Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP I'm with RT. I understand CEOs getting 100 times the compensation as a line worker. Maybe even 200 times, but 1,000 or 10,000 times? There was just a survey out yesterday that CEOs have an inflated opinion of how well they negotiate, but I can't find it now, so it may as well not exist. (BTW, if your least paid employee makes $10 an hour, a CEO making 100x that would make a paltry $2 million+, 10,000 is more inline with CEO compensation, 200 million.)
Originally Posted By dshyates There are many CEOs who pull in the big bucks while the company is tanking. When the stockholders get tired of it, they dump the guy with a $12 million severance package. All while 60% of their employees qualify for food stamps. I think its close to time to fire up some new Labor Unions and demand our money.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I wish that CEO compensation wasn't in the form of company shares. I understand the reasoning behind it -- the shares go up, everybody wins. I do not disagree that a good CEO is "worth" more than the average worker, that their decisions are much higher stakes. But how often have we seen companies make really disasterous, short-term-thinking moves -- the stock price spikes and away goes the CEO while the company is left in ruins. This has happened a lot, especially in the airline industry. I wish that companies would do the right thing without government regulation. But for whatever reason, some just don't seem to be able to do that.
Originally Posted By X-san ***But how often have we seen companies make really disasterous, short-term-thinking moves -- the stock price spikes and away goes the CEO while the company is left in ruins.*** Look no further than CEO Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide Financial, who sold his shares at an INCREDIBLE rate while they were still aroung $35 - $40 per share, all the while going on TV pitching Countrywide and talking about how the subprime crisis was "good for them" because all the weaker companies would go out of business. Fast forward one year, Mozillo remains richer than Midas, the company is a mess, and the stock price is pretty much a penny stock (it was under $5 per share at one point, all in one year).
Originally Posted By X-san ***I wish that companies would do the right thing without government regulation. But for whatever reason, some just don't seem to be able to do that.*** What you are really wishing for is "goodwill towards man", but the thing is there really are a lot of people out there that have *no* morals (and to be overly persistent I might add that many/most of them fill the pews on Sundays as well (part of the image, right?), and seem to have no problem with the dichotomy).
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Obama wants to raise MY taxes. I can't vote for that. Cut spending. Don't take more of my hard earned money.
Originally Posted By X-san Isn't DVC Dad the one with all the kids? I'm guessing you could get some child tax credits to offset all those riches you possess, no?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Obama wants to raise MY taxes. I can't vote for that. Cut spending. Don't take more of my hard earned money.<< Let's say that DVC_dad does make enough that his taxes would go up. I'm not going to tell him that he makes plenty of money, and to quit whining; only he knows his financial situation. But let's look at the second part of the statement: cut spending. Bush has raised government spending more than any other President, in large part because of Iraq. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which will significantly cut into spending. Remember too, that much of the Iraq spending is *not* for the troops; it's for Blackwater and Halliburton and other no-bid contracts. Ask yourself, is this where you want your money to go? DVC_dad hasn't been paying for the war because we've borrowed from the Chinese and Koreans to pay for it. Is that the way to handle government finances? DVC_dad, I understand your concern about your taxes going up. But we as Americans let our government perpetuate this war. We need to take responsibility and pay for it. If we don't, then your kids and my kids will. Voting McCain may delay a tax increase, sure. But I'd argue that, 1) it's a short-term gain, long-term loss, and 2) sometimes there's things more important than my money, namely the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqis in a war that should've never been waged, and 3) I'd rather pay for this war than my children. My kids have a right to inherit a better world, not a worse one. Right now, they're set to inherit one hell of a mess. I think Obama can help; I'm certainly willing to give him a shot.
Originally Posted By gadzuux To piggyback on 'ecdc's' post, the biggest portion of the federal budget - by far - is the defense dep't - the pentagon. McCain isn't going to do anything about that, he pledges to continue the iraq occupation. The second biggest portion of the federal budget is SSI, and it's not likely that McCain is going to do anything about that either. He's certainly not even mentioning it. That might be because he's counting on seniors to vote for him in november - he polls higher among elderly voters than any other demographic. So if our two biggest expenses are "off the table", where is McCain going to cut spending? Rather than just look at the issue from the narrow view of 'what's it going to cost me', it might better to look at which candidate will have a more responsible federal fiscal policy overall. It's also a good idea to realize that having a republican administration and a democratic house and senate is a recipe for the kind of gridlock that we have now. Both parties in opposition will ensure that absolutely nothing gets done. And how expensive is that?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The "what's it going to cose me?" question is fair enough. I know that cutting government spending just isn't going to happen, except perhaps in education, veteran's benefits, things that actually help people. With that in mind, if a politician can make a good case that more taxes are for the greater good, to get the coutry's financial house a bit more in order, I could support that. I know some people have a fit about paying one cent more tax than they already do, and i understand that frustration. But in reality, if we're going to get involved in costly nation-building exercises, why should school children have to pay for it in the form of budget cuts? Support our troops sometimes means paying for ill-advised adventures like Iraq. This is the gift the neocons gave us folks. Don't forget it in November, or the next time somone posts here about how we're winning in Iraq. But for now, it's time to start paying the piper.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <To piggyback on 'ecdc's' post, the biggest portion of the federal budget - by far - is the defense dep't - the pentagon.> Actually, defense and social security are running neck and neck for number 1. <So if our two biggest expenses are "off the table", where is McCain going to cut spending?> How about the bloated farm bill? Considering that our deficit isn't that big relative to the total budget, and the two biggest expenses are only 40% of it, it's not that hard to slow the rate of growth of a few other items, and bring the budget into balance. Adding to the tax burden of the rich isn't going to help the economy, or balance the budget.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Adding to the tax burden of the rich isn't going to help the economy, or balance the budget.<< Good point on the farm bill; I'm all for cutting unnecessary spending. However, I would take issue with the notion that we're "adding to the tax burden of the rich." First, part of the problem is that we refer to it as a "burden." It shouldn't be; it should be a privilege to pay to live in a great country with great social benefits. Second, we took away from their burden significantly under the Bush administration. We'd simply be restoring that; they could afford it before, it's hard to believe they couldn't now.
Originally Posted By IRONMAN Lets say you got two little boys playing in the sand box. Boy A works and works and tries over and over till he gets it right. He has a hill of sand with a tunnel under it. He runs his cars in and out of that tunnel and has fun. During the same time Boy A was working so hard, Boy B was watchin him, but doing nothing. Eventually Boy B decides he wants to play with Boy A's tunnel and cars. So, he takes them away. Afterall he's bigger than Boy A, there is more of him lets say. Is this right? And don't say its not the same thing, cause its the exact same damn thing. Boy B will always be the sniveling little whiner that wants something he didn't work to get and he will take it by bullying and cry about fairness all the while. Some of you "tax the rich" people should take off the skirts, put on a pair of pants and go out and do something with yourselves istead of being content to put in your 40, go homnme to sit in front of the television and eat food heated in the microwave while crying that the rich should pay more so you dont have to.
Originally Posted By IRONMAN Trust me I know. I made about 35k last year. Im lazy and content but I dont want nothing I didnt earn,
Originally Posted By gadzuux Buddy, have we got a political party for you - the republicans. You'll love it - you'll be voting against your own best interests - economic and social - just like almost everyone else who votes GOP.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We'd simply be restoring that; they could afford it before, it's hard to believe they couldn't now.> One, the first point isnt's true. Not only is Sen. Obama talking about raising income tax rates, he's also talking about raising payroll taxes, and raising the capital gains rate. Two, the second point isn't true. The rich won't pay it; they'll curtail their income, or find ways to hide it or shield it from taxes. This is why tax increases almost always raise less money than predicted, and tax cuts almost always "cost" less.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You'll love it - you'll be voting against your own best interests - economic and social - just like almost everyone else who votes GOP.> No, he won't. Low tax rates are in everyone's best interest. "A rising tide lifts all boats".
Originally Posted By Darkbeer First off, let's look at the IRS statistics from the last available year, tax year 2004... The Top 1% of Income earners made 19% of the total share of income in the US, but paid 37% of that income in Federal Income Taxes. The Top 5% of Income earners made 33% of the total share of income in the US, but paid 57% of that income in Federal Income Taxes. The Top 10% of Income earners made 44% of the total share of income in the US, but paid 68% of that income in Federal Income Taxes. The Top 25% of Income earners made 66% of the total share of income in the US, but paid 85% of that income in Federal Income Taxes. On the other hand... The Bottom 50% of Income earners made 13% of the total share of income in the US, but paid JUST 3% of that income in Federal Income Taxes. Also for those who claim that the Capital Gains Tax is a big tax break, don't forget the Alternative Minimum Tax that kicks in for many middle and higher income taxpayers! And as for budgets and spending, let's look at California, where Democrats have controlled the legislative for decades. The state is in a major deficit, not because of any war, but because of automatic increases to budgets, and the fact the legislate just wants to keep spending more and more. I am not sure we need a 10% across the board budget fix, but the Democrats need to take a SERIOUS look at the budget and find ways to CUT spending and eliminating and/or restricting access to certain programs.
