billvon 2,379 #26 March 12, 2013 >I concur "Why didn't I concur?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #27 March 12, 2013 Quote>I concur "Why didn't I concur?" You're all so agreeable. Who ever heard of "concurrable"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 123 #28 March 12, 2013 "earning it" is fine if you did actually earn it. But sitting on a boards of directors, committees and such, of high powered corporations where they give you raises and you give them raises and everyone sits around in a board room circle-jerking each other is not really 'earning'. What exactly did the Home Depot CEO from 8 years ago do to 'earn' the $200M+ severance package? Whereas the Home Depot CEO from 20 years ago only got $2M severance? Am I stealing from you if you effectively have the ability to set your own wages through your cronie friends, and I cap it or reduce it to something more reasonable? I think not. First you would have to define what 'earning' really means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #29 March 12, 2013 >earning it" is fine if you did actually earn it. But sitting on a boards of directors, >committees and such, of high powered corporations where they give you raises and >you give them raises and everyone sits around in a board room circle-jerking each >other is not really 'earning'. Neither is owning a DZ and just jumping with your friends for free all day! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #30 March 12, 2013 Quote"earning it" is fine if you did actually earn it. But sitting on a boards of directors, committees and such, of high powered corporations where they give you raises and you give them raises and everyone sits around in a board room circle-jerking each other is not really 'earning'. What exactly did the Home Depot CEO from 8 years ago do to 'earn' the $200M+ severance package? Whereas the Home Depot CEO from 20 years ago only got $2M severance? Am I stealing from you if you effectively have the ability to set your own wages through your cronie friends, and I cap it or reduce it to something more reasonable? I think not. First you would have to define what 'earning' really means. Earnings is already defined by the tax code. The shareholders vote who is elected to the board to represent them in the running of the entity. It is a private entity that can pay its employees and board members whatever it chooses. it does not have to prove its pay is earned to you, only the shareholders. If you do not like HD's severance package, purchase enough voting shares, elect yourself or someone like minded and change it. Or dont shop there. I think you are paid too much. you dont do nearly as much as other employees or those of other DZ's that are better run and dont spend their time jerking off on the internet. See, i can do that same and sound just as silly as you did."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 March 12, 2013 Quote What exactly did the Home Depot CEO from 8 years ago do to 'earn' the $200M+ severance package? Whereas the Home Depot CEO from 20 years ago only got $2M severance? "Nardelli was a nuts-and-bolts leader. He helped increase revenue and profits at Home Depot and increase the number of stores the company operates. Home Depot’s earnings per share have increased by approximately 150 percent over the last five years." "Revenue increased from $45.74 billion in 2000 to $81.51 billion in 2005, while net earnings after tax rose from $2.58 billion to $5.84 billion." The board ousted him because the stock value did not rise with profits. When you can the CEO, you typically vest all options (per contract), and that's where the big payoff came. 20 years ago, Home Depot was a much smaller company. 1992 revenue was 7.1B. It also predated the changes (many driven by tax policy) towards options based compensation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 March 12, 2013 Quote"earning it" is fine if you did actually earn it. And you are the authority on what is "earning" and what is not. Sorry that I failed to recognize that. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,619 #33 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote How is taxing a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager at 15% "soaking"? When taking 15% of a person's income for no other reason that "we need it more that you do" is not considered "soaking" then it's an indication of where we stand as a society. How is that worse than taking 21% of a hard working plumber's income? It isn't. It's soaking the plumber. You're advocating a policy of making the hedge fund manager as miserable as the plumber. How about making the plumber more comfortable by lowering his burden to the hedge fund manager? I'm seriously blown away by this. "It's not fair that plumber 21% of his hard earned income taken from him. Let's make the hedge fund manager do it, too. That'll take away the sting from the plumber." This is called "progressive government." Why should a multi millionaire hedge fund manager pay at a lower rate than a plumber making, say $150k? That's not soaking the rich, it's pandering to the rich. The very wealthy have bought and paid for our government, and the government has rewarded them mightily. That is why the average federal tax rate for the richest 400 people in the USA is less than the rate paid by many middle class folks. The rich are NOT being soaked. They paid a lot more during Eisenhower's, Nixon's and Reagan's eras.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #34 March 12, 2013 >Why should a multi millionaire hedge fund manager pay at a lower rate than a >plumber making, say $150k? That's not soaking the rich, it's pandering to the rich. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager making $500K a year DOES pay at a higher rate than a plumber making $150K a year, per our current tax law. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager making $50K a year pays at a lower rate than a plumber making $150K a year, again per our current tax law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #35 March 12, 2013 Quote"earning it" is fine if you did actually earn it. But sitting on a boards of directors, committees and such, of high powered corporations where they give you raises and you give them raises and everyone sits around in a board room circle-jerking each other is not really 'earning'. What exactly did the Home Depot CEO from 8 years ago do to 'earn' the $200M+ severance package? Whereas the Home Depot CEO from 20 years ago only got $2M severance? Am I stealing from you if you effectively have the ability to set your own wages through your cronie friends, and I cap it or reduce it to something more reasonable? I think not. First you would have to define what 'earning' really means. You are assuming that all rich people have stolen their money. It's a big assumption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,619 #36 March 12, 2013 Quote>Why should a multi millionaire hedge fund manager pay at a lower rate than a >plumber making, say $150k? That's not soaking the rich, it's pandering to the rich. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager making $500K a year DOES pay at a higher rate than a plumber making $150K a year, per our current tax law. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager making $50K a year pays at a lower rate than a plumber making $150K a year, again per our current tax law. Doesn't seem to work that way for Mitt Romney or John Paulsen thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/04/1535461/obama-carried-interest-again/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 123 #37 March 12, 2013 who jumps for free? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 123 #38 March 12, 2013 "Earnings" is a noun. "Earning" is a verb. Sorry you cannot tell the difference. And in most large corporations the 'shareholders' with most clout are part of the circle-jerking society themselves. The small shareholder does not have much say. And if you were a shareholder of Skydive City, yes INDEED, you would have a say in what I get paid. But you are not, so the point is moot. But here is what DOES NOT happen in the skydiving world. I do not sit on the board of Skydive Arizona and Larry Hill does not sit on the board of Skydive City. And we are not publicly traded companies, so there is no 'circle-jerk' but on Wall St. there sure is. Take a look at the cross-section on the major banks, the corporations that all work together in similar sectors of industry and tell me that you cannot find collusion amongst the people at the top. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 123 #39 March 12, 2013 Quote20 years ago, Home Depot was a much smaller company. 1992 revenue was 7.1B. It also predated the changes (many driven by tax policy) towards options based compensation. exactly. so revenues were up by 10 times, and profit doubled, but CEO compensation went up by 100 times? Yep, that makes sense. I bet he 'earned it'. And stock value did not rise with profits so he got a $230M severance package. that makes sense too, I guess he 'earned it'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 123 #40 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuote"earning it" is fine if you did actually earn it. And you are the authority on what is "earning" and what is not. Sorry that I failed to recognize that. I never said I was an authority on what earning is, I questioned it and suggested that a definition of it might vary from person to person. And apparently I was correct in that assumption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 123 #41 March 12, 2013 QuoteYou are assuming that all rich people have stolen their money. It's a big assumption. I never made any such assumption. YOU made an assumption that is what I was saying. There is a lot of collusion going on in board rooms across large public and private industries. It is a fact. The shareholders of these companies did not and do not get to vote on the compensation packages, they only vote for the people on the Board or whatever part of the company is 'electable'. Large scale shareholders still call most of the shots and are part of the 'club', this leads to uncontrolled 'power grabbing' in some cases and has been well documented. The Home Depot CEO is one of the most prominent in recent times and the Wall St crashes are another example, where people retain their bonuses, their enormous salaries despite the obvious facts that they are not doing their jobs. That apparently is called 'earning' by some in this forum. And that is what I am questioning. Most people, if they could write their own paycheck, will do a reasonable job of it. Some people, if allowed to write their own paycheck, will plunder the company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #42 March 12, 2013 Quote"Earnings" is a noun. "Earning" is a verb. Sorry you cannot tell the difference. And in most large corporations the 'shareholders' with most clout are part of the circle-jerking society themselves. The small shareholder does not have much say. And if you were a shareholder of Skydive City, yes INDEED, you would have a say in what I get paid. But you are not, so the point is moot. But here is what DOES NOT happen in the skydiving world. I do not sit on the board of Skydive Arizona and Larry Hill does not sit on the board of Skydive City. And we are not publicly traded companies, so there is no 'circle-jerk' but on Wall St. there sure is. Take a look at the cross-section on the major banks, the corporations that all work together in similar sectors of industry and tell me that you cannot find collusion amongst the people at the top. telling me my opinion of your pay is moot makes my point to you. no matter how you try to spin it."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #43 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote Quotewhen it comes to raising money to run government That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. Like defense. SocSec is actually solvent, and Medicare has its own tax. Did you know that the average federal tax rate of the richest 400 people in the USA is below that of the average of the top 0.1%, which in turn is less than that of the top 1% So the super duper rich aren't being "soaked" at all compared with the merely rich. How is SS solvent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #44 March 12, 2013 Quote How is SS solvent? I think it's actually "SS is sitting IN solvent." (appending here for the slower people, you know who you are... "therefore it's dissolving away over time") ((maybe you don't know who you are)) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuote20 years ago, Home Depot was a much smaller company. 1992 revenue was 7.1B. It also predated the changes (many driven by tax policy) towards options based compensation. exactly. so revenues were up by 10 times, and profit doubled, but CEO compensation went up by 100 times? Yep, that makes sense. I bet he 'earned it'. And stock value did not rise with profits so he got a $230M severance package. that makes sense too, I guess he 'earned it'. Doubling revenue for a 8 figure company is no small trick, particularly when you look at the major downturn in the early years of the 2000-2005 period. Put it another way - on average every year he increased the revenue more than the entire revenue of the 1992 company. You probably should pick a better example to be so indignant about. He earned it a hell of a lot more than Chainsaw Al did...why not use him as your example, not a guy that doubled revenue and double'd and a half profits in 5 years. And again, if you ignore the change in compensation, any comparison to early 90s and earlier is going to look egregious to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #46 March 12, 2013 Am I stealing from you if you effectively have the ability to set your own wages through your cronie friends, and I cap it or reduce it to something more reasonable? I think not. Quote Where does THAT end then... Who then sets the wage - income- bonus rates ect. across the board, and isn't that a bit like socialism? Certainly some of these golden parachutes are near unfathomable to the 'working class' and seem unfair...but if the board approves it ya gotta think there's more to it than just 'cronies' giving away assets. The recipient usually has done something rather significant to merit a 200m atta-boy, as in the case you cited. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #47 March 12, 2013 QuoteWe shouldn't be "soaking" anyone, rich or poor. Revenge/class warfare is a poor substitute for rational decisionmaking when it comes to raising money to run government. The criteria should be getting enough money to run the government without unduly damaging the economy. Fortunately, given how much we have reduced taxes on the rich over the past 100 years, we have mostly given up on "soaking the rich." The massive increase in taxes on the poor during the same period might be worrisome, but given that it is still only 10% (up from ~5%) and given that it's much lower than the top tax rate, not really an issue. Although less than local minima taxes on "the rich" are much higher than they were 100 years ago. In 1913 the exemption for single people was $3000 ($69,782 in 2013 dollars) and $4000 ($93,042 in 2013 dollars) for married couples. The first $20,000 beyond the exemption ($465,212 in 2013 dollars) was taxed at 1%. Earnings over $500,000 a year ($11,630,303 in 2013 dollars) were taxed at the top rate of 7%. Compare and contrast with the $10K/$20K exemption for single people and married couples (standard deduction plus personal exemptions), 10% low tax bracket, 39.6% top bracket for earned income (not including both parts of medicare and the surcharge), and 23.8% capital gains rate for "the wealthy". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,379 #48 March 12, 2013 >who jumps for free? I hear all DZO's do. They spend all week at the DZ, jumping for free, increasing prices for jumpers every time they want a new rig! (When they're not sitting around with other DZO's in a big circle jerk, of course.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,619 #49 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Quotewhen it comes to raising money to run government That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. Like defense. SocSec is actually solvent, and Medicare has its own tax. Did you know that the average federal tax rate of the richest 400 people in the USA is below that of the average of the top 0.1%, which in turn is less than that of the top 1% So the super duper rich aren't being "soaked" at all compared with the merely rich. How is SS solvent? Check the numbers and you will see. If nothing changes SocSec is projected to become insolvent sometime between 2036 and 2042. Right now it is NOT insolvent. Modest changes (such as raising the earnings ceiling and raising retirement age for full benefits) can even fix the projected insolvency.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,379 #50 March 12, 2013 >Doesn't seem to work that way for Mitt Romney or John Paulsen Nor does it work that way for all plumbers making $150K a year. (Plumbers, for example, can work for cash.) But for the most part, make more money, pay more taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 2 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rehmwa 2 #44 March 12, 2013 Quote How is SS solvent? I think it's actually "SS is sitting IN solvent." (appending here for the slower people, you know who you are... "therefore it's dissolving away over time") ((maybe you don't know who you are)) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuote20 years ago, Home Depot was a much smaller company. 1992 revenue was 7.1B. It also predated the changes (many driven by tax policy) towards options based compensation. exactly. so revenues were up by 10 times, and profit doubled, but CEO compensation went up by 100 times? Yep, that makes sense. I bet he 'earned it'. And stock value did not rise with profits so he got a $230M severance package. that makes sense too, I guess he 'earned it'. Doubling revenue for a 8 figure company is no small trick, particularly when you look at the major downturn in the early years of the 2000-2005 period. Put it another way - on average every year he increased the revenue more than the entire revenue of the 1992 company. You probably should pick a better example to be so indignant about. He earned it a hell of a lot more than Chainsaw Al did...why not use him as your example, not a guy that doubled revenue and double'd and a half profits in 5 years. And again, if you ignore the change in compensation, any comparison to early 90s and earlier is going to look egregious to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #46 March 12, 2013 Am I stealing from you if you effectively have the ability to set your own wages through your cronie friends, and I cap it or reduce it to something more reasonable? I think not. Quote Where does THAT end then... Who then sets the wage - income- bonus rates ect. across the board, and isn't that a bit like socialism? Certainly some of these golden parachutes are near unfathomable to the 'working class' and seem unfair...but if the board approves it ya gotta think there's more to it than just 'cronies' giving away assets. The recipient usually has done something rather significant to merit a 200m atta-boy, as in the case you cited. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #47 March 12, 2013 QuoteWe shouldn't be "soaking" anyone, rich or poor. Revenge/class warfare is a poor substitute for rational decisionmaking when it comes to raising money to run government. The criteria should be getting enough money to run the government without unduly damaging the economy. Fortunately, given how much we have reduced taxes on the rich over the past 100 years, we have mostly given up on "soaking the rich." The massive increase in taxes on the poor during the same period might be worrisome, but given that it is still only 10% (up from ~5%) and given that it's much lower than the top tax rate, not really an issue. Although less than local minima taxes on "the rich" are much higher than they were 100 years ago. In 1913 the exemption for single people was $3000 ($69,782 in 2013 dollars) and $4000 ($93,042 in 2013 dollars) for married couples. The first $20,000 beyond the exemption ($465,212 in 2013 dollars) was taxed at 1%. Earnings over $500,000 a year ($11,630,303 in 2013 dollars) were taxed at the top rate of 7%. Compare and contrast with the $10K/$20K exemption for single people and married couples (standard deduction plus personal exemptions), 10% low tax bracket, 39.6% top bracket for earned income (not including both parts of medicare and the surcharge), and 23.8% capital gains rate for "the wealthy". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,379 #48 March 12, 2013 >who jumps for free? I hear all DZO's do. They spend all week at the DZ, jumping for free, increasing prices for jumpers every time they want a new rig! (When they're not sitting around with other DZO's in a big circle jerk, of course.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,619 #49 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Quotewhen it comes to raising money to run government That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. Like defense. SocSec is actually solvent, and Medicare has its own tax. Did you know that the average federal tax rate of the richest 400 people in the USA is below that of the average of the top 0.1%, which in turn is less than that of the top 1% So the super duper rich aren't being "soaked" at all compared with the merely rich. How is SS solvent? Check the numbers and you will see. If nothing changes SocSec is projected to become insolvent sometime between 2036 and 2042. Right now it is NOT insolvent. Modest changes (such as raising the earnings ceiling and raising retirement age for full benefits) can even fix the projected insolvency.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,379 #50 March 12, 2013 >Doesn't seem to work that way for Mitt Romney or John Paulsen Nor does it work that way for all plumbers making $150K a year. (Plumbers, for example, can work for cash.) But for the most part, make more money, pay more taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 2 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
DrewEckhardt 0 #47 March 12, 2013 QuoteWe shouldn't be "soaking" anyone, rich or poor. Revenge/class warfare is a poor substitute for rational decisionmaking when it comes to raising money to run government. The criteria should be getting enough money to run the government without unduly damaging the economy. Fortunately, given how much we have reduced taxes on the rich over the past 100 years, we have mostly given up on "soaking the rich." The massive increase in taxes on the poor during the same period might be worrisome, but given that it is still only 10% (up from ~5%) and given that it's much lower than the top tax rate, not really an issue. Although less than local minima taxes on "the rich" are much higher than they were 100 years ago. In 1913 the exemption for single people was $3000 ($69,782 in 2013 dollars) and $4000 ($93,042 in 2013 dollars) for married couples. The first $20,000 beyond the exemption ($465,212 in 2013 dollars) was taxed at 1%. Earnings over $500,000 a year ($11,630,303 in 2013 dollars) were taxed at the top rate of 7%. Compare and contrast with the $10K/$20K exemption for single people and married couples (standard deduction plus personal exemptions), 10% low tax bracket, 39.6% top bracket for earned income (not including both parts of medicare and the surcharge), and 23.8% capital gains rate for "the wealthy". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #48 March 12, 2013 >who jumps for free? I hear all DZO's do. They spend all week at the DZ, jumping for free, increasing prices for jumpers every time they want a new rig! (When they're not sitting around with other DZO's in a big circle jerk, of course.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,619 #49 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Quotewhen it comes to raising money to run government That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. Like defense. SocSec is actually solvent, and Medicare has its own tax. Did you know that the average federal tax rate of the richest 400 people in the USA is below that of the average of the top 0.1%, which in turn is less than that of the top 1% So the super duper rich aren't being "soaked" at all compared with the merely rich. How is SS solvent? Check the numbers and you will see. If nothing changes SocSec is projected to become insolvent sometime between 2036 and 2042. Right now it is NOT insolvent. Modest changes (such as raising the earnings ceiling and raising retirement age for full benefits) can even fix the projected insolvency.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,379 #50 March 12, 2013 >Doesn't seem to work that way for Mitt Romney or John Paulsen Nor does it work that way for all plumbers making $150K a year. (Plumbers, for example, can work for cash.) But for the most part, make more money, pay more taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 2 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,379 #50 March 12, 2013 >Doesn't seem to work that way for Mitt Romney or John Paulsen Nor does it work that way for all plumbers making $150K a year. (Plumbers, for example, can work for cash.) But for the most part, make more money, pay more taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
