Skip to main content

View Diary: Steven Rattner offers ideas on raising tax revenue and I respond (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Big salaries hide profits (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, NM Ray, saluda

    A company has to pay less in taxes if excessive salaries take the profits. Then the individual CEO should be taxed on that profit, but there's always loopholes.

    Bonuses (& bonus salaries) should come after the profits are taxed.

    Also Walmart corporate welfare cheats don't pay their workers enough for a living wage, and they tell workers how to apply for food stamps & other help. So all those not-enough wages shouldn't be fully deductible, same as food and entertainment isn't fully deductible.

    The boss needs you, you don't need him. -- France general strike, May 1968

    by stargaze on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 05:53:21 AM PST

    •  Simple answer to the Walmart Food Stamp Issue (7+ / 0-)

      If your employee has to apply for federal benefits and is willing or able to work full time and you do not provide them that opportunity, you will be assessed the full cost of the supplemental benefits paid to that employee due to the fact that you fail to provide full time work when that option is available (i.e., the business is open at least 40 hours during the week) and the employee is willing and able to do it.

      Part time work should be an agreement between employees and employer -- if I have a disability, a child-care situation, schooling, and REQUEST part time work, then that's my choice.  But you as the employer should not be allowed to shirk your responsibilities to the community and your workforce by scheduling 100 people for 10 hours a week rather than 25 people for 40.   Especially when scheduling those 100 people for 10 hours a week effectively means that it's almost impossible (due to the requirement of "you must be available any time we feel like calling you in") for the employee to take on other work to make up the difference.

      If employers had to pay for the cost of the supplemental benefits their employees need to survive because the employer refuses to pay a living wage, maybe fewer employers will see the government as Mommy and Daddy picking up the slack when they fall short.

      "There isn't a way things should be. There's just what happens, and what we do." — Terry Pratchett (A Hat Full of Sky)

      by stormicats on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 06:38:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep
        If your employee has to apply for federal benefits and is willing or able to work full time and you do not provide them that opportunity, you will be assessed the full cost of the supplemental benefits paid to that employee due to the fact that you fail to provide full time work when that option is available (i.e., the business is open at least 40 hours during the week) and the employee is willing and able to do it.
        Message: don't hire people, especially for part-time work under any circumstances. Automate whatever you possibly can. Overwork your existing full time employees as much as possible.

        Jobs for whom the market wage is lower than your supposed living wage will vanish.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 09:07:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe I didn't word this well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          madhaus

          What I was trying to convey was the idea that it should not be a standard business model to have 95% of your work force be so part time that they never get near a threshold for benefits, coupled with requiring that they be available on such a variable schedule as to preclude them from working anywhere else.

          I didn't say that there should be forced overtime, so I don't know where you got that.  40 hours is 40 hours -- at which point in time, overtime is compensated at time and a half by federal law.

          Finally, from what I've seen of "automatic checkouts," the day when we will have automated in-store service is still many years ahead of us.  When I want to talk to a store clerk, I want to see a human being, not a keypad.

          "There isn't a way things should be. There's just what happens, and what we do." — Terry Pratchett (A Hat Full of Sky)

          by stormicats on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:32:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You worded it well (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            madhaus

            You're just trying to argue with one of our resident conservatives.

            Jon Husted is a dick.

            by anastasia p on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 02:00:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Better ways to fix that. (0+ / 0-)

            1. Ensure that everybody has access to health care, regardless of employment status.

            2. Require overtime for irregular, unpredictable hours, even under 40 hours/week.

            3. Raise the minimum wage to living wage.

            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

            by HeyMikey on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 03:59:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  IOW, your position is that bonuses (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      saluda, Sparhawk, ferg, nextstep, madhaus

      should be non-deductible.  the problem is that there are a lot of reasons people use bonuses, and a lot of them are totally legitimate.

      also, as it stands a bonus is basically a transfer of tax from the corporation to the exec, where its taxed at a higher rate (fed, state, and the additional imposition of Medicare payroll tax).  that doesn't strike me as a bad deal for the Treasury.

      •  Perhaps it could be means tested (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ozsea1

        Allowing no deductions for bonuses for companies to employees with incomes/bonuses that exceed a certain level.

        There has to be a way to provide the proper incentives.

        Please stand by. I'm looking for a new sig line.

        by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 10:02:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  raise the CEOs personal taxes (0+ / 0-)

          Which is what Obama is proposing.

          The high salaries of the CEOs aren't a tax avoidance scheme, but the low tax rates encourage high CEO salaries. The companies are ripping off the employees and the shareholders, but not the IRS.

          If their personal taxes are raised, it will discourage companies from spending too much on CEO salaries.

      •  Bonuses vs. Salaries isn't the issue (0+ / 0-)

        What matters is the total level of compensation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site