I think that it is time to change this country's infrastructure.  Perhaps what we need is a sudden dismantling of the stock market and equal distribution of wealth or distribution based on need.  Maybe, if everyone has the same amount of money, then the crime rate will go down.  Then again, though, there are lots of pros and cons in terms of this concept.  Just look at Russia- the Communists tried it, and look where they ended up.

because it wasn't really Communism but full of political "Communist royals" who stole, lied, and spread fear among the people. Their "undending war in Afghaistan" (most likely for oil)and around the world for Empire caused huge debt. 

No government system be it Communism, Democracy, Socialist, Monarchy, etc. can survive and prosper if the people live in tyranny and fear. It is corruption and greed for power which destroys it for the many while the few prosper. 

 Communism was a back lash to tyrannical Western Nation removal of their language, culture, history, and religion. The church took away birth control and demanded large families which left them in poverty. The Western Catholic and Protestant churches wanted the country for themselves. 

Emperal Rome did well in their conquered countries when they promised them they could keep their culture and religion (ancient or none).  Many even joined the Roman army.  When they forced Christianity via Roman methods on them, they rebelled. They stole their food and wealth. If they rebelled they jailed them.  This resulted in the "hungry\homeless barbarians" coming from the North to conquer Rome. Rome trained them in their legions only to have them turn against them. The citizens not Roman were promised equality and citizenship but it never happened. Only a few Romans had wealth and power.  

That's why we won't win in Iraq. We've done that to the people of that country who now hate us. We did free them from Suddam but we brought them more death and poverty than before. We forced our culture and government on them. We destroyed their infrastructure and way of life.  They can't rule themselves because we won't let them. 

Ed Schultz of Air America says we will have to decide what is to be done with Iraq in the 2008 election.  Did anyone notice we decided in the 2006 election with a big turn over of Democrats to power?  The polls haven't changed regarding the war but the media and this administration and Congress ignore our mandate.  Hello anyone listening...Pelosi, Reid, McConnell, etc.?  Impeach Cheney and Bush!

 Get out of the Middle East...all of it NOW not in January or April, etc. but NOW.  Not 30,000 or 1,000 American troops (and mercinary military) but NOW.  Everyday more die and our treasury borrows money from our enemies to wage war on an innocent country.

 What's the point except for "unending profit" by Bush cronyies.

 The CEOs of major American corporations, the data show, once again last year
made as much in a day as average workers took in over the entire year. The 20 top
kingpins of the private equity and hedge fund industry last year made more than average
worker annual pay every ten minutes.

The vast rewards that go to business leaders in the United States represent, in short,
not an inevitable unfolding of marketplace dynamics, but a marketplace failure.
Markets that fail need to be corrected, and, in generations past, Americans organized
politically to make sure needed corrective action took place. These Americans
broke up monopolies. They established a minimum wage. They regulated business
behavior. Executive Excess 2007 spotlights, in this historic spirit, a series of corrective
initiatives we here today can take to restore a modicum of balance to modern
American economic life.
We ignore initiatives like these at our peril. The outrageously massive rewards now
attainable at the top of our economic ladder do our society no good. They ravage
the enterprise teamwork that true leaders strive to nurture. They discourage individuals
with leadership talent from entering less lucrative fields where their skills
could make an important contribution to our common well-being.
In a democracy, we don’t depend on leaders to fix problems like these. We citizens
take leadership responsibilities onto ourselves. This year’s Executive Excess aims to
help this process along.

Download the complete report “Executive Excess 2007” at www.faireconomy.org/reports/2007/ExecutiveExcess2007.pdf (PDF, 1 MB).

 Proposals for Change
• Eliminate tax subsidy for excessive CEO pay: Corporations currently deduct bloated CEO pay
packages as “business expenses.” One legislative proposal would cap the amount of executive compensation
that corporations are permitted to deduct to 25 times the pay of a company’s lowest paid
worker. Such a cap, if in place last year, would have generated more than $1.4 billion from fewer
than 400 companies. This would have been enough to hire 30,000 elementary school teachers for an
entire year.
• Make sure investment fund executives pay their fair share of taxes: Top partners in America’s
private equity and hedge fund industry currently pay taxes on most of their multi-million-dollar incomes
at less than half the 35 percent tax rate in effect on ordinary income.
• Cap “deferred” executive pay: Average Americans can defer, through their 401(k)s, only $15,500
of their incomes. Top executives face no limits on the pay they can defer into special accounts that
compound tax-free.
• Eliminate the tax reporting loophole on CEO stock options: Corporations are currently allowed
to report one set of executive stock option compensation figures as expenses on their financial
statements and a completely different set of figures — often a much larger amount — on their tax
returns. Legislation about to be introduced in Congress would require corporations to disclose the
same information about executive stock options to the IRS as they do to their shareholders.
• Link government procurement to executive pay: Federal law already limits the amount of pay
that a company with a government contract can bill the government for executive compensation.
But corporations whose stock soars after gaining a federal contract can pay executives whatever they
please. The federal government could limit these windfalls by denying contracts to firms that pay top
executives over 25, 50, or even 100 times what their lowest-paid workers receive.
• Increase the top marginal tax rate on high incomes. Executive pay in the United States began to
skyrocket in the early 1980s, the same years that tax rates on America’s richest taxpayers began to
plummet. More progressive tax rates would help send a powerful cultural message that extreme income
concentration undermines democracy and the common good.

I think using a professional payroll services company makes some peoples concerns go away when it comes to who's writing the checks to each other. A payroll company is held at higher standards then just having someone in your own company manage it.