• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AP Impact: CEO pay exceeds pre-recession levels.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DaveJ said:
A home may not be an investment, but the fact that most middle-class Americans' wealth is tied up in real estate indicates that there's not a whole lot of money left over to save or invest once bills are paid. If you need more evidence of that, just look at the pitiful savings rates over the last decade.
Click to expand...

A useful restructuring of the tax code ought to include incentives for personal debt reduction and discouraging unlimited borrowing except in certain instances. One could allow for the personal debt up to some limit to be tax deductible, with prohibitive penalties for gaming the system.

This is a serious problem for our long term economic success. When debt prohibits savings so there is no financial reserve then the Union is in peril just as much as if we were under physical attack. When one week lost pay means default something positive must be done.
 
DaveJ said:
A home may not be an investment, but the fact that most middle-class Americans' wealth is tied up in real estate indicates that there's not a whole lot of money left over to save or invest once bills are paid. If you need more evidence of that, just look at the pitiful savings rates over the last decade.
Click to expand...

Americans should save more. Thats right.
How about lowering their taxes?
The middle-class gets the biggest shaft out of everyone, I could go for increase taxes on the wealthy if you lowered the middle-class tax burden.
I'd rather see the top earners paying 50-60% if the middle-class didn't have to pay so much.
 
matt0611 said:
Americans should save more. Thats right.
How about lowering their taxes?
The middle-class gets the biggest shaft out of everyone, I could go for increase taxes on the wealthy if you lowered the middle-class tax burden.
I'd rather see the top earners paying 50-60% if the middle-class didn't have to pay so much.
Click to expand...

Obama wanted to do that but the republicans stopped him.
 
The truly sad thing about the furor over executive pay is how the Dems are duping people into believing that they are any different from the GOP. If the Dems actually gave a shit about apparently irrational executive pay, they would dismantle the SEC (talk about the fox watching the henhouse!) and give real power back to shareholders who have been usurped by self-serving boards. Instead all we hear from the Dems is class rhetoric and saber rattling talk of higher taxes on the rich, while (deliberately) doing nothing to alter the underlying reason for the disconnect between corporate performance and executive pay.

Bringing real "election grade" oversight and truly accessible ballots to corporate elections would be a good start, but it ain't gonna happen...
 
brencat said:
Additional higher tax brackets at the high levels of income will discourage companies from paying these outrageous salaries if they know that 55 pct of the money above 3 mil will go straight to the Fed govt. That's right--I just called for a top marginal rate of 55 pct above 3mm annual cash salaries. Combined with my proposed phase out of the favorable 15 pct rate on cap gains for high earners, maybe the companies will take the money they would have paid to upper mgmt and pay everyone else in the company a little better.
Click to expand...

You could tax above $3MM at 100%, and they still wouldn't pay rank and file workers more. Why should they pay workers more for doing the same work unless there was an economic case for it (e.g. a shortage of workers with needed skill sets, etc)? That's the problem with progressives, they think and tell the lower class can and should get something for nothing rather than telling them the cold hard truth that the only surefire way to better wages is improve your value proposition to a potential employer and/or customer.
 
glenn1 said:
You could tax above $3MM at 100%, and they still wouldn't pay rank and file workers more. Why should they pay workers more for doing the same work unless there was an economic case for it (e.g. a shortage of workers with needed skill sets, etc)? That's the problem with progressives, they think and tell the lower class can and should get something for nothing rather than telling them the cold hard truth that the only surefire way to better wages is improve your value proposition to a potential employer and/or customer.
Click to expand...

Conversely there are those who are earning far more than others while there isn't an economic case for it.

No one is going to see a cent more, but when decisions are based at least in part on what financially benefits top management there is bound to be reaction, and I happen to agree with the inherent wrongness of it.

The solution is to decouple executive compensation from the decision of executives who profit from the system. There are options, one of which I put forward.
 
1prophet said:
The people on welfare are amateurs,


The real moochers and parasites are the ones at the top who play musical chairs with other peoples money but have inside information or a guarantee for a seat when the music stops.

Eventually they will get what is coming to them since this is just a repeat of what has happened before,

http://www.amazon.com/Den-Thieves-Ja.../dp/067179227X
Click to expand...

Lets not forget about virtually free FED money or juice to get every law/contract written so it benefits them and does nothing to address real problems. Medicare part D was a prime example of that but all laws today are mearly grants of discretion where all anybody has to know about them is whom they empower. For example in Medcare part D, unlike the military who has a fixed negotiated rate of 48% on medical devices and pharmacuticals, the largest buyer, the USG, can not negotiate and tax payers must pay full retail to these companies. Obama care, The financial regulation bill of 2010, all of them - tilts the field toward some and away from others and protect some persons and companies, while ruining others.

This is why I LOL at Welfare. Fucken chump change and people at the very bottom who are surely going to pump every dime they get back into economy.
 
Last edited:
BoberFett said:
Yes, they did. And it was going to generate a whopping $70B/yr. Wow.
Click to expand...

What would? I read if we applied SS to all forms of income we'd generate 500B year. Right now anything over 100K is exempt. All passive income is exempt. All dividends are exempt. All capital gains are exempt. Really the only people who get hit with that ~14% are workers.
 
Zebo said:
What would? I read if we applied SS to all forms of income we'd generate 500B year. Right now anything over 100K is exempt. All passive income is exempt. All dividends are exempt. All capital gains are exempt. Really the only people who get hit with that ~14% are workers.
Click to expand...

So we take money for social security then spend it on anything but. Hells bells, just come and steal it outright. At least that would be more honest.
 
JSt0rm said:
are you suggesting that someone who made 5 billion last year should only contribute $14,000 to ss?
Click to expand...

There are CEO's who have a base salary of $1. I assume that they only pay in $0.14, even though they bring in millions in stock options.
 
JSt0rm said:
are you suggesting that someone who made 5 billion last year should only contribute $14,000 to ss?
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that if the money is taken for SS they should get a hell of a big monthly check.

Two problems.
First it's a lie. If someone is going to have their money taken then call it an income tax.

Second people who aren't anywhere near rich have some relief because ss tax tops out at what? 100k? Now people who are in financial trouble (and that's the problem we're having right?) are going to be more screwed.

Then there is the concept of "rich". You have two people who earn a million a year. One collects a check as a corporate exec, one owns a relatively small business, but in order for it to continue he invests most of what he earns back into it, leaving him with less disposable income than many of his employees which have a job because he does this. This is a not uncommon scenario. If you are going to say they are identical because of what they earn I'm going to say you are flat out wrong.

These simplistic one size fits all solutions are great talking points on the stump but are a disaster.

We can't be idiots about this.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
So we take money for social security then spend it on anything but. Hells bells, just come and steal it outright. At least that would be more honest.
Click to expand...

SS is 60 B in the hole this year 38B last year. Money dun been stolen Hay, what critters are talking bout now is cuttin benies instead of paying it back. IMO people that labored all their life and contributed 14% are due. Instead what happended is last 30 years congress stole that money to paper over other illusions and pay for tax cuts and profligate spending which mainly went to rich. So no i'd take it and set grandma up right on her ~2k a mo. Perfectly sustainable, if we tax those who benefited from 30 years of theft.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Then there is the concept of "rich". You have two people who earn a million a year. One collects a check as a corporate exec, one owns a relatively small business, but in order for it to continue he invests most of what he earns back into it, leaving him with less disposable income than many of his employees which have a job because he does this. This is a not uncommon scenario. If you are going to say they are identical because of what they earn I'm going to say you are flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

Cashflow isn't income, Fern, and you know that. The small business guy's money that goes back into the business is "expense" and not counted as "Income".
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Then there is the concept of "rich". You have two people who earn a million a year. One collects a check as a corporate exec, one owns a relatively small business, but in order for it to continue he invests most of what he earns back into it, leaving him with less disposable income than many of his employees which have a job because he does this. This is a not uncommon scenario. If you are going to say they are identical because of what they earn I'm going to say you are flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

wtf? your not this dumb. Those 2 situations are no where near close to each other.
 
Engineer said:
There are CEO's who have a base salary of $1. I assume that they only pay in $0.14, even though they bring in millions in stock options.
Click to expand...

That's a huge trend over last 15 years, apple, nvidia whatever - pay yourself $1 and get your real money out as options/dividens taxed at 15%, no employment taxes. And no they don't have to pay 14 cents on that dollar either because their are exclusions under $750 of earned income whereby you don't have to pay employment taxes on those employees.

Edit: employment taxes = social security, unemployment, medicare, wk comp., etc.

Those total out above 15% alone, then add federal and state taxes at a higher rate, it's no accident Buffet said his Secretary pays more tax than him. I see it every week let's just say that. I'm shocked when I see employees paychecks and how much is stolen from them relative.
 
Last edited:
Jhhnn said:
Cashflow isn't income, Fern, and you know that. The small business guy's money that goes back into the business is "expense" and not counted as "Income".
Click to expand...

Expensing is another wonderful thing W2's can't take advantage of. W2's buy their cars and fill them up with post tax dollars, "business" buys them with pre taxed dollars. W2's take their co-workers to lunch with post tax dollars. The boss takes them with pre tax dollars, etc ece tce
 
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'm suggesting that if the money is taken for SS they should get a hell of a big monthly check.

Two problems.
First it's a lie. If someone is going to have their money taken then call it an income tax.

Second people who aren't anywhere near rich have some relief because ss tax tops out at what? 100k? Now people who are in financial trouble (and that's the problem we're having right?) are going to be more screwed.

Then there is the concept of "rich". You have two people who earn a million a year. One collects a check as a corporate exec, one owns a relatively small business, but in order for it to continue he invests most of what he earns back into it, leaving him with less disposable income than many of his employees which have a job because he does this. This is a not uncommon scenario. If you are going to say they are identical because of what they earn I'm going to say you are flat out wrong.

These simplistic one size fits all solutions are great talking points on the stump but are a disaster.

We can't be idiots about this.
Click to expand...

If he's investing the money in his business how is it income??
 
dmcowen674 said:
People need to go after the heads of the snakes......

just saying
Click to expand...
The politicians who tell the people they are fighting the "snakes" seem to have a knack for only ever grabbing at the tail. Maybe they aren't really fighting for the causes they want the people to believe they are.

Just saying
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top