suggested that (if it were workable) we'd be better off taking most or all of a person's estate in taxes than taxing income. Of course, it's not workable--there'd have to be even more loopholes, which people would use to hand over most of the money to their children before they died, and the government would get next to nothing. Besides, I know I hold an odd position on what people "deserve" to inherit; I don't think anyone has an inherent right to something just because their parents earned it, in the way I think each person has the right to his or her own earnings.
More broadly regarding taxation--basically, it comes down to my desire to keep the money I earned, which means that I understand why other people (even rich people) want to do the same. (No, it's not entirely rational.) Obviously, there must be some tax, but I'd prefer it to be as little as possible.
And while increasingly-centralized government may be inevitable, I cannot think of it as a good thing. Any power given to the government can, and eventually will, be abused. That's why our American ancestors were so careful to limit our government--but the powers they did give it have proven to be more than enough.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I give my answer to the same question: I feel extreme exasperation at many conservatives, particularly over their persecution complex. I feel that a lot of little issues (like pledge of allegiance, God on our currency) get blown out of proportion because there is this idea that seems to imply that omission equals denunciation, when, to me, I feel that it's clearly NOT the case.
I feel the same way about persecution statements in general. Not every liberal or Democrat (or both) who supports homosexual marriage, for instance, 'hates Christians' and is 'out to get the family'. If such a thing is true at all, it can only possibly be true of a tiny minority.
Of course, liberals have their persecution complexes, as well. Flags on fire trucks are a past news issue that occurrs to me. It was in California (shocking!) that some people were upset that American flags were being flown and painted on fire trucks shortly after 9-11. To me, someone offended by that is going way too far out of their way to be offended.
I could just as well stand to the side of a crowded hallway and stick my foot out in the walking area, and dare people to step on it, and then pick a fight when it (inevitably, and accidentally) happened. Incidentally, as a new convert, I have often cringed a bit when I hear people in my ward talk about the 'assault on the family', etc.
To be sure, the culture is changing and in many ways it's not a good change-to that particular way-of-life (social conservative). But 'change' does not equal 'attack', nor does resisting change equal attack.
quote:I think that so long as we have a (relatively) free market system, we should not reward children completely for what their parents did.
On the one hand, the 'idle rich' annoy me a great deal. I guess some of it is my own bias and transferrance of emotion, but it seems to me that 'they' are so smug. I guess it's because I feel they should be embarrassed at having so much without earning a wooden nickel of it. Paris Hilton is a good example. She's got a TV show, she's moderately famous, and for what? Being an exhibitionist who was blessed by fate with lots of money.
Of course, it wouldn't mean much (fame-wise) if there weren't millions of people who are the voyeur to her exhibitionist, and other such celebrities. Exhibit A: the E! Network.
So in that respect-and in the interest of working to keep the wealth more evenly distributed-I support higher estate taxes. I realize there are many social and economic benfits in doing so.
But on (another) emotional level, raising estate taxes deeply unsettle me. Why shouldn't parents be able to reward their children, even if the children have done nothing (to our mind) worthy of reward? For instance, if I want to give my kid a car for graduating college (if I ever have kids), I damn well want to do that and I don't wanna hear anything from anyone in the government about it-except for taxes on the purchase and insurance purposes. My money, my kid, my present.
So while I support estate taxes (higher ones) in the face of that concern, it's a narrow victory for the tax, so to speak.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The government creates an environment in which you can accrue wealth. While the actual dollars aren't theirs to begin with, whenever I hear anyone in the upper middle class or upper class complaining about high taxes I just go and immediately make a value judgment about that person's character. I suppose that makes me a bad person.
An American response (and my own) to that would be, "The people create the government." So saying that 'the government' creates the environment is true, but misleading when talking about this issue. We create and fund the government, we give it power, we vote for it to create the environment of which you speak.
That said, people who are very well-off complaining about high taxes are a bit irritating as well. But I feel the same way about someone who finds something to complain about even when things are good-for instance, the really attractive person who complains about being overweight.
quote:Get over your fear of government already. The Revolution and Civil War were a looooooong time ago.
But they-especially the Civil War-continue to have an enormous, universal impact on our government, society, and economy.
quote:But even if you aren't getting all of the services you should be getting as a result of your status as a citizen, you still get to live in a first-world country and enjoy the resulting amenities, and you also still get to live in an environment where wealth can be accrued. This is a direct result of the existence of your government and the taxes you pay to it.
I could just as well say the exact same thing about the government, in general and individually. In fact, I do say the same thing. Also, we don't 'get' to live in a first-world country. It was made and continues to be maintained by us. Granted, in the past there were people who have made much greater sacrifices and our current status owes more to them than to our own upkeep.
It's a fundamental difference in perspective. You say 'get' to live in a first-world country. Well, it didn't sprout from Zeus's head fully grown. It was made. And the government screws it up as often as it helps.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incorporation does affect it in that an incorporated business is likely to be easier to deal with as an entity rather than one still run under a sole proprietorship, in which case business properties can be much harder to separate from personal properties.
Also, the kids were one of the possible groups of people to sell to I was assuming were included.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, those statistics look highly suspect in their own context. Take a look at this quote:
quote:Due to this disturbing tax, one-third of all small business owners will have to either liquidate part of their business or sell outright to pay estate taxes. Only six out of ten family businesses get passed on to a second generation, and only one out of ten make it to the third generation.
That one third statistic looks suspiciously derived from the 6/10 statistic (which, being more measurable, is likely more correct).
Lets say the "six out of ten" is correct. Then the biggest reason by far businesses don't get passed on is estate taxes. But wait! Only one out of ten make it to the third generation, and if the previous assumption were so we could expect a third to a half (depending on how devastating the other reasons are) of small businesses to make it to the third generation.
I suggest that the reasons for small business liquidation and sale are likely less tied to the estate tax than they are trying to suggest here, and have more to do with:
Businesses not keeping up with changing economics, particularly in the local area. This includes things like neighborhoods changing. The generic corner grocer isn't going to compete with the major chain store a mile away if it keeps doing business the same way.
Families moving on to other things. A child who's spent his or her entire life in a successful small business (it reached the second generation) might be more interested in an MBA and corporate management.
Small businesses becoming big businesses. It definitely happens to some. Blockbuster never made it to a second generation for a simple reason: it was a major corporation within the first generation, though it did spend a while as a small business. This occurence will be rare, but its worth mentioning.
I'm certain there are several other things as well that just didn't spring to mind, but you can understand why I'm skeptical that the estate tax fells one third of businesses but the above reasons fell less than ten percent of businesses (any reasonable difference between about one third and four tenths is less than ten percent).
posted
Don't forget that all businesses are fighting time, as well as generation turnover. We have a business in my wifes family that went out of business after two generations because its market dried up. It was incorporated and didn't suffer because of inheritance taxes--just went out of business.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I said right up front there were no good statistics available on this. Very first line of the post.
Incorporation might make the legalities easier to handle. However, it does nothing to change the economics of the situation except to maybe save some money on legal and accounting fees.
The fact that some businesses fail for other reasons is no reason to accept a government-induced method of failure, whatever the extent of it might be.
Finally, I know anecdotally that this is a real issue that effects real businesses. I've seen the hardship it can cause, and the expenses associated with avoiding those hardships through estate planning.
posted
Dags, I'm not arguing against you (in the respect you seem to think), but I am arguing against the estate tax causing non-inheritance statistics (which seem pretty obviously contrived) and how you appeared to at least tacitly be willing to consider them reasonable.
Regarding the expenses involved in estate planning, I rather suspect that even absent any estate tax estate planning will take over a considerable portion of money and time. Also, I'm somewhat dubious of the "right to inherit". Does someone have the right to inherit and keep running the family corner grocer? Seems reasonable. Does someone have the right to inherit and keep running the twenty store chain of health food stores that's part of the family? I don't think so, personally. I just fail to see any moral imperative for complete ownership of such a business to pass down to a new member of a family.
Now, I am willing to agree the current estate tax's upper cap is too low to encompass those businesses that are reasonable to pass down. I favor one of a couple of options: a higher general cap with fewer exceptions, or a specific exception for business properties, but with some pretty strict rules on what a business property is. Simply put, the higher that exemption becomes, the more someone is going to use it to pass on personal property, which is why I consider the higher overall cap with fewer exceptions a better notion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does someone have the right to inherit and keep running the twenty store chain of health food stores that's part of the family? I don't think so, personally. I just fail to see any moral imperative for complete ownership of such a business to pass down to a new member of a family.
I've never understood this philosophy. You seem to be saying that a highly successful business somehow has less personal meaining to a family than a less successful one. What is about the size that makes it less worthy of passing down from one generation to the next? Or is there some other factor in your conclusion I'm not picking up on.
quote:While the recession that hit the economy in 2001 in the wake of the market plunge was considered relatively mild, the new information shows that its effect on Americans' incomes, particularly those at the upper end of the spectrum, was much more severe. Earlier government economic statistics provided general evidence that incomes suffered in the first years of the decade, but the full impact of the blow and what groups it fell hardest on were not known until the I.R.S. made available on its Web site the detailed information from tax returns.
The unprecedented back-to-back declines in reported incomes was caused primarily by the combination of the big fall in the stock market and the erosion of jobs and wages in well-paying industries in the early years of the decade.
In the past, overall personal income rose from one year to the next with relentless monotony, the growth rate changing in response to fluctuations in economic activity but almost never falling.
But now, with many more ordinary employees joining high-level executives in having part of their compensation dependent on stock options and bonus plans, a volatile and relatively unpredictable new element has been introduced to the incomes of millions of workers.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)?![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That is one of the reasons why I refrain from having strong opinions on politics and the like. I just don't know enough.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
