Bonuses are great but.....
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
- Status
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
If you work hard you should get a bonus.
Have to disagree.
A person can work hard but not meet established expectations.
A person can work hard but not correctly.
A person can work hard in a department that doesn't make a profit.
A person can work hard but the company isn't profitable.
A bonus is a reward for meeting or exceeding an established goal. Working hard isn't usually a reason on it's own to merit a bonus.
If you work hard you should get a bonus.
Have to disagree.
A person can work hard but not meet established expectations.
A person can work hard but not correctly.
A person can work hard in a department that doesn't make a profit.
A person can work hard but the company isn't profitable.
A bonus is a reward for meeting or exceeding an established goal. Working hard isn't usually a reason on it's own to merit a bonus.
His point is that those who receive the most benefit from the system we have in this country should shoulder a commensurate proportion of the tax burden.
Nothing involving political leanings, just the obvious equitable distribution of burden relative to gain.
Nothing involving political leanings, just the obvious equitable distribution of burden relative to gain.
There are people that work very hard and make little. There are those that work hard and make much. There are those that do no work and make little. There are those that do no work and make much.
In a fair system if a company did well all should benefit. Employees, CEO and shareholders. Unfortunately often the shareholders and CEO's benefit and the employees don't and often get a pink slip.
But I guess when small private companies become big corps and are beholden to shareholders the workers doing the actual work are just numbers on a spreadsheet. They aren't, friends, family, CO workers you know. They are expendable and replaceable.
In a fair system if a company did well all should benefit. Employees, CEO and shareholders. Unfortunately often the shareholders and CEO's benefit and the employees don't and often get a pink slip.
But I guess when small private companies become big corps and are beholden to shareholders the workers doing the actual work are just numbers on a spreadsheet. They aren't, friends, family, CO workers you know. They are expendable and replaceable.
Last edited:
I don't think bonuses should be issued from either side of the coin (employee and stock holder).
In lieu of a bonus I would rather have additional days off.
Money is the worst motivator for employees for more reasons than I can even begin to discuss here. I will be flamed for saying this so just go ahead and flame away.
In lieu of a bonus I would rather have additional days off.
Money is the worst motivator for employees for more reasons than I can even begin to discuss here. I will be flamed for saying this so just go ahead and flame away.
Originally Posted By: 04SE
Money is the worst motivator for employees for more reasons than I can even begin to discuss here. I will be flamed for saying this so just go ahead and flame away.
I agree with you. Plus, the bone-us' are a one-time thing. The $1/hour raise is worth a lot more. It's a distraction, nothing more.
Money is the worst motivator for employees for more reasons than I can even begin to discuss here. I will be flamed for saying this so just go ahead and flame away.
I agree with you. Plus, the bone-us' are a one-time thing. The $1/hour raise is worth a lot more. It's a distraction, nothing more.
Ahh hate to break it to you... But since 1986 ALL hospitals HAVE to treat people per EMTALA... Period. End of question. You have an assessment and treated accordingly. If nothing life threatening is going on then you are discharged. For the record.... I received treatment at MCV in Richmond Va with no health insurance or ability to possibly pay what I owed. And honestly it was not life threatening. I was totally blind in my left eye from multiple sclerosis. Didn't know that when I went in there.
I worked at a hospital where we routinely treated people without any way for them to pay that amount back... Including a friend of mine from high school who overdosed and was in ICU for over a month, then on the medical floor for another 3 weeks... He wasn't kicked out after getting off a ventilator... He was kicked out right away after he had physical therapy and occupational therapy and could do for himself again. He was treated like anyone else would have been if they had insurance. I'd bet $100 to a $1 this is the case across this nation..
I worked at a hospital where we routinely treated people without any way for them to pay that amount back... Including a friend of mine from high school who overdosed and was in ICU for over a month, then on the medical floor for another 3 weeks... He wasn't kicked out after getting off a ventilator... He was kicked out right away after he had physical therapy and occupational therapy and could do for himself again. He was treated like anyone else would have been if they had insurance. I'd bet $100 to a $1 this is the case across this nation..
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Al
Veterans that live on the streets are many times there bc that's what they choose. Our VA system is pretty amazing considering the number they deal with.
Do you mean they choose to join the military and get PTSD or injured by a road side bomb? or they choose to be one of "the number they deal with".
I usually don't encourage people to join military because of the physical risk involved and other personal ideological reason. However I would never be a person that blame the veteran who went out there to take the risk for his nation, regardless of which nation he is from and which military he joined, nor would I blame him for using a service setup to take care of him.
They join for many reasons, patriotism, free training/education, to become independent. I doubt any of them chose it bc they think they will be injured. Of course they should take whatever benefits they are entitled to. Two of my grandsons joined last year. One bc his friends are in the Guard. My daughter was also both an enlisted soldier and later became an oficer. It runs in (her)family.
Originally Posted By: Al
Veterans that live on the streets are many times there bc that's what they choose. Our VA system is pretty amazing considering the number they deal with.
Do you mean they choose to join the military and get PTSD or injured by a road side bomb? or they choose to be one of "the number they deal with".
I usually don't encourage people to join military because of the physical risk involved and other personal ideological reason. However I would never be a person that blame the veteran who went out there to take the risk for his nation, regardless of which nation he is from and which military he joined, nor would I blame him for using a service setup to take care of him.
They join for many reasons, patriotism, free training/education, to become independent. I doubt any of them chose it bc they think they will be injured. Of course they should take whatever benefits they are entitled to. Two of my grandsons joined last year. One bc his friends are in the Guard. My daughter was also both an enlisted soldier and later became an oficer. It runs in (her)family.
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: Al
If a robber took half their wealth they will still be wealthy. What's your point?
A robbery is a crime. Financial responsibility to your country and society is an obligation.
I get it the rich deserve to have ore of their money taken away because they are successful. Are you a politician?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Al
So lets punish the wealthy that pay 95% of the taxes again??
The "income" pays the tax, not the wealthy. If the income is consolidated on 1 individual vs spread across 100k individuals, and still get taxed at the same long term capital gain rate, do you think having 1 individual making all the income taxed the same will be "punishing him"?
More convoluted liberal logic. So the rich guy should be happy he is paying all the taxes for the other 100k..Oh wait its his income not him that is paying..despite the fact that he loses buying power and wealth bc he didn't make the money. His income made the money and then did it lose buying power?...I'm confused..as usual.
Originally Posted By: Al
If a robber took half their wealth they will still be wealthy. What's your point?
A robbery is a crime. Financial responsibility to your country and society is an obligation.
I get it the rich deserve to have ore of their money taken away because they are successful. Are you a politician?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Al
So lets punish the wealthy that pay 95% of the taxes again??
The "income" pays the tax, not the wealthy. If the income is consolidated on 1 individual vs spread across 100k individuals, and still get taxed at the same long term capital gain rate, do you think having 1 individual making all the income taxed the same will be "punishing him"?
More convoluted liberal logic. So the rich guy should be happy he is paying all the taxes for the other 100k..Oh wait its his income not him that is paying..despite the fact that he loses buying power and wealth bc he didn't make the money. His income made the money and then did it lose buying power?...I'm confused..as usual.
Last edited:
Al I would suggest that people look up the United States National Statistical Abstract. It tells one every conceivable aspect of our nation's government operation and private sector as well. Including the tax payment structure and who pays what according to the brackets they are in. This is quite informative if one looks at the reality of the circumstance.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZZman
There are people that work very hard and make little. There are those that work hard and make much. There are those that do no work and make little. There are those that do no work and make much.
In a fair system if a company did well all should benefit. Employees, CEO and shareholders. Unfortunately often the shareholders and CEO's benefit and the employees don't and often get a pink slip.
But I guess when small private companies become big corps and are beholden to shareholders the workers doing the actual work are just numbers on a spreadsheet. They aren't, friends, family, CO workers you know. They are expendable and replaceable.
The "fair" part comes into play when an employee agrees to the contract of employer to employee. You work for a said wage, with expectations being agreed to from both sides. There is nothing unfair about a business owner not giving an employee a bonus or not no matter how well the company does. The employee's WAGE is his/her compensation.
There are people that work very hard and make little. There are those that work hard and make much. There are those that do no work and make little. There are those that do no work and make much.
In a fair system if a company did well all should benefit. Employees, CEO and shareholders. Unfortunately often the shareholders and CEO's benefit and the employees don't and often get a pink slip.
But I guess when small private companies become big corps and are beholden to shareholders the workers doing the actual work are just numbers on a spreadsheet. They aren't, friends, family, CO workers you know. They are expendable and replaceable.
The "fair" part comes into play when an employee agrees to the contract of employer to employee. You work for a said wage, with expectations being agreed to from both sides. There is nothing unfair about a business owner not giving an employee a bonus or not no matter how well the company does. The employee's WAGE is his/her compensation.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: Al
If a robber took half their wealth they will still be wealthy. What's your point?
A robbery is a crime. Financial responsibility to your country and society is an obligation.
I get it the rich deserve to have ore of their money taken away because they are successful. Are you a politician?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Al
So lets punish the wealthy that pay 95% of the taxes again??
The "income" pays the tax, not the wealthy. If the income is consolidated on 1 individual vs spread across 100k individuals, and still get taxed at the same long term capital gain rate, do you think having 1 individual making all the income taxed the same will be "punishing him"?
More convoluted liberal logic. So the rich guy should be happy he is paying all the taxes for the other 100k..Oh wait its his income not him that is paying..despite the fact that he loses buying power and wealth bc he didn't make the money. His income made the money and then did it lose buying power?...I'm confused..as usual.
The "rich" are bad Al....don't forget that.
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: Al
If a robber took half their wealth they will still be wealthy. What's your point?
A robbery is a crime. Financial responsibility to your country and society is an obligation.
I get it the rich deserve to have ore of their money taken away because they are successful. Are you a politician?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Al
So lets punish the wealthy that pay 95% of the taxes again??
The "income" pays the tax, not the wealthy. If the income is consolidated on 1 individual vs spread across 100k individuals, and still get taxed at the same long term capital gain rate, do you think having 1 individual making all the income taxed the same will be "punishing him"?
More convoluted liberal logic. So the rich guy should be happy he is paying all the taxes for the other 100k..Oh wait its his income not him that is paying..despite the fact that he loses buying power and wealth bc he didn't make the money. His income made the money and then did it lose buying power?...I'm confused..as usual.
The "rich" are bad Al....don't forget that.
Originally Posted By: Al
More convoluted liberal logic. So the rich guy should be happy he is paying all the taxes for the other 100k..Oh wait its his income not him that is paying..despite the fact that he loses buying power and wealth bc he didn't make the money. His income made the money and then did it lose buying power?...I'm confused..as usual.
It isn't what you pay that matters but what you have left over to live on. Most Americans don't have a lot extra to live on. Yet they work doing jobs society needs. Wouldn't you rather make a million dollars and have 50% taken away than make 100,000 and have 20% taken away? Which would supply you a better life?
Of course if you have the most you pay more or the most. How else could it be? We have or should have learned that from the Kings/serfs and the Land Baron/peasant days. Spreading wealth around built the middle class. Wealth has always been redistributed thru out history. The middle class and decent societies were and are built by redistributing wealth down to the many not up to the few. It
More convoluted liberal logic. So the rich guy should be happy he is paying all the taxes for the other 100k..Oh wait its his income not him that is paying..despite the fact that he loses buying power and wealth bc he didn't make the money. His income made the money and then did it lose buying power?...I'm confused..as usual.
It isn't what you pay that matters but what you have left over to live on. Most Americans don't have a lot extra to live on. Yet they work doing jobs society needs. Wouldn't you rather make a million dollars and have 50% taken away than make 100,000 and have 20% taken away? Which would supply you a better life?
Of course if you have the most you pay more or the most. How else could it be? We have or should have learned that from the Kings/serfs and the Land Baron/peasant days. Spreading wealth around built the middle class. Wealth has always been redistributed thru out history. The middle class and decent societies were and are built by redistributing wealth down to the many not up to the few. It
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Wouldn't you rather make a million dollars and have 50% taken away than make 100,000 and have 20% taken away? Which would supply you a better life?
No , because in short order that money becomes worthless. It does not work in an economy.
Wouldn't you rather make a million dollars and have 50% taken away than make 100,000 and have 20% taken away? Which would supply you a better life?
No , because in short order that money becomes worthless. It does not work in an economy.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
The "fair" part comes into play when an employee agrees to the contract of employer to employee. You work for a said wage, with expectations being agreed to from both sides. There is nothing unfair about a business owner not giving an employee a bonus or not no matter how well the company does. The employee's WAGE is his/her compensation.
So an employee should never get raises even if a company is doing well? Give it all to the CEO and shareholders?
The "fair" part comes into play when an employee agrees to the contract of employer to employee. You work for a said wage, with expectations being agreed to from both sides. There is nothing unfair about a business owner not giving an employee a bonus or not no matter how well the company does. The employee's WAGE is his/her compensation.
So an employee should never get raises even if a company is doing well? Give it all to the CEO and shareholders?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Wouldn't you rather make a million dollars and have 50% taken away than make 100,000 and have 20% taken away? Which would supply you a better life?
No , because in short order that money becomes worthless. It does not work in an economy.
I am confused. You would rather make 100,000 and live on 80,000?... Interesting.
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Wouldn't you rather make a million dollars and have 50% taken away than make 100,000 and have 20% taken away? Which would supply you a better life?
No , because in short order that money becomes worthless. It does not work in an economy.
I am confused. You would rather make 100,000 and live on 80,000?... Interesting.
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Do you think these will be yearly now by these companies?
How much will stockholders receive in comparison to the workers?
I don't care. Learn to be happy with what you you have and stop worrying if someone got a bigger scoop of ice cream than you did.
Why not be happy, hey! We got a bonus! Instead its the negativity of we might not get one next year.
I think you knew when you started this thread about bonus pay , that it was a thinly veiled jab/dislike of the tax cuts that would lead to discussions of liberals, capitalism etc.
This is why politics are banned here because it always goes down hill. Don't post threads that lead to this.
Do you think these will be yearly now by these companies?
How much will stockholders receive in comparison to the workers?
I don't care. Learn to be happy with what you you have and stop worrying if someone got a bigger scoop of ice cream than you did.
Why not be happy, hey! We got a bonus! Instead its the negativity of we might not get one next year.
I think you knew when you started this thread about bonus pay , that it was a thinly veiled jab/dislike of the tax cuts that would lead to discussions of liberals, capitalism etc.
This is why politics are banned here because it always goes down hill. Don't post threads that lead to this.
Last edited:
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: 04SE
Money is the worst motivator for employees for more reasons than I can even begin to discuss here. I will be flamed for saying this so just go ahead and flame away.
You are correct. I've read studies that people would rather have a feeling of value and be recognized for their worth than be given money. Being told "good job" is too rare it seems.
Money is the worst motivator for employees for more reasons than I can even begin to discuss here. I will be flamed for saying this so just go ahead and flame away.
You are correct. I've read studies that people would rather have a feeling of value and be recognized for their worth than be given money. Being told "good job" is too rare it seems.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I don't care. Learn to be happy with what you you have and stop worrying if someone got a bigger scoop of ice cream than you did.
Why not be happy, hey! We got a bonus! Instead its the negativity of we might not get one next year.
I think you knew when you started this thread about bonus pay , that it was a thinly veiled jab/dislike of the tax cuts that would lead to discussions of liberals, capitalism etc.
This is why politics are banned here because it always goes down hill. Don't post threads that lead to this.
Sorry, but you chose to use words that were not to be used. I kept this as a work, financial, business discussion. And it has been very civil so far. I like that.
We can take it one step forward on your thought. The poor should be happy with what they have and the wealthy should be happy with what they have. We as humans should not worry about others. Worry only about ourselves. If life were only that simple.... Like oil discussions!
I don't care. Learn to be happy with what you you have and stop worrying if someone got a bigger scoop of ice cream than you did.
Why not be happy, hey! We got a bonus! Instead its the negativity of we might not get one next year.
I think you knew when you started this thread about bonus pay , that it was a thinly veiled jab/dislike of the tax cuts that would lead to discussions of liberals, capitalism etc.
This is why politics are banned here because it always goes down hill. Don't post threads that lead to this.
Sorry, but you chose to use words that were not to be used. I kept this as a work, financial, business discussion. And it has been very civil so far. I like that.
We can take it one step forward on your thought. The poor should be happy with what they have and the wealthy should be happy with what they have. We as humans should not worry about others. Worry only about ourselves. If life were only that simple.... Like oil discussions!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
