So the rich do actually pay more taxes. MUCH more

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

That does not mean: "exec's at big corporations" or "self-employed".

Fuck, is it like Bullshit Day or something?

The chief executor is either:

Owner of private company
Board of directors approved CEO
Chief executor that somehow got voted in by family of private company

You're arguing semantics about something you obviously don't understand nor have been involved with.

I'm out. You have zero clue about stock options.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
^ maybe I'm not getting the sarcasam (?) since of course CEO actually means neither.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Look, I'm pretty sure we all know "CEO" means Chief Executive Officer. They are hired/appointed by the Board of Directors and are the highest officer/authority in the corporation.

In small corporations the owner is the Board of Directors (may have some family or his accountant and lawyer sit in too to look good) and appoint him/herself CEO etc.

Essentially these are self employed people who have adopted the corporate form for some benefit, often limited liability and/or perceived tax benefits are the driving motivation.

So, IMO, these people are 'business owners' and the title of CEO is a mere formality required by the use of the corporate entity.

Corporations were originally created to facilitate the formation of capital from among a large group, certainly more than one person, to pursue some larger for-profit enterprise.

IIRC, up until the early 1900's it actually took an act of Congress to incorporate.

Now it's easy, cheap and fast and small business do it for the limited liability.

So, I see a very real and meaningful difference between a 'real' CEO and those using the term who are no more than self employed.

Example: Because I use a corporate entity for my small acctg business technically I'm a CEO. However, I never use that term to describe myself because I would feel silly.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
LOL. How is the fact that the term CEO has an actual meaning semantics?

(And HOW was that an answer to my original question in the first place?)

This is one of the most absurd threads ever. For a second I thought you might have actually known something about the subject but its clear you're just spouting bullshit if you can't understand something as simple as that.(Spidey, that is).
 
Last edited:

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Look, I'm pretty sure we all know "CEO" means Chief Executive Officer. They are hired/appointed by the Board of Directors and are the highest officer/authority in the corporation.
Look... clearly you're intelligent. Spidey seems to be the total moron he's accused of being.

Let's break this down;

I asked for a clarification from you because I thought you were being sarcastic. If people are using the term CEO here to mean "executive at a large corporation" that's absurd because of course all executives of large corporations AREN'T the CEO.

So I was wondering what sort of delusion based on that is explaining this claim about all "CEOs" as in, are people using a fucked up definition of that term to make that claim?

Understand?

I get what you mean with the difference between a CEO of a large company and the owner (CEO only technically) of a small company, but that of course says nothing about the fact that there's all manner of size companies in between that most certainly have legitimate CEOs. (Many of whom would be batshit to accept the majority of their pay in some dogshit stock).
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
LOL. How is the fact that the term CEO has an actual meaning semantics?

(And HOW was that an answer to my original question in the first place?)

This is one of the most absurd threads ever. For a second I thought you might have actually known something about the subject but its clear you're just spouting bullshit if you can't understand something as simple as that.

Do you even know what a chief executor is?

I think you don't.

Do you know what an officer is?

I think you don't.

Fucking 12 year olds on this forum.

I ask you point blank. What is your signing authority in your company and what are you able to execute?
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The biggest issue is capital gains tax. If you look at the truly wealthy (the billionaires of this world), literally every one of them has massive wealth through their ownership stakes of prominent companies. They can draw a symbolic $1 salary and make billions through their investments, yet that investment income is taxed at a lower rate to "encourage investment" (as though wealthy people would withdraw all their money from investments if capital gains taxes were increased at the top end). If it's money people are earning and using to pay for their lifestyles, why should it be taxed differently if it's from selling labor than investing?
I'd be favor of that, as long as there is a good mechanism for long term investments being taxed at a lower rate. I see no reason morally to justify taxing the man whose capital earns his bread at a lower rate than the man whose labor earns his bread.

Non qualified options are taxed at regular income rates, not capital gains.

Stock options are also counted as income for alternative minimum tax.

So for all intents and purposes, yes they are taxed the same as traditional income.
Forgot about the AMT - that does even out a lot. Although when a CXO can help tank a company, then exercise options at the new, lower stock price, that ought to be taxed as a freakin' gift as none of his own money is at risk or even used. He merely fills out some paperwork and collects a fat check.

Sales tax is a regressive tax...
The FairTax is by design very progressive at or below the poverty level, then progressively flatter. It is regressive only to the extent that at higher earning levels people are less likely to spend all their income. If you earn $10 million but spend $20 million - not at all uncommon among trust fund babies and the less intelligent celebrities and athletes - then the FairTax is brutally progressive.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Why don't you enlighten us, moron.

LOL! This guy really is the right's version of Phokus! Too funny!

You laugh, but you don't understand. What's funny is you don't understand this in any way shape or form.

What is a Chief Executor? It is the position ultimately responsible for action of the company and signing authority. The position has the power to say yes or no in the direction of the company, the signing authority of yes or no. Also sets direction and goals of all presidents and VPs in the entire company.

You follow?

I ask again, what is your signing authority? My clients typically have a 1m authority, above that I have to accompany them to the board and get approval.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Look... clearly you're intelligent. Spidey seems to be the total moron he's accused of being.

Let's break this down;

I asked for a clarification from you because I thought you were being sarcastic. If people are using the term CEO here to mean "executive at a large corporation" that's absurd because of course all executives of large corporations AREN'T the CEO.

Absurd as it may be, that's pretty much the case. Most people don't bother to type out "senior level executives'. So "CEO" is often used as shorthand for it.

So I was wondering what sort of delusion based on that is explaining this claim about all "CEOs" as in, are people using a fucked up definition of that term to make that claim?

Understand?

I'm not confident that I do.

I get what you mean with the difference between a CEO of a large company and the owner (CEO only technically) of a small company, but that of course says nothing about the fact that there's all manner of size companies in between that most certainly have legitimate CEOs. (Many of whom would be batshit to accept the majority of their pay in some dogshit stock).

Yes, there is all manner of sizes of companies.

I think they can be broken down as follows:

1. Public versus nonpublic.

I think nonpublic should be excluded form the conversation because (1) there is no data for them and (2) their use of SO is rare.

2. Among public we have several tranches ranging from the large like Fortune 500/1000 down to the small 'penny stocks' etc.

I have also worked for some in the latter category. Their problems have always been finding enough cash to stay alive, including any salary for the execs/officers. Even some of the smallest have issued stock or SO's. But it's typically not marketable whether due to lack of a market or SEC regulations. I.e., the declared value of SO at the time granted would be miniscule, if any. But yeah, they want it/them, they're optimistic are they likely wouldn't be there.

I imagine some start ups funded by VC's have enough cash to pay the execs a decent salary, but I'm pretty confident it never rises past the level of 'decent'. In my experience with VC's, they don't even like seeing real nice offices etc because that's their cash.
-----
I wasn't being sarcastic.

-----
Discussion of Mitt Romney and his compensation really don't belong in this topic. He and his group outright bought stock, turned the company around and sold it. I.e., he's a hands on investor more than anything else.

Otherwise his comp is from managing funds and that's completely different altogether. CEO's and other execs don't get "carried interest". IIRC, carried interest requires the use of a partnership entity to exploit the loophole and partnerships technically don't have CEO's. They are free to use the term, of course, but I think legally what they have is a 'Managing partner'.

I.e., his compensation is not that of a 'real' CEO. He had a different role and different intentions

Fern
 
Last edited:

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
As expected from this sort of publication, it looks at income tax only, ignores regressive payroll and sales taxes.
And STILL regressive at the very top.

Democrats and Republicans are both to blame for this - two sides of the same coin. They lie, a lot.

And your chart is lying too - this particular chart is of the Democratic Lie variety.

I can tell you right now that someone making 100K / yr is not in a 12% tax bracket. How do I know that? I'm in that bracket and between SS, FICA, no state tax, around 35% of my income goes to the Gov't. FICA alone is well over 20%.

This has been discussed before but -

Basically once you hit 250K/yr houshold income you are being taxed out the wazoo. No one pays more than you do in taxes as a % of income.

What is 250k / yr? It's an engineer and a pilot. A doctor and a nurse. It is the true professional upper middle class.

Doctors btw, typically have ~200K in student loans when they begin to practice at age 35....

These people largely are not rich though. Rich people - don't need to worry about income.

From there you start getting into the folks at 500k/yr. Who makes 500k/yr?

For the most part, not professional middle class people. Maybe some small business owners. High ranking VPs and execs. Someone who is at the very top of their professional field maybe - even then, probably not, except a doctor. No one in a normal job makes that, even dual incomes.

And that is where the effective income tax rate levels off.

In other words, the Dem version of taxes is to tax the middle and upper middle class to death, but they never do anything about the super rich that they talk so much about.

This is easy to them because, to someone making 30k/yr, calling an engineer married to a nurse "wealthy" seems to connect with them. This kind of strategy is why so many get the feeling that the Dems want everyone to be burger flippers - that's the constituency they consistently appeal to.

The Republican version is to give small tax cuts to the middle and upper middle class, and big tax cuts to the super rich.

Either way, the rich win.

In other words, both parties are in the pockets of the wealthy.

Hell, they are the wealthy.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Democrats and Republicans are both to blame for this - two sides of the same coin. They lie, a lot.

And your chart is lying too - this particular chart is of the Democratic Lie variety.

I can tell you right now that someone making 100K / yr is not in a 12% tax bracket. How do I know that? I'm in that bracket and between SS, FICA, no state tax, around 35% of my income goes to the Gov't. FICA alone is well over 20%.

This has been discussed before but -

Basically once you hit 250K/yr houshold income you are being taxed out the wazoo. No one pays more than you do in taxes as a % of income.

What is 250k / yr? It's an engineer and a pilot. A doctor and a nurse. It is the true professional upper middle class.

Doctors btw, typically have ~200K in student loans when they begin to practice at age 35....

These people largely are not rich though. Rich people - don't need to worry about income.

From there you start getting into the folks at 500k/yr. Who makes 500k/yr?

For the most part, not professional middle class people. Maybe some small business owners. High ranking VPs and execs. Someone who is at the very top of their professional field maybe - even then, probably not, except a doctor. No one in a normal job makes that, even dual incomes.

And that is where the effective income tax rate levels off.

In other words, the Dem version of taxes is to tax the middle and upper middle class to death, but they never do anything about the super rich that they talk so much about.

This is easy to them because, to someone making 30k/yr, calling an engineer married to a nurse "wealthy" seems to connect with them. This kind of strategy is why so many get the feeling that the Dems want everyone to be burger flippers - that's the constituency they consistently appeal to.

The Republican version is to give small tax cuts to the middle and upper middle class, and big tax cuts to the super rich.

Either way, the rich win.

In other words, both parties are in the pockets of the wealthy.

Hell, they are the wealthy.
Yep. Two sides of the same coin, just pick your poison.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
These topics are always a bit misleading. Yes, a family of four making around $50k doesn't really pay income tax, but say they own a home, they could easily be paying 10% of their income on property tax, among other things.

True, but property taxes are local. Sales taxes tend to be local and state. One could easily argue that the rich pay far more in property taxes, and far more in sales taxes overall as they buy more expensive items more often.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
The biggest issue is capital gains tax. If you look at the truly wealthy (the billionaires of this world), literally every one of them has massive wealth through their ownership stakes of prominent companies. They can draw a symbolic $1 salary and make billions through their investments, yet that investment income is taxed at a lower rate to "encourage investment" (as though wealthy people would withdraw all their money from investments if capital gains taxes were increased at the top end). If it's money people are earning and using to pay for their lifestyles, why should it be taxed differently if it's from selling labor than investing?

This is true... Very true. Capital gains should be taxed on a progressive schedule as well. Liquidate more than say... $500k and instead of 15%, you pay 30%... Would probably work to some degree unless said stocks were paid directly to an offshore trust which would also need to be addressed.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
You laugh, but you don't understand. What's funny is you don't understand this in any way shape or form.

What is a Chief Executor?
Executive you fucking mouth breathing moron. You may actually be dumber than the dumbest leftloons around here.

An Executor is like someone who handles an estate or handles a will. Fucking imbecile.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Absurd as it may be, that's pretty much the case. Most people don't bother to type out "senior level executives'. So "CEO" is often used as shorthand for it.
No it isn't, that's just flat out wrong. CEO isn't in any sense interchangable with all other corporate executive positions.

Its really hard to take people.seriously that just keep putting out flat out incorrect statements.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
No it isn't, that's just flat out wrong. CEO isn't in any sense interchangable with all other corporate executive positions.

Its really hard to take people.seriously that just keep putting out flat out incorrect statements.

You're wasting your time. This board is overrun with followers of the Fox News religion. You can tell who they are because they usually copy and paste their responses from the rightwingfascism.com board to here and include a few insults so nobody accuses them of plagiarism.

"Rich people good.
Bankers good.
Wall Street good.
Slave labor good.
War good.
Making sure Americans aren't living in a 3rd world country, BAD!"

^How their minds work.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
Do you even know what a chief executor is?

I'll take a stab at it.

Is it the person who pulls the switch in a Texas death house?
or....
Is it the person who you put in charge of your will when you die?


Other than that, I do not know what a chief executor is. What is it?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Executive you fucking mouth breathing moron. You may actually be dumber than the dumbest leftloons around here.

An Executor is like someone who handles an estate or handles a will. Fucking imbecile.

One who executes orders or a plan is an an Executor. It's a common term in business. Example:

"Oh, you need that done? See Frank, he's an executor for that department"

What is your signing and executor authority again? You didn't even bother to google:

ex·ec·u·tor
noun
noun: executor; plural noun: executors

1.
Law
a person or institution appointed by a testator to carry out the terms of their will.
2.
a person who produces something or puts something into effect.
 
Last edited:

kia75

Senior member
Oct 30, 2005
468
0
71
The argument is that Ceo's and other rich people have the ability to take their compensation in other forms then salary and taxable income in order to lower their tax burden. Stock options, Investment dividends, and a hundred other different forms of compensations is how they do it. I posted a link with examples.

You are trying to re-frame the argument into its most ridiculous straw man and then shoot down the straw man rather then discussing the issue at hand.

WTF?
You do know what *stock* is, don't you? Care to rethink this statement and try again?

Part of Mitt Romney's compensation was payed for in stock. Do YOU care to re-think your argument and try again?

My argument isn't that Mitt Romney's only compensation is stocks. That would be stupid. The argument is that Mitt Romney knows how to get his compensation in such a way that he has a lower tax burden then you or I. His tax returns prove it. He managed a 14% (should be 9%) tax burden, and he did that when he knew his income taxes would be scrutinized. I'm certain if he wasn't running for president his tax burden would have been much much smaller.

Romney's income was primarily investment dividends. Do people actually know the differences between all these things and stock options (not all companies even pay a dividend) or are people just doing the usual, lumping all sorts of things they know little about together as if they were the same thing?

If Romney represents the majority of CEOs, then you're now claiming CEOs mostly get paid in killer dividend yeilding portfolios. Thats actualy a direct contradiction to the claim they all get paid in stock options.

You're a) proving my point that rich people get compensated in ways other then salary
and
b) taking the argument to a ridiculous level. If I say bob ate a hamburger today, the fact that you have proof that Bob drank some water at noon doesn't disprove that he ate a hamburger, and arguing that it's physically impossible to drink water and eat a hamburger at the same time is foolishness, because nobody other then you is saying that.

Romney was compensated in Stock options. That doesn't mean he couldn't also be compensated in investment dividends. Romney was compensated in Investment dividends. That doesn't mean he couldn't also be compensated in Stock. Romney was compensated in a cash salary. That doesn't mean he wasn't also compensated in Stock, Investment dividends, or other forms of compensation.

Look at Romney's million dollar IRA and see how he was able to get millions of dollars tax free for retirement.

Again, the argument is that the rich use lots of financial tricks to get a lower tax burden.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
If you're truly in favor of equality in taxes, how would you feel about a 100% estate tax? After all, what's less fair than someone being rich through absolutely no work of their own, but because they were born to wealthy parents? The truly rich would still get around it of course (Sam Walton already involved his children in the business, so they'd still own enough shares to control the company in the event of his death, for example), but if we're after true equality, it should be based on individual merit, not family heritage.

Please note that I'm not actually in favor of a 100% estate tax, I'm just curious how the "fair tax" proponents feel about such a measure.

Um, what? How is confiscating all inheritance fair, or in any way related to a sales tax? Sorry but I am completely missing your point. I'm talking about fair as in equality before the law. Not equality of outcomes.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
One who executes orders or a plan is an an Executor. It's a common term in business. Example:

"Oh, you need that done? See Frank, he's an executor for that department"

Chief Executor

I have LITERALLY never heard the term until YOU made it up. Nobody and I mean NOBODY uses that term in business. ROFLMFAO!!!!
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Chief Executor

I have LITERALLY never heard the term until YOU made it up. Nobody and I mean NOBODY uses that term in business. ROFLMFAO!!!!

I'm describing the role not the title.

One who executes orders and direction is an executor. Pronounced like executive. X ec u tor.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
Chief Executor

I have LITERALLY never heard the term until YOU made it up. Nobody and I mean NOBODY uses that term in business. ROFLMFAO!!!!
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Too late this time, but something to think about in the future.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I can tell you right now that someone making 100K / yr is not in a 12% tax bracket. How do I know that? I'm in that bracket and between SS, FICA, no state tax, around 35% of my income goes to the Gov't. FICA alone is well over 20%.

Hogwash. FICA is 6.2% SS for the employee, same for the employer. Self employed pay 12.4%. Add 2.9% medicare to that to get the total. Employed people pay 9.1%, self employed pay 15.3% total. SS is capped at ~$100K/yr, iirc. Nobody pays SS on capital gains, either.

I'm sure your other numbers came from your nether orifice, as well.