Working hard to get ahead [Makers and Takers]

[Teflon93]

Because the taxes apply to all corporations, there is no competitive aspect to them – if K-Mart’s taxes go up, so do Wal-Mart’s.

We compete against non-corporations as well. In addition, corporate taxes have ins and outs which affect different corporations differently, and emerging industries differently from mature ones.

That’s true. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit, **in a competitive environment. **

People who complain about capitalism often miss that bolded section. The evils of “capitalism” are really evils of anti-capitalism – almost always in the form of government intervention to make the system less competitive.

And always for political, rather than economic, reasons.

Of course. To paraphrase Pogo Possum, “We have met the enemy and he is our government.”

A sentiment too many Americans have forgotten, but one the Founding Fathers certainly would have agreed with.

One of the supreme glories of the Catholic Church is her historical role of staving off despotism in Europe following the fall of Rome, not to mention her moderating influence upon the Empire in its waning centuries. We must of course be wary of big, impersonal, powerful institutions, of which by far the largest, most impersonal, and most powerful in America is Big Government.

 

[whatevergirl]

Speaking of the Rich…here’s a story about Warren Buffet. One of the smartest rich guys in the country. If the government listened to him, we’d have plenty of tax revenue to pay for all sorts of things.

I guess working our ways into his tax bracket could help. I love that guy–he is brilliant, yet humble as if he had $10 in the bank. Now, he is an icon of success, to me.

 

[Teflon93]

I’m currently reading the book, Conspiracy of Fools–the true tale of Enron’s collapse.

The author flashbacks a lot, and it appears that Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling came from nothing. No one handed them a dime. In fact, their families seemed against them getting ahead, and were of not much help. Now, these two ended up going down a bad path eventually, but not their motivation to go to Harvard, (for Skilling)and to aspire to CEO statuses can really happen for anyone in this country–if you want that position in life. Oprah is another icon of what this country was built on…we live in a country of opportunity. If you choose to work hard (and smart) then you too, can have the same opportunities as those like Bill Gates, Oprah, Buffet, and the Ken Lays of the world. Again, success is subjective. I don’t look at successful people, as mere financial gain only…yes, they might have worked hard to gain financially, but are they happy in their personal lives? What is their relationship to God, etc?

But, let’s just speak strictly financially, if you work hard, stay focused on your goals, and work smart…you can achieve anything you put your mind to. When we look at “rich” people…maybe they were poor people who just worked hard.

This is an excellent point. If you look at the bios of CEOs, very few came from wealthy families. Most have spent their lives working for their companies, often starting in much lower positions of responsibility.

The bios of political leaders tell a very different story.

 

[Teflon93]

Speaking of the Rich…here’s a story about Warren Buffet. One of the smartest rich guys in the country. If the government listened to him, we’d have plenty of tax revenue to pay for all sorts of things.

And how much does Buffett contribute to the Treasury?

There is a line on the tax form whereby every citizen may make a voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.

How much does Buffett put on that line, concerned as he is?

Of course, Buffett’s also undoubtedly playing fast and loose with income type.

How do we know?

Because most of his income is not salary, as yours or mine would be, but from other sources, stock options and the like. I believe Buffett makes $100,000 in salary, which puts him around the 25% income bracket. His additional income is not likely taxed the same way.

He is, of course, welcome to send as much as he would like to the IRS. They will not protest.

 

[whatevergirl]

This is an excellent point. If you look at the bios of CEOs, very few came from wealthy families. Most have spent their lives working for their companies, often starting in much lower positions of responsibility.

The bios of political leaders tell a very different story.

Yes, we’ll leave politicians out of it.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I guess working our ways into his tax bracket could help. I love that guy–he is brilliant, yet humble as if he had $10 in the bank. Now, he is an icon of success, to me.

He’s got to be the best number guy in the country. The last I heard, nobody took him up on this bet:

“I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.”

I’m sure if someone got a million bucks out of old Warren they would have been bragging pretty loudly. He’s been saying since 2003 that corporations should be paying MORE taxes, not less.

I’m no numbers person myself, people like me are the reason calculators were invented-so I’m listening to Mr Buffett. It seems like he’s got the financial thing down pretty well.

 

[whatevergirl]

And how much does Buffett contribute to the Treasury?

There is a line on the tax form whereby every citizen may make a voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.

How much does Buffett put on that line, concerned as he is?

Of course, Buffett’s also undoubtedly playing fast and loose with income type.

How do we know?

Because most of his income is not salary, as yours or mine would be, but from other sources, stock options and the like. I believe Buffett makes $100,000 in salary, which puts him around the 25% income bracket. His additional income is not likely taxed the same way.

He is, of course, welcome to send as much as he would like to the IRS. They will not protest.

Buffett, if you have read any of his books, bios, etc…is an extraordinary philanthropist. I wouldn’t be too concerned with what he’s ‘giving away’ to the Teasury. It’s not his job, now that he is in a position of great financial wealth, to support the government. He does so in non profit ways, but I think we use the jewelers loop too much on the rich of this country.

 

[whatevergirl]

He’s got to be the best number guy in the country. The last I heard, nobody took him up on this bet:

“I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.”

I’m sure if someone got a million bucks out of old Warren they would have been bragging pretty loudly. He’s been saying since 2003 that corporations should be paying MORE taxes, not less.

I’m no numbers person myself, people like me are the reason calculators were invented-so I’m listening to Mr Buffett. It seems like he’s got the financial thing down pretty well.

Yep, he does!

 

[jmcrae]

That cuts two ways – the most negative view of man is that he needs a nanny to take care of him – usually in the form of an elite group to run the government.

The average worker doesn’t need a “nanny.” All he needs is an employer who comprehends the idea of “loyalty,” and who thinks it’s a good investment in talent to pay a living wage.

Some employers, to their credit, do understand this concept. Others think that their employees are chits that can be dumped, done without, and then replaced without any damage to their companies.

It’s true that such companies go out of business as a natural punishment for their lack of foresight, but I don’t see how that helps anybody.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We compete against non-corporations as well. In addition, corporate taxes have ins and outs which affect different corporations differently, and emerging industries differently from mature ones.

But by and large, like competes with like.

And always for political, rather than economic, reasons.

That’s correct. If laws were passed or repealed for economic reasons, poverty would be cut in half in this country.

A sentiment too many Americans have forgotten, but one the Founding Fathers certainly would have agreed with.

Of course, the Founding Fathers were men who took charge of their own fate, and rose or fell by their own efforts – and in the process created the greatest country the world has ever seen.

There is a story that as Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him, “Well, Doctor Franklin, what sort of a government have you given us?”

And he replied, “A Republic, Madam. If you can keep it.”

One of the supreme glories of the Catholic Church is her historical role of staving off despotism in Europe following the fall of Rome, not to mention her moderating influence upon the Empire in its waning centuries. We must of course be wary of big, impersonal, powerful institutions, of which by far the largest, most impersonal, and most powerful in America is Big Government.

Indeed it is.

Back in the 1990s, there was a move to expand the Shenandoah National Park to it’s authorized boundaries. Since my daughters were attending college in Western Virginia, we’d spend weekends with them, and I’d buy the local paper – which was running a series on how the Park came to be – people who had lived on the land for generations were being evicted and sent to a tent city called “Relocation, Virginia” and given six months to find work – in the middle of the Depression. The paper ran personal stories of farm families driven off their land.

Big Government at its finest!

 

[Teflon93]

Buffett, if you have read any of his books, bios, etc…is an extraordinary philanthropist. I wouldn’t be too concerned with what he’s ‘giving away’ to the Teasury. It’s not his job, now that he is in a position of great financial wealth, to support the government. He does so in non profit ways, but I think we use the jewelers loop too much on the rich of this country.

I give a significant chunk of my income to charity. Unfortunately, that isn’t the issue.

The issue is Buffett’s claim that he is undertaxed.

Why doesn’t he give more money voluntarily to the government, if that is his concern?

If he believes in government, than he should indeed take all of his philanthropy and entrust it to the Treasury.

 

[whatevergirl]

The average worker doesn’t need a “nanny.” All he needs is an employer who comprehends the idea of “loyalty,” and who thinks it’s a good investment in talent to pay a living wage.

Some employers, to their credit, do understand this concept. Others think that their employees are chits that can be dumped, done without, and then replaced without any damage to their companies.

It’s true that such companies go out of business as a natural punishment for their lack of foresight, but I don’t see how that helps anybody.

Hi jmcrae;

It is interesting that you bring this up…because this wasn’t always the case say back in the 40’s through say the mid 70’s. I remember when a person could RELY on the fact, that as long as he/she was a loyal hardworking employee, he/she could rest assure, he/she would be retiring with that company…and not being canned, right before retirement, as can be seen in big business today. What do you imagine, changed?

My theory, is that over the decades, as we have evolved into a more ‘me’ generation…the original grandfathers of big business, had a different work ethic. They believed in taking care of their employees…and rewarding loyalty. Nowadays, it seems like older employees are replaced with younger, less paid workers, who want nothing to do with building and maintaining relationships…just show me the money, please. (oh, and how much vacation time do i get?) lol Ever watch The Apprentice with Trump? Holy smokes, have any of those people heard the concept of being a team player? It’s all about them…

I shudder to think where our economy is heading, as companies who were the bread and butter of our economy go under, or get bought out by other companies, because the younger CEO’s don’t want to roll up their sleeves like their granddads did–AND WORK. That’s my theory. We are becoming a country of disposable employees…and reliance more on buying out companies, instead of organic growth. I work in marketing for a broker, and every week, at least three fortune 500 companies are going under, or being bought out by someone else…

I wonder if anyone else has a take on why we see so many buy outs and mergers now than we might have say 20 years ago?

 

[whatevergirl]

I give a significant chunk of my income to charity. Unfortunately, that isn’t the issue.

The issue is Buffett’s claim that he is undertaxed.

Why doesn’t he give more money voluntarily to the government, if that is his concern?

If he believes in government, than he should indeed take all of his philanthropy and entrust it to the Treasury.

Truthfully, he makes better use of it than the gov’t would. Maybe he looks at it this way. He can’t change the system, so maybe he gives so much away, to compensate.

 

[Teflon93]

But by and large, like competes with like.

That’s correct. If laws were passed or repealed for economic reasons, poverty would be cut in half in this country.

Of course, the Founding Fathers were men who took charge of their own fate, and rose or fell by their own efforts – and in the process created the greatest country the world has ever seen.

There is a story that as Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him, “Well, Doctor Franklin, what sort of a government have you given us?”

And he replied, “A Republic, Madam. If you can keep it.”

Indeed it is.

Back in the 1990s, there was a move to expand the Shenandoah National Park to it’s authorized boundaries. Since my daughters were attending college in Western Virginia, we’d spend weekends with them, and I’d buy the local paper – which was running a series on how the Park came to be – people who had lived on the land for generations were being evicted and sent to a tent city called “Relocation, Virginia” and given six months to find work – in the middle of the Depression. The paper ran personal stories of farm families driven off their land.

Big Government at its finest!

And, as usual, no accountability for Big Government. As Amity Shlaes’ excellent book on the Depression demonstrates, such practices were common in FDR’s administration. FDR even took to arbitrarily setting the price of gold! Rockefeller never had such power.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The average worker doesn’t need a “nanny.” All he needs is an employer who comprehends the idea of “loyalty,” and who thinks it’s a good investment in talent to pay a living wage.

Some employers, to their credit, do understand this concept. Others think that their employees are chits that can be dumped, done without, and then replaced without any damage to their companies.

It’s true that such companies go out of business as a natural punishment for their lack of foresight, but I don’t see how that helps anybody.

The same way it helps us to vote corrupt politicians out of office – except that bad companies actually do goe toes up.

 

[rtconstant]

Since my adult life has been spent trying to improve efficiency and quality, how could I disagree with you?

Actually that explains some things.

It is worth noting, however, that corporations are far more efficient than government by any measure in getting things where they need to go. And I say that as a former logistics officer.

OK, I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the government but OK.

That’s the stereotype, but not the reality. “Not rocking the boat” is only a factor when everyone’s making the numbers, and then only in corporate cultures which value comity over innovation. If we miss our numbers, the boat’s rocking hard, the change comes fast and furious, and risk-takers who bet right rocket up through the ranks.

That’s the theory but not the reality. But to a degree you’re correct. Rocking the boat does occur when revenue starts to decrease. The changes though don’t really have much to do with risk takers it has to do with blame. When things go bad people get blamed whether it actually has anything to do with them or not.

This may have been the case in the 50s, but having now worked for three Fortune 100 companies that is not the case among the biggies in corporate America. Indeed, I’ve only found the emphasis on policy to be found in highly-regulated industries (aeronautics, medical, and the like); the protection of turf was much more prevalent in government than in the corporate world, where reorgs happen too quickly to even keep track of what your turf is.

No its alive and well in today’s market

Sounds like a bad manager. But “good enough for government work” has its own cachet, for good reason.

Well, yes these are certainly bad managers.They’re also pretty common. Again with the government references. Its almost like you’re trying to say that since government can do worse we should ignore what companies do wrong. Is this really the standard you’re looking for?

It depends on the manager and whether one is producing to demand, to place into inventory, or to use up capacity. If you’re not selling 7 units a day, producing 7 units may be worse than producing the 4 you are. This is a key message of Eli Goldratt’s “The Goal” and related works. It is the fundamental principle of Lean - produce only what is needed.

Which has basically nothing to do with what I was talking about but cool you got to drop a name. Unless of course you were simply stating that by in large its best to under produce as an employee? In which case you’d have got along great with some of the managers I know. All in all though this would be an example of bad management.

Man, that’s a lot of straw!

Nope that’s reality. People who’s jobs produce know what I’m talking about.

Corporate culture being slow to change, if you find yours doesn’t fit, you can move to another more suitable for your sanity.

That would be nice but its pretty much the same everywhere. Its hard to know the good company’s without knowing someone on the inside. There are some out there though.

If only we could change government so easily.

Yeah, so again I have to ask does this mean we just ignore bad and/or unethical business practices?

I’m in management, but the word of the day is “business value.”

Ahh, I see.

It is true that delivering business value aids survival, but we’re talking survival of the company in a competitive marketplace.

I think most of the rest of your post comes from a time capsule of business in the 40s. It simply isn’t typical of the corporate world today, although the “management by fear” mentality you speak of can be found in pockets.

LOL, if only it had stayed in the 40’s.

Again, the criticisms one makes of the corporate world is doubly true in the nonprofit sector, where having the wrong ideology, the wrong politics, the wrong last name, or insufficient aversion to change drastically limits career advancement.

You know what? I like pie.

There is far more diversity in the background of a corporate CEO than of a college professor, union boss, or GS19, and for the obvious reason that competition is extremely limited within these other roles, which maintain a guild mentality inherited from the Middle Ages.

Fried pies stuffed with peaches are really good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And, as usual, no accountability for Big Government. As Amity Shlaes’ excellent book on the Depression demonstrates, such practices were common in FDR’s administration. FDR even took to arbitrarily setting the price of gold! Rockefeller never had such power.

That era was known as “The Age of the Great Dictators” – and FDR fit right in.

 

[whatevergirl]

Someone help me understand why government is being brought into this thread when the initial question of the OP was…do you believe if you work hard, you can get ahead?

The government doesn’t make or break my life. I don’t rely on it to give me a lifestyle. I make a salary plus bonus, and yes, they overtax me on my commissions/bonus, and that needs to change. But, the government has little to do with my work ethic–and isn’t that what this thread is about?

 

[jmcrae]

The same way it helps us to vote corrupt politicians out of office – except that bad companies actually do go toes up.

And when they do, it reduces the amount of employment in the community, and drives the price of ordinary goods and services out of range of most people’s income, due to scarcity.

So, is there any way to get past the “I’m doing it all by myself” mentality of business owners who don’t value (and thus, don’t reward or encourage) the contributions of their employees, before they go toes-up?

I think it starts with the realization that nobody is “self-sufficient” - everybody is getting help from somebody, whether they realize it or not. And it’s important for business survival, to know who your friends are, and to reward their loyalty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And when they do, it reduces the amount of employment in the community, and drives the price of ordinary goods and services out of range of most people’s income, due to scarcity.

No. When badly-run businesses collapse the net effect is beneficial. True, some employees lose their jobs, and some investors lose their money. But the net effect is to cleanse the industry, making it more efficient.

So, is there any way to get past the “I’m doing it all by myself” mentality of business owners who don’t value (and thus, don’t reward or encourage) the contributions of their employees, before they go toes-up?

Bad business owners don’t stay in business. It’s a self-correcting problem.