# News How to fix U.S's finnacial problem?

1. Jul 29, 2011

### Silver97

The U.S, as we know, is suffering from budget cuts, high gas prices, high unemployment rates, and a $14.3 trillion crisis. What are your thoughts about this? And would this idea help? If we cut back on what we're paying actors and CEO's. Right now they are getting close to$100 million a year! A lot more than the top jobs like doctors and lawyers. If we cut back what we are giving them like to $250,000 a year per say, enough money to live on and enough money to be recognized for their work,, we can give the U.S so much money by looking at how many CEO's there are and overpaid actors. There are thousands if not millions of CEO's, if we cut back on their yearly income to$250,000, imagine how much money we will get back. What do you think of this idea? Where do you think we'll be in the future if we keep on like this? And what are some of your ideas to resolve the problem?

2. Jul 29, 2011

### Ryan_m_b

Staff Emeritus
I'm not actually American but I disagree with some of your post. There's a link that someone has posted somewhere on this site that points out that if you take the entire wealth of all the billionaires in America you still wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. IMHO what America has to do is the same as all nations;
• Borrow for a while
• Cut back on spending
• Invest in things that stimulate economic growth
• Put into practice policies to make the future economy more stable
Now it's the job of politicians to work out the enormous details of how to do this and implement them.

EDIT: Forgot to add that I don't approve of the notion of the government interfering with private sector salaries anymore than to set taxes.

Last edited: Jul 29, 2011
3. Jul 29, 2011

### drankin

In a free market in a free country you cannot dictate someones salary in the private sector. The market dictates what they make. Regardless, restricting what non-government private individuals make will not fix anything.

4. Jul 29, 2011

What do you mean "we"? "We" don't pay CEOs, the company does out of their own budget. And $250k a year would be ridiculous.$1M would be less ridiculous considering people that aren't even at the top of a company can sometimes get $250k. The only people CEOs are responsible to are the shareholders and people who own the company, not the public. 5. Jul 29, 2011 ### skippy1729 I am sue that if you actually do the math this plan comes nowhere near solving the US problems. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of righ people to steal from. The class envy arguments are targeted to the far left base who are, to quote Rahm Emanuel "a bunch of f-ing retards" 6. Jul 29, 2011 ### Vanadium 50 Staff Emeritus "imagine how much money we will get back" implies that somehow money that other people earn isn't really theirs - it's really yours. I don't think this is something that is universally believed. Even if you imposed a 100% tax on income above$250K, assuming incomes stayed where they are (which, of course, they wouldn't), you wouldn't close the deficit. It's a little hard to do the interpolation from the IRS data, but it looks like you would need to have a 100% bracket kick in just over $100K to balance the books that way. If you want a 90% bracket instead (with a 100% bracket, you won't collect anything, since nobody will be paid above the cap), it needs to kick in at around$75,000 a year. To compare, the median police salary in Camden, NJ, was \$79,000. "The rich" are probably not who you think they are.

The sorts of spending levels we have seen in the last few years cannot be supported solely by a tax "the rich" strategy. This is not a statement about politics or economics - it's a statement about arithmetic.

7. Jul 29, 2011

### edward

8. Jul 29, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

What do you mean "pay'? We as a country don't pay celebrities or CEO's. This makes absolutely no sense.