|
|
|
|
|
| | What would a perfect world look like?Page 1 of 8 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) | We have continually fallen short on this earth. Communism was the dream of public ownership and equality and failed. Capitalism has created great opportunities, but huge disparities in wealth as well as in health.
We need growth to keep the money flowing, but growth means more goods which consume energy, create waste, and pollute the earth. There are limits to growth.
The human population is growing at exponential rates never been seen in history while at the same time we are stripping the earth of its resources, which are finite, and seem to be on a collision course.
What are some answers that provide a political and economic system that fosters equality, spreads health and wealth, preserves the earth and keeps population growth in check? | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 12:50:58 PM | If the government can stay out of the wealth building and leave it the private sector, capitalism may have a chance, Imagine if there were regulations that actually protected people and individual rights.
For instance there was no regulations that allowed the banks to merge? no lobbyists, allowing unqualified people to own properties, no over the counter derivatives without transparency , closing loopholes, letting the private sector do its thing, now if the private sector defrauded, colluded and simply was run by incompetent executives they could be actually prosecuted, or better yet let them fail as sh1t companies do.
Now that would be a perfect world. I like the UK model of health care, simply if you have the money you pay for services and if you dont it is covered, this universal health that we have in Canada is for the birds, its needs tinkering, too many places in Canada where the doctors wont go, but that is another topic.
We should be teaching our children capitalism, Im doing my part and teaching my godchildren, friends kids, teaching them entrepreneurship is a good thing, Investing is a good thing but ripping off the public is a BAD thing and you deserve to go to hell if you hurt, cheat, rob people or step over people, I have no use for C.E.O who brake laws, cook the books, or simply does thing for the sake of making money and if it hurts people as long as the shareholders are happy and they can get their bonuses its okay, to me that is b.s and WRONG.
I dont invest in companies that participates in that, nor do will any of the godchildren when they are old enough to invest , making money is good, worshiping money isnt. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 1:20:04 PM |
Now that would be a perfect world. I like the UK model of health care, simply if you have the money you pay for services and if you dont it is covered, this universal health that we have in Canada is for the birds, its needs tinkering, too many places in Canada where the doctors wont go, but that is another topic
I disagree with you Tempus.
Who would set the guideline for who has the money and who doesn't?
Someone who has the money ... may not have enough left over AFTER he pays his health care bill.
I believe care of your body should be universal, where everyone is entitled to it.
If you have good health (and even good teeth), you can thrive.
If you don't ... you struggle.
Change what you want.
But DON'T take my health care. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 1:38:36 PM | You have a few things out of whack, there, Tempus:
no regulations that allowed the banks to merge
Ahem. It was the REMOVAL of regulations, which allowed the banks to merge, at the behest of the Anti-Regulattion, "let private money make all the decisions" crowd. Best to make up your mind who's side you are really on there.
no lobbyists
That means again, the ADDITION of government regulation, this time of the mechanisms of how individuals and groups go about trying to influence the government reps. I'm on your side with a distaste for a lot of these folks, but you can't say both "government can stay out of the wealth building and leave it the private sector," and also call for restrictions on how the capitalists go about doing things. Again, you are promoting the "pro-regulation" side.
Myself, I think we need good Government regulation, for the simple reason that humans are not inherently predisposed to choose to do what's best for either the majority, or to make any effort at all to see the big picture before diving after profits.
Balsamica: where Communism went wrong, is the same general place where Capitalism goes wrong all the time: the overall concept was fine, but the mechanism chosen to deliver the goods, was a completely inept mess.
Also, OP:
Growth and productivity are not inherently or directly linked to pollution or waste, or anything bad. There are certainly a lot of people who think they are on the side of "unfettered capitalism" who are so sure that there IS no escaping the dark side of it, that they want to do away with all attention being paid to the condition and effect of their short term goals on the long term environment. I think these deluded "capitalists" are dead wrong, and that with appropriate regulation (i.e. thinking about the big picture on purpose), that we CAN have both growth, AND an improving, healthy planet.
Stripping the earth of resources? yes, some of them, in a short term way. Again, too many of the current proponents of deregulation and "small government" are so short sighted themselves, they think that we wont do as we have in the past, and find different ways to do things, which is better, and uses less of what we are low on.
As for population, someday there might come a time when there is no more room, but that is not this day, nor is it very soon to come. Right now, artificial structures, put in place by a combination of governments, and even more by the limited thinking of the immediate profit oriented people, is making it appear that we are short on space. Bit that is only because too many of the folks in power, refuse to consider solutions that do NOT rely on maintaining their old ways of enriching themselves.
My own proposal, is that a new economic model be established, such that people are no longer permitted to artificially create local, pseudo profits, by manipulating the system in a way that allows them to ignore the real and complete costs of what they are doing. Just as we no longer allow people to mine the earth (in most places) without repairing the ground after, and without dumping poisonous waste into the neighbors ecology, we also need to stop allowing one group of people to "mine" human beings for cheap labor on a short term basis, and shift the cost of those beings health and later years onto others.
It's similar to writing tax and accounting regulations: stop allowing entrepreneurs to count as profit, things which are actually just the result of their shifting costs from one place to another. Make the business folks exactly as responsible for the entire result of their operations, as they currently, all-too-ignorantly claim that they want to be. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 1:46:06 PM | http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/57000/57723/globe_west_2048.jpg
Kinda like that. Hey, I can see the clouds over my house!
Of course, all the humans living there must see that same perspective, so that they take better care of it and mainly use just renewable resources or live off the land like the American Indians did before we spoiled em with firewater..
Right now in San Diego the local nuke plant is off-line and that portends a possible summer heatwave energy shortage and maybe rationing electricity some hot August afternoons when so many air-conditioners may try to kick on at once.
Glad to be within a few miles of that ocean blue which never gets much above 72f..
Life can be a beach many days if you have a place to live here in Americas Finest City...
| |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 1:52:37 PM |
Now that would be a perfect world. I like the UK model of health care, simply if you have the money you pay for services and if you dont it is covered, this universal health that we have in Canada is for the birds, its needs tinkering, too many places in Canada where the doctors wont go, but that is another topic
Who would set the guideline for who has the money and who doesn't?
It's a good model. It doesn't quite work like ^^^ this though.
Access to doctors and hospitals are free - just like here in Canada. If you need a hospital, either due to an accident or child birth etc, you simply walk in and provide your information like name and address. I can't recall if there were Health Cards but I think not as there wouldn't be a need for them with all services covered cost wise.
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Pages/NHSservices.aspx
Each person has a General Practitioner. They normally register with the doctor's office close to their home. Meds which are prescribed have a set fee - regardless of what it is for. The charge for a single prescription is £7.65 so heavily subsidized ($12.37 CDN/$12.11 USD). But, there are people exempt from paying even that amount. Children 16 and under and students age 16 - 18 in full time education are exempt. Pregnant women are exempt until their child reaches one year old. I think there is a reduction for senior too - but not sure on that, it's been so long. Those who have many medical issues can pay into a scheme which reduces their prescription charges as $20 is a lot is someone regularly takes several prescribed drugs. Those in receipt of certain welfare benefits are also exempt - low income families or disabilities - I can't remember which benefits it is that entitlement is connected to.
*** Just checked - Free to those over 60 years old
http://www.nhs.uk/planners/yourhealth/pages/prescriptioncosts.aspx
However, waiting lists for certain procedures can be long. There are 'service level agreements' which the hospitals have to aim for so people aren't waiting too long for hip replacements etc.
Dental is free to all children until either 16 or 18 but I don't think that includes orthodontics for cosmetic reasons. Dental is also free for pregnant women until the child reaches one year old. Most dental practices nowadays are private and so like here, it is rather expensive to have dental treatment and certainly worth shopping around but it's nowhere near the cost of dental treatment here. The Health service does still pay for certain preventive dental services and so, even a private dentist cannot charge for these - they have to bill the National Health Service for them
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/dentists/Pages/dental-services-available-on-the-NHS.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/dentists/Pages/nhs-dental-charges.aspx
Private health insurance is not as common - but it was getting more popular when I left the UK. Certainly, is was beginning to be offered as a employment benefit to upper management positions, as access to surgery is quicker for non-emergency issues. Companies realized that if key personnel were home sick frequently, it was in their interest to provide insurance and get the issues addressed as promptly as possible.
Contraception is FREE for everyone. IUD's, the Pill, whatever. Contraception is entirely free. Condoms are normally given out free at certain clinics, but normally, they are purchased by those who rely on them.
Everyone who is employed pays a certain percentage of their income which is automatically deducted from their paycheck for the National Health service. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 1:59:02 PM | Hey import........
You listed 6 items that you said should be FREE...........
Do you realize that there is no such thing as FREE..............
Never has been, never will be. Someone has to pay for it.............
In your "perfect world", who would do the paying?
Paul K
PS........ The fact that you think that doctors and hospitals are FREE in Canada explains why you said what you did........... A news flash........ No such thing as free, even in Canada. | |
|
| |
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 2:13:27 PM | Dental is free to all children until either 16 or 18
I like that Import.
A fair amount of medical problems exist because teeth are not taken care of.
And think about it ... teeth are very close to your brain.
You have an infection, where is that infection going to go?
If we had to pick a country to mimic, that doesn't sound to bad.
I listened to a neighbour who comes from Denmark.
They include all medical/dental care AND post secondary school education.
I think in a perfect world, we should provide that.
Smarter people ... better choices. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 2:15:06 PM | Let's try to keep focused on the big picture in this thread, please, and not quibble.
Some things are obvious: free contraception can only benefit by keeping the population down, not adding unwanted children. The point of this thread is to think about one system effects another, so let me make a checklist:
Even distribution of wealth..........happiness correlations are aligned with this, more income means less children, etc.
Conservation of natural resources .....promoting renewable sources of energy, including preservation of forests and topsoil
Zero population growth .......keeping the population at replacement levels or thereabouts
So, we would be talking about broad systems of government and economics that has a positive impact on all three things in the checklist, does that help? | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 2:18:22 PM |
Even distribution of wealth
So I work my ass off and I'm suppose to give it to you.
I don't think so.
That would totally negate any motivation that I had to do better.
Conservation of natural resources
Agreed.
Zero population growth
No.
A world without children would be sad. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 2:34:39 PM |
Ahem. It was the REMOVAL of regulations, which allowed the banks to merge, at the behest of the Anti-Regulattion, "let private money make all the decisions" crowd. Best to make up your mind who's side you are really on there. Igor, not to sound like Im breaking balls, but I dont think you understand what happened Man, what you call deregulation was merely a shift in regulations eg: The GLB act in 1999 remember that one? This Act took down barriers to competition between traditional banks, investment banks, and insurance companies, and allowed financial institutions to participate in all three markets in some circumstances .
The deregulation you were referring to was the deregulation of the savings and loans companies
The deregulation of S&Ls in the 80's gave them many of the capabilities of banks, without the same regulations as banks and also made them do riskier lending practices later on the S & L were challenged by a return of high interest rates and inflation, congress deregulated the thrift industry but passing two stupid laws Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act and the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, S&L companies started doing riskier loans, sounds familiar?
Poor accounting, bad/inept management, higher interest, people walking away from their homes caused a lot of these S &L companies to fail, under 800 failed...
Myself, I think we need good Government regulation, for the simple reason that humans are not inherently predisposed to choose to do what's best for either the majority, or to make any effort at all to see the big picture before diving after profits. Sorry bud dont agree, the wonderful people in government cant get their own house in order and you want to trust them with adding more regulations? can you tell me what regulations the government set out was good besides protecting the environment?
Balsamica: where Communism went wrong, is the same general place where Capitalism goes wrong all the time: the overall concept was fine, but the mechanism chosen to deliver the goods, was a completely inept mess. You think Communism was a good idea? ever lived in a communist country ? tell you what find someone who has and ask them, I know tons of people that escaped from the former Soviet system, ask them, or the ones that escaped from Cuba.
The problem with capitalism is we are seeing a watered down version, Capitalism with government intervention is the problem.
Igor, I take it you've never owned or run a company that employs people, if you've worked for a company all your life you cant see it from a owners point of view.
It's similar to writing tax and accounting regulations: stop allowing entrepreneurs to count as profit, things which are actually just the result of their shifting costs from one place to another. Make the business folks exactly as responsible for the entire result of their operations, as they currently, all-too-ignorantly claim that they want to be. do you work for a living? do you work for a private company or the government? many business folks out there are honest as the day is long, you keep bringing up companies run by unscrupulous individuals why do you lump them all together?
Who would set the guideline for who has the money and who doesn't? The market
Someone who has the money ... may not have enough left over AFTER he pays his health care bill. Im not following, if he or she has the money they would pay for it, if they dont they wont pay for it and can go to the clinics set up to service those without money.
I believe care of your body should be universal, where everyone is entitled to it Im not following that? | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 2:37:39 PM |
What are some answers that provide a political and economic system that fosters equality, spreads health and wealth, preserves the earth and keeps population growth in check?
Any fees / taxes you pay to the government (be it municipal, state or federal) are based on a % your income, thus everyone pays the same % of income towards social services.
No caps on any payroll taxes.
All corporations that provide essential services must be crown corporations and must be run as non-profits. (water, power, hospitals, schools, prisons , etc....) | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 2:43:16 PM | Hey Aristot.........
You wrote:
"All corporations that provide essential services must be crown corporations and must be run as non-profits. (water, power, hospitals, schools, prisons , etc....) "
Wow........ at least the trains will run ontime.......... Well, they did the last time this was tried.
Paul K | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 2:57:43 PM | If you want to know why is it important for a society to keep things somewhat equal?
Watch this TED Talk.
Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies
We feel instinctively that societies with huge income gaps are somehow going wrong. Richard Wilkinson charts the hard data on economic inequality, and shows what gets worse when rich and poor are too far apart: real effects on health, lifespan, even such basic values as trust.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/richard_wilkinson.html | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 3:03:00 PM |
"All corporations that provide essential services must be crown corporations and must be run as non-profits. (water, power, hospitals, schools, prisons , etc....) "
I agree with that. Here, we have the choice of one power company and one water provider. With the price hikes, I know some of our elderly citizens really struggle to pay these bills and they have no option but to pay the one provider there is. It shouldn't be that way. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 3:43:35 PM | ""So I work my ass off and I'm suppose to give it to you. I don't think so. That would totally negate any motivation that I had to do better."
Try not to take any of this too personally, ok? An even distribution of wealth means that there is a big Bell Curve of incomes, 99% of the wealth is owned by roughly 99% of the people. If 99% of the wealth is owned by 1% of the people, that is an uneven distribution, get it?
""No. A world without children would be sad.""
ZPG is not a world without children, it is having children roughly at the rate of replacement, roughly one child born for everyone who dies. I don't know the current rate, but let's say it's 100 children born for every one who dies...a little too many, eh? | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 4:00:47 PM | I agree with that. Here, we have the choice of one power company and one water provider. With the price hikes, I know some of our elderly citizens really struggle to pay these bills and they have no option but to pay the one provider there is. It shouldn't be that way.
What you are seeing with NS Power right now is a direct result of what happens when you sell off a crown corporation.
If more power is needed, they raise the rates to pay for the infrastructure.
If less power is needed they raise the rates to make up for the lost revenue.
It is a win win for them and a lose lose for the consumer.
When instead of having the government funding major infrastructure projects, they should be subsidizing residential upgrades that make homes more efficient and less reliant on the grid which would then have a much bigger cascading affect on the economy, but that would not be good for profits, so not much of a chance you would see it happen.
meanwhile:
Rob Bennett, president and CEO of Nova Scotia Power, made more than $1.1 million in combined salary, bonuses and benefits. It's a 23 per cent increase over the previous year.
Judy Steele, chief financial officer at Emera, saw her compensation more than double to over $730,000.
Nancy Tower, who took on new roles with Emera in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, saw her pay packet rise 29 per cent to $1.4 million.
Chris Huskilson, the president and CEO of Emera, saw a 20 per cent salary rise to $750,000 for a total compensation package of $2.99 million for the year.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/05/10/ns-power-execs-pay-rises.html | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 4:09:17 PM | Hey import........
You really should decide exactly what you mean, because you seem to want it both ways..... First you say six times that things should be "FREE".......... Then you tell me twice that:
"a contribution is made via employment income. "
I guess your definition of "FREE" and mine are two different things. By a "contribution"....... you mean a tax that is levied and collected by the fed, right? That is a long shot from being "FREE". So even in your perfect world, the fed would levy taxes, collect them, and then give you health care and a plethora benefits for free........ other than that nasty little tax they collect.
At least have the courtesy of not calling a thing "FREE" when it is paid for by your own money being collected by the fed.
Paul K | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 4:13:29 PM |
"a contribution is made via employment income. "
There is a great example of something that is not even close to fair.
When you have employment contributions that cap out.
It is another way the people with the money keep more of it, because they do not come close to paying the same % in contributions. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 4:19:24 PM |
Someone who has the money ... may not have enough left over AFTER he pays his health care bill. Im not following, if he or she has the money they would pay for it, if they dont they wont pay for it and can go to the clinics set up to service those without money.
Someone has to make the decision on where you draw the line.
And that person who makes that decision doesn't know squat about the families personal finances or where their money is being allocated to.
That is just a recipe for disaster.
More government regulations.
I believe care of your body should be universal, where everyone is entitled to it Im not following that?
I believe everyone should be entitled to health care.
That is one of the services that I feel should be offered to everyone, rich or poor. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 4:50:10 PM | Paul,
"a contribution is made via employment income. "
Americans are sheltered from the true cost of health care since most of ours are employee-based and they often pay the lion's share. My family plan was $1,200 a month. That's a chunk of change annually.
A nationalized system like Canada and England means I don't pay that $1,200 a month to my employer. My employer no longer has that expense, either, so they are free to pay me more if they chose to.
In Canada or England, instead of paying for health insurance premiums through an employer or privately as an individual, they do it collectively with a slightly higher tax. It is not free, except at the point of service, and probably a better description would be prepaid vs. fee for service. And everyone is covered. So, instead of paying for insurance through an employer, etc., it is done at the national level as taxes.
The system costs about half as much per capita as it does in America. The nationalization allows them to do quite a bit: negotiate the price of drugs, control prices, offer a larger benefit package and better social benefits, etc.
In other words, you don't pay for the medical tax AND a monthly insurance premium and you don't pay the medical tax AND a Medicare tax, and you don't pay a medical tax AND a monthly insurance premium PLUS a Medicare tax, too, as most of us do now.
Physician pay is quite comparable from Canada to the US, but Canadian physicians don't have nearly the amount of paperwork or need 2.1 FTE staff to deal with it.
On balance, I'd just as soon pay a higher tax and not have a big health insurance premium to pay each month, plus deductibles, plus copayments, etc. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 5:08:52 PM | Hey balsamica
After I read your post, I can only come to the conclusion that a person being responsible for themselves and paying their own way in life has, in the minds of many, gone the way of the dodo bird.
Funny, I still pay my own......................
Paul K | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 5:23:38 PM | HEY PAUL....
I clarified how the system worked in the UK for the prior posters who questioned how the service costs were determined, that is all. The service is paid from income which is stopped at source just as income taxes are. I didn't claim it was perfect.
What I do claim, is that should someone need medical services, those services are available without additional costs of health insurance premiums and they are available to all for a minimum contribution for drug prescribed. The service itself in the UK is called and referred to as FREE. Yes, I am perfectly able to understand that the cost comes from the deductible at source but it is far less then the increasing premiums of health insurance and there is no option of excluding anyone based on pre-known conditions or lack of income.
The system is not perfect but at least those who need medical care can get it without losing their house when battling cancer or when they have a terminally ill child, and at least they aren't screwed by their own country once they are too old to work and can't afford the premiums for their own insurance.
@ Aristotle
I think it was based on a percentage of income - I will have to check to be sure - but yes, I do believe it does cap out and no, I don't think that is fair either. I would prefer to see a set % applied irrelevant of income level. Health care, in my mind, is not something which anyone should have to be without.
And although the UK system of gathering the funds which run this service could certainly do with amending, at least in terms of service availability, it is one of the fairest health care systems I am aware of.
EDIT - Okay. Not saying it's fair because it is indeed capped but here's how it works.
NI (National Insurance) contributions are made by both the employee, employers and the self employed. The income from these contributions is used for a number of things but include state pension, national health care, welfare and benefits.
Contribution Rates - Employees from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance
The history of the rates charged is not easy to find, but there is a partial history at www.taxhistory.co.uk/Income Tax.htm As mentioned above, the employee contribution was a flat rate stamp until 1975.
The rates for 1975 - 1978 are not to be found.
1978 - 1979 the contribution was at 6.50% up to the upper limit.
1979 - 1980 the contribution was at 6.75% up to the upper limit.
1980 - 1981 the contribution was at 7.75% up to the upper limit.
1981 - 1982 the contribution was at 8.75% up to the upper limit.
1982 - 1989 the contribution was at 9.00% up to the upper limit.
1989 - 1994 the contribution was at 2.00% on the lower band of earnings and then at 9.00% up to the upper limit.
1995 - 1999 the contribution was at 2.00% on the lower band of earnings and then at 10.00% up to the upper limit.
1999 - 2003 the contribution was at 0.00% on the lower band of earnings and then at 10.00% up to the upper limit.
2003 - 2011 the contribution was at 0.00% on the lower band of earnings and then at 11.00% up to the upper limit and 1% on earnings over the upper limit.
2011 - 2013 the contribution was at 0.00% on the lower band of earnings and then at 12.00% up to the upper limit and 2% on earnings over the upper limit.
The limits and rates are normally announced at the same time as the Autumn Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but they do not get the level of publicity that occurs with the budget. Current rates are shown on the hmrc.gov.uk website.
This is separate and additional to income tax.
Rob Bennett, president and CEO of Nova Scotia Power, made more than $1.1 million in combined salary, bonuses and benefits. It's a 23 per cent increase over the previous year.
Judy Steele, chief financial officer at Emera, saw her compensation more than double to over $730,000.
Nancy Tower, who took on new roles with Emera in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, saw her pay packet rise 29 per cent to $1.4 million.
Chris Huskilson, the president and CEO of Emera, saw a 20 per cent salary rise to $750,000 for a total compensation package of $2.99 million for the year.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/05/10/ns-power-execs-pay-rises.html
I remember reading that in the paper last week sometime. Sickening really. | |
|
| What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 5/18/2012 6:07:58 PM | Hey import...............
You wrote, or copy/pasted:
"Rob Bennett, president and CEO of Nova Scotia Power, made more than $1.1 million in combined salary, bonuses and benefits. It's a 23 per cent increase over the previous year.
Judy Steele, chief financial officer at Emera, saw her compensation more than double to over $730,000.
Nancy Tower, who took on new roles with Emera in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, saw her pay packet rise 29 per cent to $1.4 million.
Chris Huskilson, the president and CEO of Emera, saw a 20 per cent salary rise to $750,000 for a total compensation package of $2.99 million for the year.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/05/10/ns-power-execs-pay-rises.html"
How much money did those folks take out of YOUR pocket, or how much was your salary decreased in order for those raises to be made?
Paul K | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
