I seriously doubt that a corporation will gift shares to their executives. They are all about maintaining share value and reducing overhead, and giving away the store is not in their game plan. I would assume that income derived from things other than their salary are taxed differently. I just am unfamiliar with the mechanics. Is it done with options that are not taxed until they are executed? or some other way?
Ah okay. I believe in that case they are taxed at the lower of the option adjusted basis amount when issued and FMV when exercised.
The better question would be how much allowance did their parents give their children. Regardless you would never see such diversity in any school district, because it is certain that incomes would need to be fairly equal if their parents all lived in the same school district.
Jocks versus Preppies versus Metals versus nerds... Usually it's based on habits and hobbies, not money.. at least in school.
All depends how you handle it. And what kind of friend you have. From personal experience I find if the friend is willing to participate, he finds a way, because he wants to pay his own way. If the friend doesn't want to participate, I partake in those activities with other friends.
That's the point I was making. There's not all that much diversity, generally speaking, when you're talking about the finances of kids on a playground. As you get older however, those financial differences will assert themselves. You might make a point to do things with that friend, but choosing to go with other people is choosing the hobby over your friend's company. If that happens often enough, and as you say you just go with other friends, you're developing more shared experiences and relationships with those other friends rather than the poorer one. It doesn't mean that you'll immediately kick him/her to the curb, but the societal pressure is there, and the convenience of having a group of friends that both likes and can afford to do what you want to is present. That was why I said it wasn't the best or most realistic analogy.
And the American male doesn't come with one size of penis. We are not all created equal. Leaving people behind is a choice. It may not be a nice choice, but it is a choice.
And here's where it starts to get murky. Now replace the expensive hobby with medical treatment. You're now the people with money that can get healthcare when they need it due to having money, and the friend represents those in poverty that can't. As it stands, choosing to move on and leave them behind isn't just an immoral and unacceptable choice to many, it also doesn't make any economic sense. People will get sick and need treatment regardless of what you do. Some medical treatments will happen anyway and be unreimbursed. Those costs are passed on to everybody. An unhealthy workforce is less productive, harming the country's economic output and growth. A non-inclusive medical system which did little to stifle growing costs was starting to strangle the economy. The consequences don't begin and end with the person who can't afford to see the doctor. No man is an island.
Others may not share this opinion. And in a free society, they have the right to believe what they want. Many are only concerned about making THEIR lives better.
They'll continue doing that regardless. And despite all of their bellyaching, they'll continue living here too, even if they can easily afford to move. The rights, safety, wealth, and opportunity found in the US are difficult things to give up. Taxes are a paltry price to pay for them.
Work better? Depends on what your ultimate goal is.
Greater prosperity for the country as a whole. Maximization of GDP through proper utilization of all of our capital, both monetary and human.
Personally I'd rather see the states take a bigger role in collecting taxes and distributing the tithes as needed in their locality. The federal government has become such a cluster-fuck that everyone seems to reward their elected officials by sending them back if they come back from the Crusade in Washington with someone elses shit.
I'd take the responsibility for domestic programs away from federal government out of the equation and let the states run them. They'd be forced to run their programs on a balanced budget, and there would be less overhead involved simply because the money would be traveling between fewer hands. Let each state determine the domestic programs they wish to fund.
Say what you want about wealth distribution, but there are definite benefits to having programs run on a federal rather than state level. For instance, lower overhead is not guaranteed just because fewer people are involved. Larger nationwide programs can better take advantage of economies of scale. Additionally, privately owned companies involved benefit, because they only have to abide by a single set of rules rather than fifty. A larger tax base for funding increases options for aiding efforts in poorer parts of the nation. The benefits are many.
I get what you're saying about local funding, but it seems more motivated by an emotional need for "fairness" in the distribution of money. We're all one national economy and community. What real benefit do we actually gain by allowing certain parts of the economy to shelter themselves off and make their own rules?
