Limit Professionals Compensation

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I disagree. He made and took with him a $40,000,000 bonus last year alone. But wait, they have restated earnings- that bonus was based on phantom earnings. Take it back. He is lucky to avoid prison, and he is no worse than many others. Christopher Dodd agrees with me. Bloomberg.com: Exclusive Ha

Like I care what Dodd thinks....

And if they had the language in his contract to take back the bonus IF they restate earning then of course they should get it back... but did they restate or just write down investments?? (I really don't know!!!)


And in the article you gave....

"Merrill announced O'Neal's retirement Oct. 30, less than a week after he lost the board's confidence by posting a $2.24 billion third-quarter loss. Much of O'Neal's pay was negotiated when he became CEO in 2002. "

Which is my point exactly.... his big pay package was to get him in the door.. it is not them saying 'you did a crappy job, here is and EXTRA $40 million now go away'.... they were stupid up front, not when they let him go.. but all the articles are talking about how the board is giving these exit packages when they let go of an executive which is false.. they had them all along.

[ERD50]

Wow DanTien, there could be a lot of heated discussion on this.

For now, I'll just leave my 2 cents at this:

Cent #1: Be careful what you wish for.

Cent #2: Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Carry On - ERD50

[Danny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Wow DanTien, there could be a lot of heated discussion on this. For now, I'll just leave my 2 cents at this: Cent #1: Be careful what you wish for. Cent #2: Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. Carry On - ERD50

My Scot Grandpa used to say "Keep Strong - Carry On Laddie!" I think I hear the beginning rumblings of efforts to raise taxes for those making more than $200,000 — and especially for those above $500,000 and lift the AMT come 2009 Charlie Rangel's Tax Reform Plan

[laurence]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Laurence, with all due respect, . Ha

Well, the media loves the extreme examples, but take DW's company. The top execs founded the company and grew it into a 2000 person, publicly traded company. They got bought out and all walked away with total compensation in the tens of millions. Now maybe an argument could be made that they only needed 2, but why leave a cushy, 300k job with benefits if the incentives to take a big risk are capped? Meanwhile their medical device greatly reduces the time it takes to diagnose a stroke and thereby saves lives/quality of life.

I think there are as many grossly overpaid CEOs as there are welfare queens. It happens, but not as often as the media makes it sound, and the alternative, IMHO, is much worse.

DanTien, sorry I missed that! And good on ya for being brave enough to stick your neck out there for the sake of a good discussion!

[Danny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laurencewill DanTien, sorry I missed that! And good on ya for being brave enough to stick your neck out there for the sake of a good discussion!

Thank you buddy

[RetireeRobert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanTien Hey ERD, this is my life 3 kids(will probably disagree about not wanting), 1 car, 1 wife, 1 paycheck 22 years - never made more than $40 an hour, less with all the OT, took bus/train/bike to work, LBMM, avoided debt except mortgage, cut coupons, kept heat low, took lunch to work, walked around turning off lights,good schools, 1400 sqft. house, still managed to ER in 2001 at 50 - wife started working then at $15 an hour loves it - Income helps, not a factor in the ER decision also -will ER soon. I'm thiniking it will be very hard for my kids to manage a one paycheck family... I don't have any stats to give you, I get all my info from the Liberal channel (I prefer the term Progressive) - Moyers and NOW on PBS.

I don't understand. Above you spell out how you RETIRED EARLY AT AGE 50!! for heaven's sake. And your wife is going to ER SOON you say!!!

And YOU are complaining about the "system" in this great country?

So, yes, let's get rid of the disparity and the "crude" as you call them. Let's put you back to work and keep your DW working a few decades longer. YOU are creating the disparity with those poor working souls who get money back on income tax forms via earned income credit when they paid NO taxes. You upperclass crude.

[Danny]

ah robert, come on, don't be like that

[RetireeRobert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanTien ah robert, come on, don't be like that

Like what. Like me also having three kids, two now in college? Like me being the sole breadwinner the entire time? I and DW were also LBYMers, we saved up college funds for all three kids (looks like we have 4 years worth covered for all three), paid off our mortgage, we are getting ready to build a new home paying cash, on a small acreage we bought for cash. Besides earning a pension, I have built up IRAs which could support us for life quite comfortly. We have zilch debt, and I never made as much as $50 an hour. I retired early at age 54.

This is a great, great, GREAT country, just the way it is, free enterprise, reward the risk takers, and all. Even though the top 5% of individuals by wealth already pay 70% of total income taxes (look it up), you won't find me whining about "disparity" or "upper income crude".

You ought to be grateful and celebrating your luck in being a citizen of a country that let you ER at age 50.

[Danny]

Robert - Good on you!

I am grateful.

[bright eyed]

I think it's important to differentiate the discussion between the general population (including dr's, teachers, plumbers) and the high end extremely paid CEO's...even though they are a small percentage - they have the lion's share of $ and this hoarding does not in fact benefit the overall economy.

then they save it, hoard it in foundations and other investments and the general public doesn't see the money again...especially when you see the #'s on how little the wealthiest actually do give, in proportion to their income.

[RetireeRobert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed I think it's important to differentiate the discussion between the general population (including dr's, teachers, plumbers) and the high end extremely paid CEO's...even though they are a small percentage - they have the lion's share of $ and this hoarding does not in fact benefit the overall economy. then they save it, hoard it in foundations and other investments and the general public doesn't see the money again...especially when you see the #'s on how little the wealthiest actually do give, in proportion to their income.

You've got to be kidding. The top 5% of wealthiest individuals pay 70% of total income taxes. They are doing their share already. This governmental tax on success does not even count what the wealthy also give to charity, give by providing employment, etc.

[bright eyed]

Robert are you in this income group?

Why does this topic make you so ?

I'm doubtful the wealthy (extreme top 1-2%) pay their fair share - or what they are supposed to pay - either personally or via their corporations. A big percentage of corps avoid paying any taxes.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed Robert are you in this income group? .... I'm doubtful the wealthy (extreme top 1-2%) pay their fair share - or what they are supposed to pay - either personally or via their corporations. A big percentage of corps avoid paying any taxes.

Not throwing in any cents this time, just some data that you all can feed on. Robert, this data from irs is a bit diff, says the top 5% pay 57% of the income taxes. Top 1% pay 37% of the income tax. Of course, many poor do not pay at all, so I'm not sure how that figures in.

Not sure what bright eyes would consider a 'fair share', but those numbers are from the irs.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

Bright eyed - why would you want a corporation to pay taxes? Those taxes are passed on to consumers in the price of the goods. So both poor and rich pay the same amount when they purchase that product. It ends up as a flat tax w/o anything to offset it. Wouldn't liberals support zero corporate taxes? I do.

-ERD50

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed I think it's important to differentiate the discussion between the general population (including dr's, teachers, plumbers) and the high end extremely paid CEO's...even though they are a small percentage - they have the lion's share of $ and this hoarding does not in fact benefit the overall economy. then they save it, hoard it in foundations and other investments and the general public doesn't see the money again...especially when you see the #'s on how little the wealthiest actually do give, in proportion to their income.

Again... a myth... they do not make "the lion's share"... even with a hugh bonus and other big perks, the CEO makes less than 1% of total comp at my company... and I bet it is less than 1/4%... but we do have 170,000 employees... and that does not count all the temps and contract etc...

Does he make 100 to 500 times ordinary salary, yes he does.. maybe even 1,000.. but 'lion's share'?

[Danny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetireeRobert You've got to be kidding. The top 5% of wealthiest individuals pay 70% of total income taxes. They are doing their share already. This governmental tax on success does not even count what the wealthy also give to charity, give by providing employment, etc.

I think top 5% pay more (think its more like 55-60% of total) because they have a lot more income and assets (about 60% of total wealth?)) to pay tax on...increasing their "burden" and the next 15% shouldn't be as a big a sweat as it would be on the struggling lower 80% with 20% of wealth

[bright eyed]

Gosh, what would we do w/out the wiki?

The Lion's Share is an expression that has come to mean the larger of two amounts, or more often, the largest of several amounts.
The saying derives from one of Aesop's fables, where the term is actually defined as the complete amount (all of it).
In the fable, a lion, fox, jackal and wolf go hunting, successfully killing a deer. It is divided into four parts with the lion taking the first quarter because he is king of the beasts, the second quarter because he is the arbiter of which animals get what portions of the deer, the third quarter because of his help in catching the deer, and the fourth quarter for his superior strength.
In some variants of the fable, the lion only takes three-quarters of the deer and lets the other animals fight over the remaining quarter.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion%27s_Share"

If the Lion didn't take 1000 x's, how about 500 x's (or how about 50?) and distributed to the the lowest quartile employees, then perhaps they could afford their own quality health care, a decent place to live, a little retirement and college...but when the janitors and others work full time and can't support their family, then we have larger social/economic/health problems, as we do in the states. then we could shrink the gubmint, services and taxes the way people want because the need would not exist to the extent it does now.

We all know here that after some level of income, you can make your money work for you...well, some people don't get that chance and scrape by and their children have a worse chance then others just because of the family they were born into, while others have the extreme privileges offered by their families.

[Danny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed Gosh, what would we do w/out the wiki? The Lion's Share is an expression that has come to mean the larger of two amounts, or more often, the largest of several amounts. The saying derives from one of Aesop's fables, where the term is actually defined as the complete amount (all of it). In the fable, a lion, fox, jackal and wolf go hunting, successfully killing a deer. It is divided into four parts with the lion taking the first quarter because he is king of the beasts, the second quarter because he is the arbiter of which animals get what portions of the deer, the third quarter because of his help in catching the deer, and the fourth quarter for his superior strength. In some variants of the fable, the lion only takes three-quarters of the deer and lets the other animals fight over the remaining quarter. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion%27s_Share" If the Lion didn't take 1000 x's, how about 500 x's (or how about 50?) and distributed to the the lowest quartile employees, then perhaps they could afford their own quality health care, a decent place to live, a little retirement and college...but when the janitors and others work full time and can't support their family, then we have larger social/economic/health problems, as we do in the states. then we could shrink the gubmint, services and taxes the way people want because the need would not exist to the extent it does now. We all know here that after some level of income, you can make your money work for you...well, some people don't get that chance and scrape by and their children have a worse chance then others just because of the family they were born into, while others have the extreme privileges offered by their families.

Love that lion's share story! ...your speaking my mind here....

[Milton]

Whenever higher taxes for the rich are discussed, sooner or later someone brings up the classic Internet story of the people eating at a restaurant.

So, here it is: Urban Legends Reference Pages: How Taxes Work.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanTien Love that lion's share story! ...your speaking my mind here....

I think you are misapplying the term.

In the case Texas Proud gave, the CEO salary was 1% of the total compensation at the company. So, the 'lion's share' was the 99% part. The CEO would have needed to make 51% of the company total before it met the definition that bright eyed gave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed If the Lion didn't take 1000 x's, how about 500 x's (or how about 50?) and distributed to the the lowest quartile employees, then perhaps they could afford their own quality health care, a decent place to live, a little retirement and college...

Check my math here. If the CEO made 1% of the total comp of the company, and let's say we reduce the CEO package to ZERO, we would only free up 1% of the total comp for the other employees. Divide it as a percent of each person's salary and everyone could get a 1% raise. Not exactly 'party in the streets' time, is it? I don't think that makes the diff between having that list of things you gave and not having it.

And the company might possibly go bankrupt and everyone would lose their jobs after they were unable to hire any talented executive staff, but hey, I'm just speculating there.


-ERD50

[bright eyed]

I never used TP's company as an example...i was referring to the top 1-2% wealthy in the US...

Basic idea is that over a certain income, you have your food, clothing and shelter...let's pass some of that around before someone gets another yacht, benz or rolly - are we opposed to that? i'm not trying to fight my neighbor over his plasma or silly hummer, just the top 1-2%, let's start there.