The Angry Rich

[sao123]

LOL, what wonderful business acumen you have. Instead of the hedge fund investors hiring a manager for $2B who makes them many billions more than that in profit, let's hire some 40,000 random people instead who don't even have no fvcking clue what a hedge fund is. I can see it now, "Hey honey, why did you get the expensive surgeon to do the lung transplant, when his one income could have paid for twenty six welders instead?"

epic fail.
A Doctor provides a real standalone service.
However, without a factory, a ceo, hedge fund manager, and many other exec type positions are worthless. the real value made from a company is its blue collar manufacturers and service people.
auto assembler = real value
salesman = real value
repairman = real value
ceo = artificial wealth

 

[JMapleton]

ceo = artificial wealth

You're a dumbass. I'm not even insulting you, just stating a fact.

Saying a CEO is worthless is like saying an airline pilot is worthless. "It's the passengers and the stewardesses who make the plane fly."

You'll give a few example of major companies like GM or Goldman that had fly by night execs who took their golden parachutes and ran, but most CEOs keep these companies afloat and thus keep the employees employed.

 

[Moonbeam]

What is it with illiterate people and my posts? Your post has nothing to do with anything I said. Learn how to read, and then get back to me. I can only hope this was a case of quoting the wrong post, but at this point, I doubt it.

See, it's got to be you that is having this problem because you don't say what you think you do is my guess.

 

[Craig234]

You're a dumbass. I'm not even insulting you, just stating a fact.

Saying a CEO is worthless is like saying an airline pilot is worthless. "It's the passengers and the stewardesses who make the plane fly."

You'll give a few example of major companies like GM or Goldman that had fly by night execs who took their golden parachutes and ran, but most CEOs keep these companies afloat and thus keep the employees employed.

No, papa bear, the truth is between you two.

The pilot doesn't make $10 million a year.

Too bad you are not a little bit informed, about the CEO to worker pay ratios historically in the US, and Europe.

CEOs deserve higher pay, to a point. Beyond that, there's a lot of excess that's not deserved and caused by gaming the system for their benefit.

 

[LunarRay]

Taxing labor is not what ought to happen. One's income does not determine how much they enjoy life, liberty and the rest of it.

Well.... Perhaps not for the folks who are wealthy and don't work... Hand me downs from Papa, I suppose, are not income. But they do enable... Your premise, I think, is that income is not related to the enjoyment of our founding concepts and I disagree... In my thinking it is direct and proportional.
If the notion of income derived from employment (emolument) or from investments or some other form of income does create wealth (in the economic sense, that would be anything that has monetary or exchange value) and wealth provides the means to enjoy 'stuff' then to me it is a fair basis upon which to provide for the needs that secure the ability to enjoy 'stuff'.
I do not feel that a flat tax or similar tax apportions relative to the enjoyment factor.
I wouldn't mind a VAT type tax... with the percentage charged varied based on the same logic... A yacht would pick up a much higher VAT than say a tomato (food would be excluded, of course). So long as what seems to be beyond the reach of the multitude is taxed accordingly I'd not whimper.

So long as the Government spends it must tax...
What was it that Economic Guru said... " To each according to their needs and from each according to their ability "... Who decides who needs what? And who decides who has what ability?
I fear that he was not far off in his assertion that: "... as capitalism replaced feudalism so shall socialism replace capitalism and thereby create perfect communism..." maybe not quite the quote... but, a classless society or one class...
I think to avoid going there my way is the best way... I always agree with myself.. hehehehehe.

 

[JMapleton]

CEOs deserve higher pay, to a point. Beyond that, there's a lot of excess that's not deserved and caused by gaming the system for their benefit.

Who are you to say they do not deserve it? If a board of directors is willing to pay it, good for them.

You cannot use past pay histories because you're taking averages for the last 30 or 50 years when the US was chained in socialism and high taxes. It would have made no sense to pay someone 500x the average worker if the top tax bracket was 75%, it would have all gone to uncle sam. Also, Europe isn't captialist. They do not value the businessman or his efforts. That's why they're posting on this forum from their computers with Intel chips (American) using Microsoft Windows (American) and searching for dumb statistics to retort my statement using Google (American).

 

[LunarRay]

Who are you to say they do not deserve it? If a board of directors is willing to pay it, good for them.

You cannot use past pay histories because you're taking averages for the last 30 or 50 years when the US was chained in socialism and high taxes. It would have made no sense to pay someone 500x the average worker if the top tax bracket was 75%, it would have all gone to uncle sam. Also, Europe isn't captialist. They do not value the businessman or his efforts. That's why they're posting on this forum from their computers with Intel chips (American) using Microsoft Windows (American) and searching for dumb statistics to retort my statement using Google (American).

IF payroll is an expense of the corporation then it reduces the corporate tax. Is it equal, perhaps not but it is a consideration... 25% of something is something.
Corporate thinking moved to award stock options as a means to reward and that makes up most of the income for the top rollers today and in the recent past. They are motivated to lie, cheat and beyond to garner the most they can for their efforts. So when one looks at salary as compared to yesterday year ya gotta figure they know how to get the most bang for the buck. I remember when perks were the big deal... Car and membership at the local country club... boy did some enjoy those benefits...
I guess the question is: Is Jack Walsh worth 50 million today and would he be worth that amount in 50 years ago dollars... I don't think so but mainly cuz relative to those dollars the corporate bottom line has increased proportional to the salary/other benefit increases. Probably a bit less is paid today to produce the income than in the past. I think one must work with real dollars and factor out the inflation.

 

[CycloWizard]

See, it's got to be you that is having this problem because you don't say what you think you do is my guess.

Certainly the fault can't lie with you or Darwin - it must lie with me. After all, my statements didn't align with your strawman and are therefore difficult to argue against, so it must be that I, rather than you, misstated my position.

 

[LunarRay]

Your justification seems to be that the rich should pay simply because they can. I'm not really inclined to agree with that.

I'm saying that all should pay the same percentage on the same amount of income and that as that income increases so too should the percentage. The notion is simply that the more dollars of income the more you benefit from living in the US... and you should not only pay the same percentage as the previous increment but a surcharge applicable to the derived benefit of citizenship the new increment provides.

I'm not sure which taxation scheme is best. According to the Holmes quotation thrown in to the OP's article, it seems that a citizenship tax is in order, else one cannot truly be a part of "civilized society." If you want to live in the US, then you have to pay at least, say, $100 a year. If Krugman was being honest in how this should be interpreted by any rational person, this is what it should mean. I know some people who are not at all well off who feel this is the way it should be - everyone has to pay something. I might support this if it were the only taxes charged, and it looks like this would raise about $32 billion per year given the current population (assuming there was no age cutoff).

I suppose that gives all folks a feeling that they contributed in some measure to the needs but that would also mean that the very poor would in some manner have to get that money back in order to survive... although 100$ is not going to starve some it may others.
IOW, why bother. It is like the bank charging overdraft fees when they know what they charge is simply more of what they know you don't have any of.

The simplest one that seems to be justifiable would be a simple proportional tax with a threshold such that no income below that threshold would be taxed. This would let low-income people keep their money while the government takes a flat percentage for all income over that. I think the threshold should hold for all types of taxes, including SS/Medicaid/et cetera.

IF only that considered the relative benefit those extra dollars enabled the earner to enjoy that cost the government to provide... like security via the military... One's way of life is consistent with their wealth... the more wealth the more often they can enjoy its benefits. I think the unspoken reality of our current tax system considers this. IF it don't then I can find no rational basis for incremental percentage tax increases. IF everyone benefits to the same degree regardless of their income then my notion of income related benefit from living in the US has no merit.

However, perhaps the best model would be a fee-for-service model in which you pay based on your actual usage of government services. Again, a threshold could be used below which you won't pay for these things. People making above the threshold would pay marginally more than the services they use actually cost to pay for those who can't. This method would at least offer an easy test of whether it really is the utilization of services that enables the rich to become rich and would charge them accordingly. I think this model is a lot easier to justify than a progressive tax scheme as a result.

In some cases like police and fire protection the property tax which is based on the value of the property tends to mirror my notion. I'd hate to think because my house caught fire or I was robbed I'd have to pay for that privilege. I don't mind the Highway or Gas tax because I think we do benefit equally... or based on consumption... But, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the cost of the military benefits those who'd have more to lose but for its existence. In general, I'm not totally opposed to your proffer. I can't see an easy way to conduct such a system, however. At first blush, it would appear to create more expense for the Government and thus produce more cost to the consumer of the various services they might need to avail themselves of.

End of the day, I think I'd favor a system that had one drain on the income of folks and paid for all the Government and its redistribution amounts, both State and Federal. But, where the State did the collecting and had greater voice in the distribution bit...
It might be like; there is a less likely move to an aggressive war if there was a draft... Wars become very unpopular when folks get drafted into it... unless you know how to avoid being drafted. Try drafting California into a costly trillion dollars war and I'd wager we'd exclaim, "are you crazy?" "Let's talk this over a bit more."
I do think our leaders are way too powerful and out of control... It is with them that taxes are needed and we're suppose to be that government... So it is no wonder the rich get taxed more regardless of my 'enjoyment' factor.. there is simply more less rich people who feel better if the rich pay more for the dollars earned over those less rich people... It is human nature to dislike the better off... they ain't us, after all.

 

[Eos]

And you know this how? I deal with many wealthy clients and I live in the richest area of my city, which is one of the richest cities per capita in the country (more billioniares per capita than any city in the world). Most people in my part of town actually supported Obama and vote moderate Democrat. I live 1000ft away our Senator, who is a democrat. My apartment overlooks a $4m house.

Lies. The rich would NEVER allow an apartment complex built within five miles of a house like that... ;P

 

[Zebo]

epic fail.
A Doctor provides a real standalone service.
However, without a factory, a ceo, hedge fund manager, and many other exec type positions are worthless. the real value made from a company is its blue collar manufacturers and service people.
auto assembler = real value
salesman = real value
repairman = real value
ceo = artificial wealth

Apparently, he believes people have some sort of an obligation to do disagreeable or dangerous work cheaply.

Labor is the driving force behind all economic production while Capital/CEOs/Hedge funders etc is used to organize labor. Both have value.

 

[epidemis]

we've switched from racism and the "white man's burden" to wealth-ism and the "rich man's burden."

But is that because of ideology or reality? :X

 

[ebaycj]

Wait, wh ydo they need to pay the tab for services they will never use?
That's a total crock of shit. If you want taxation to be fair, the poor should pay a higher percentage as they are the ones that use more government services.

Stop being a jealous bitch, which is what anyone that says "tax the rich more they can afford it", is.

You REALLY think that a poor person on welfare and food stamps relies MORE government services than the CEO of a trucking company?

The poor person gets, let's say, $1500 per month, on the high end. He has virtually no assets, and therefore virtually nothing to protect.

The rich person gets the benefits of a built, (mostly) maintained, and (mostly) functioning interstate highway system. He enjoys these benefits for both himself and for his company. This highway system was very expensive to build and is also expensive to maintain.

The rich person gets the benefits of an in-place legal system and corresponding officers of the law, to protect his assets from the masses of jealous poor people. He enjoys these benefits for both himself and for his company. This legal system was very expensive to build and is also expensive to maintain.

The rich person gets the benefits of a built and maintained military to protect his assets from seizure by foreign powers. He enjoys these benefits for both himself and for his company. This military was very expensive to build and is also expensive to maintain.

How, by any stretch of the imagination, is the poor person using *MORE* government services?

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm saying that all should pay the same percentage on the same amount of income and that as that income increases so too should the percentage. The notion is simply that the more dollars of income the more you benefit from living in the US... and you should not only pay the same percentage as the previous increment but a surcharge applicable to the derived benefit of citizenship the new increment provides.

Again this is simply a premise which your entire argument is based on, but it lacks substantiation. If we take the government away, who is better off - the poor or the wealthy? I suspect that the wealthy will get by just fine. They will hire private security to make sure their stuff is taken care of and it will be business as usual. If someone is very poor and relies on the government for everything, then they are really SOL when government disappears, at least until private charities can expand to pick up the slack. Perhaps those in the middle would be the worst off in this scenario. So how do we decide what constitutes the "derived benefit of citizenship the new increment provides?"

I suppose that gives all folks a feeling that they contributed in some measure to the needs but that would also mean that the very poor would in some manner have to get that money back in order to survive... although 100$ is not going to starve some it may others.
IOW, why bother. It is like the bank charging overdraft fees when they know what they charge is simply more of what they know you don't have any of.

Agreed, but I do think it's important that representation come with some level of taxation. Otherwise, we end up with half of the population voting to take all of the money from the other half. A company doesn't ask me how to operate if I don't own any shares because I have no vested interest in whether or not they succeed.

IF only that considered the relative benefit those extra dollars enabled the earner to enjoy that cost the government to provide... like security via the military... One's way of life is consistent with their wealth... the more wealth the more often they can enjoy its benefits. I think the unspoken reality of our current tax system considers this. IF it don't then I can find no rational basis for incremental percentage tax increases. IF everyone benefits to the same degree regardless of their income then my notion of income related benefit from living in the US has no merit.

It may have merit in the current system, but it's hard to put a finger on it. How do we know who benefits disproportionately more from living in a well-developed city rather than a bombed out piece of rubble? In countries where everyone lives under such conditions (i.e. without any real security), wealth is still generated by some while others are simply shell shocked.

In some cases like police and fire protection the property tax which is based on the value of the property tends to mirror my notion. I'd hate to think because my house caught fire or I was robbed I'd have to pay for that privilege. I don't mind the Highway or Gas tax because I think we do benefit equally... or based on consumption... But, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the cost of the military benefits those who'd have more to lose but for its existence. In general, I'm not totally opposed to your proffer. I can't see an easy way to conduct such a system, however. At first blush, it would appear to create more expense for the Government and thus produce more cost to the consumer of the various services they might need to avail themselves of.

I was just talking about federal taxes. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the federal government attempts to fill all needs for all people using a one-size-fits-all approach, thereby failing everyone.

End of the day, I think I'd favor a system that had one drain on the income of folks and paid for all the Government and its redistribution amounts, both State and Federal. But, where the State did the collecting and had greater voice in the distribution bit...
It might be like; there is a less likely move to an aggressive war if there was a draft... Wars become very unpopular when folks get drafted into it... unless you know how to avoid being drafted. Try drafting California into a costly trillion dollars war and I'd wager we'd exclaim, "are you crazy?" "Let's talk this over a bit more."
I do think our leaders are way too powerful and out of control... It is with them that taxes are needed and we're suppose to be that government... So it is no wonder the rich get taxed more regardless of my 'enjoyment' factor.. there is simply more less rich people who feel better if the rich pay more for the dollars earned over those less rich people... It is human nature to dislike the better off... they ain't us, after all.

Agreed.

 

[CitizenKain]

Who are you to say they do not deserve it? If a board of directors is willing to pay it, good for them.

You cannot use past pay histories because you're taking averages for the last 30 or 50 years when the US was chained in socialism and high taxes. It would have made no sense to pay someone 500x the average worker if the top tax bracket was 75%, it would have all gone to uncle sam. Also, Europe isn't captialist. They do not value the businessman or his efforts. That's why they're posting on this forum from their computers with Intel chips (American) using Microsoft Windows (American) and searching for dumb statistics to retort my statement using Google (American).

Its funny how many CEOs on the boards of other companies. Also strange is how when you give someone else a raise, they seem to do the same in return.

Why wouldn't it have made more sense to pay someone 500x then a average worker, even with a high tax rate they still would have made more money. Not a difficult concept there.
For Europe not valuing businesses, they certainly seem to turn out a lot of high quality ones.
US chained in socialism and high taxes, really. What rightwing blog told you that?

 

[dainthomas]

Its funny how many CEOs on the boards of other companies. Also strange is how when you give someone else a raise, they seem to do the same in return.

Yep, that board of directors argument was pretty weak.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yep, that board of directors argument was pretty weak.

Yeah, its like saying Congress would never vote itself a pay raise.

 

[thegimp03]

A lot of CEO compensation is performance/incentive based and that's how it should be. Take a CEO who pulls in $350k a year but then their bonus may be 150-200% of their base salary so their total compensation ends up being $750k-$1m. You won't see investors of Fortune 500 companies complaining about their CEOs' compensation as long as their stock is increasing, the company is profitable and continues to forecast good numbers.

 

[1prophet]

A lot of CEO compensation is performance/incentive based and that's how it should be. Take a CEO who pulls in $350k a year but then their bonus may be 150-200% of their base salary so their total compensation ends up being $750k-$1m. You won't see investors of Fortune 500 companies complaining about their CEOs' compensation as long as their stock is increasing, the company is profitable and continues to forecast good numbers.

http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/golden-parachutes-how-the-bankers-went-down/

When high-ranking executives are fired from a company, for whatever reason, they don’t go to the back of the unemployment line. Instead, they typically receive compensation in the form of the “golden parachute.” Golden parachutes can include severance pay, cash bonuses, stock options or other benefits. In the case of the financial crisis and the ensuing bank failures, if it seems like these executives are being rewarded for poor performance, you may be right. Here’s a look at what some bankers made on their way down.


Is that how it should be?

Golden Parachutes: How the Bankers Went Down

 

[thegimp03]

http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/golden-parachutes-how-the-bankers-went-down/

When high-ranking executives are fired from a company, for whatever reason, they don’t go to the back of the unemployment line. Instead, they typically receive compensation in the form of the “golden parachute.” Golden parachutes can include severance pay, cash bonuses, stock options or other benefits. In the case of the financial crisis and the ensuing bank failures, if it seems like these executives are being rewarded for poor performance, you may be right. Here’s a look at what some bankers made on their way down.


Is that how it should be?

Golden Parachutes: How the Bankers Went Down

I almost added a caveat that golden parachutes should not be included. Take the recent HP problem with Mark Hurd. The guy gets a few blowjobs from a consultant and was supposed to get $35-40m for it. I'd be flaming pissed if I was an investor.

 

[JMapleton]

Is that how it should be?

Yes. I get a severance pay if I'm fired or laid off from my company. Why shouldn't they, it's in their contract. It's part of the reason they agree to work there in the first place.

Auto workers with GM got like $100k a year or two ago I heard.

 

[dainthomas]

Yes. I get a severance pay if I'm fired or laid off from my company. Why shouldn't they, it's in their contract. It's part of the reason they agree to work there in the first place.

Auto workers with GM got like $100k a year or two ago I heard.

Yep. They agreed to work there because their golf buddies on the board offered them the same deal they got. Can your buddies vote you a raise if you agree to give them one too?

And round and round we go! Choo-choo!

 

[Darwin333]

You REALLY think that a poor person on welfare and food stamps relies MORE government services than the CEO of a trucking company?

The poor person gets, let's say, $1500 per month, on the high end. He has virtually no assets, and therefore virtually nothing to protect.

Nonsense. The less you have the more it is worth. Steal $500 from the rich guy and he shrugs it off, steal $500 from the poor guy and his family goes hungry.

The rich person gets the benefits of a built, (mostly) maintained, and (mostly) functioning interstate highway system. He enjoys these benefits for both himself and for his company. This highway system was very expensive to build and is also expensive to maintain.

I will agree with you here, although I think their is "value" provided to all including the people employed by the rich guy who use those same highways and pay taxes.

The rich person gets the benefits of an in-place legal system and corresponding officers of the law, to protect his assets from the masses of jealous poor people. He enjoys these benefits for both himself and for his company. This legal system was very expensive to build and is also expensive to maintain.

The rich people can hire someone to protect their assets, the poor can not. During Katrina private mercs flew in to protect the homes of the ultra-wealthy in the area. The poor had no such protection.

The rich person gets the benefits of a built and maintained military to protect his assets from seizure by foreign powers. He enjoys these benefits for both himself and for his company. This military was very expensive to build and is also expensive to maintain.

I think that freedom has equal value across the board. I would not appreciate or value my freedom any higher if my pay tripled tomorrow.

How, by any stretch of the imagination, is the poor person using *MORE* government services?

I would argue that they are using more government services but the value for certain ones is different. OTOH, without the government services that the rich enjoy the poor would be skinny poor (versus fat poor, really really big difference). It really is a symbiotic relationship, except for the banksters. Fuck those assholes, I hope they die slowly in a fire.

At the end of the day, we shouldn't be shaping policy for 2% of Americans based on the actions/abilities/income of .00001% of Americans. If ya don't like the uber-rich CEOs then go after them and them alone. Bill Gates is not equal to a family making $300K a year and never will be.

 

[1prophet]

Yes. I get a severance pay if I'm fired or laid off from my company. Why shouldn't they, it's in their contract. It's part of the reason they agree to work there in the first place.

Auto workers with GM got like $100k a year or two ago I heard.

If they did offshore, what difference would it make?

You fail to understand the purpose America was built on was a completely free country. Even if that freedom meant self destruction.

I'll take freedom and all the negatives and positives that comes with it. I don't want people playing with the social and economy "knobs" trying to create some Utopia.

Except they don't self destruct anymore, their buddies on the board or some government bailout saves their ass, and in turn they reciprocate and help their friends out while the rest of us end up holding the bag.

True, but that cannot happen indefinitely. The US will have a hard landing when our dollar collapses because of the way we're diluting it because of people bailing one another out to leave for future generations to fix/pay for the problem.

(excuse the kookie conspiracy-like presentation, but they interview credible people)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3g5lUgkWk

 

[JMapleton]

Except they don't self destruct anymore, their buddies on the board or some government bailout saves their ass, and in turn they reciprocate and help their friends out while the rest of us end up holding the bag.

They WILL collapse, their crooked ways just delays the destruction. When the US Dollar collapses it will cause trillions in wealth to be destroyed most of it in the hands of the wealthy.

No one can just continuously cheat the system without the Jenga puzzle collapsing.

They bail each other out by diluting the US dollar, just borrowing money from China/India and eventually this debt burden will catch up with them.