Tea Party Crashers

[Conan71]

It's 6 o'clock ....do you know where your local TNF Teahadists are? Just saying.....proud of you Guido. But my list sez POMPUS CONANUS and GASSIOUS are not on the board....hmmmm..... TOWNSENDSIS is missing as well.

They're probably slugging down brews but I was just wondering if they could be found out down at the fairgrounds. Maybe both....

Oh, see any similarities? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/teaparty.html?hp

Only reason I'll be near the Fairgrounds in the next 1/2 hour is to head to my digs over at Meadowbrook er Lortondale

[fotd]

I am so dissappointed in you PC.   

[Conan71]

I am so dissappointed in you PC.   

Yes, and I take your disappointment quite personally.  Sniffle.

[Gaspar]

It's 6 o'clock ....do you know where your local TNF Teahadists are? Just saying.....proud of you Guido. But my list sez POMPUS CONANUS and GASSIOUS are not on the board....hmmmm..... TOWNSENDSIS is missing as well.

They're probably slugging down brews but I was just wondering if they could be found out down at the fairgrounds. Maybe both....

Oh, see any similarities? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/teaparty.html?hp

No, had to miss all that fun.  Mow the yard and pack for Disneyland!  Then off to Vegas to visit o'l Dingy Harry before he becomes just another drunk hanging out in a casino.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Please pardon the length.  It's worth it if you finish it all.

Not the lowest income level.  As usual there is no actual reading of the post.  And this has been explained in detail before.  And ignored.  And never have I said that someone should be rewarded with poverty!  Quite the opposite, I feel contributors should be rewarded with wealth.  Or at the very least a living wage - and yes, commensurate with their contribution.  That nonsense is straight from the Republicontin revisionist language/play book/script.

Rewards commensurate with the contribution is not socialism.  Actually, it is the exact opposite.  Only the Republicontin propaganda machine redefines words to match its dogma - SOOO much like "1984".

By far, the largest socialism in this country (and many if not most others actually) is the corporate socialism of disproportionate rewards to disproportionate contributors.  It is taking from the poor and giving to the rich.  Sweeping statement alert:  there has been NO CEO of ANY major modern corporation (say the last 30 years - we could go 40 or even 50 if desired) who has "earned" his actual compensation.  Or even paid his fair share of tax on that compensation.  Let's refine that with a definition of corporation with gross proceeds in excess of $1 billion. (We could go lower if you want.)

What IS idiotic is the belief that perhaps the CEO of say, GM, or Microsoft, or Exxon, or Disney, or *fill in the blank* is somehow worthy of the massive subsidies that you, me and the rest of the working people in this country have to pay for them.

I have no anger at all towards achievement - I have anger toward the lack of reward for those achievements.  

First, lets take the typical CEO of that type corporation - and I will just put out some representative samples of numbers.  Exact numbers can be found in any annual report for those companies.

Our sample boss makes $900,000 per year in salary.  Plus a pretty nice vacation package - say 4 weeks average, which would be worth $75,000 - according to HR.  Medical benefits might be in the order of $15,000 per year - again according to HR.  Next we have the the $14 million in stock options and awards.  Those are vested after at least 1 year, so they can be treated like as term capital gains.  There are those who get that long term treatment immediately, like the venture capital guys at Cerberus.
(Us workers possibly get an ESOP.  A dozen shares of stock a year or so.)  Keeping in mind this all comes off the income as a deduction to the company income (maybe that's why corporations skate by paying so little income tax, so we have to make up the difference - but that is a piddly thing.  

What is less piddly, is the fact he now gets to stop paying some taxes after about $110,000.  About 15% worth.

Next, instead of paying the regular tax on the 'options' he gets by with only 15%.  That is about another 20% discount.  Wow, here we are with a 40% discount compared to you and me.

And then there is the use of the company jet.  Company car with driver.  Very nice digs up on mahogany row.  Well, you must have seen this over the years in your career(s).  So instead of paying a proportionate amount of tax to the rest of us (say those making less than $250,000, or some other number, more or less), he gets the $15,000,000 at a real bonus income tax rate of

$900,000 @ 33%
$ 90,000 @   0%
$14,000,000 @ 15%

(I always get to pay the whole amount - no discounts here.)

Doing all the math means taxes paid are about 2,397,000.

Or a total tax rate of 15.98%.

You and others have talked about how your taxes are 40% or more.  I believe it.  Mine are too.

Now THAT is socialism!  Corporate socialism "voted to themselves" by those in power in collusion with the boards of directors throughout corporate America.  And you, me, and most of the people who read this board are subsidizing this by paying our disproportionately unfair amount of taxes!  Gee, I wonder why the tea-baggers haven't thought about that?  It ain't rocket science.

This is exactly why Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and John Bogle has all three publicly discussed the inherent unfairness of the Bush tax cuts (not to mention previous cuts.)

Geez, how I wish I could participate!!!



I'm the one who will disagree for the sake of disagreement.  Pick a side and I will take the other.  Then, let's go.

[nathanm]

Next, instead of paying the regular tax on the 'options' he gets by with only 15%.  That is about another 20% discount.  Wow, here we are with a 40% discount compared to you and me.

I believe that options sold within a year of when they are exercised are taxed as income, just as short-term capital gains are. (again, IIRC)

I do agree that they can be ridiculously lucrative. I know/work for a guy on the board of one of the Houston-based energy companies who has lately been exercising options with a strike price of $2 while the company's stock price is now around $40. Needless to say, tens of thousands of shares at an instant $38 profit each is a lot of money. Especially when you consider that it's on top of the usual director's yearly salary which is more than most of us make at our day job.

Of course, as a director or officer, there are limitations on when you can sell your stock, so it's not all roses for them.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That's what I said -1 year gets long term treatment.  And most of those type arrangements require the one year.  Any CEO who doesn't is a fool, cause then he would have to pay 23%, or still a 10% discount.

Unless you are one of the special ones with the some of the venture capital firms who get long term treatment immediately.

[Conan71]

I don't begrudge anyone else for what they make or don't make.  It's generally assumed that people are paid commensurate with what return they bring to the organization.  If someone is worth $20 an hour (including payroll taxes, insurance, etc.) to make widgets for a company, that's what that person is paid.  Many things go into how much you can pay workers on the production floor including profitability (companies can't operate at a loss forever), consumer demand, and competitive price pressures in the market.  The worker's production manager is worth more to the company because this manager assures all the production workers are where they need to be at a given time, they have everything they need to operate at peak efficiency.

Those who work in the plant maintenance department might be worth more to the company than production workers due to their knowledge of the machinery which must be kept running for the company to meet productivity and delivery goals.

The salesman who brings the company $5mm a year in revenue is worth more to the company (how much more depends on the margins and other factors), therefore he's paid a good deal more than the production worker.  The salesperson, if they are very good is pretty much indespensible to the company especially the longer they've been with the company.  The person who manages all the sales reps is worth even more to the company. He keeps the sales people motivated, helps close large deals and contracts, and keeps the CEO advised of sales projections so that production can be adjusted accordingly.

The CEO/President/COO/grand poobah must oversee all department heads and he/she has ultimate responsibility to all employees and the shareholders.  A good CEO must properly manage all their resources including human, raw materials, utilities, accounting, transportation, etc.  Sure there are cases where a total jagoff winds up being the CEO, Arrow Trucking is one good example.  We saw what happened with Arrow.  There are plenty of Peter Principle failures out there, and nepotism successions to the throne which have been less than stellar. 

However, there are thousands upon thousands of corporations out there which depend on stable management and the CEO carries the most responsibility for the firm.  In some cases, the CEO is also the owner of the company, they've built up the company and provided jobs for others.  Why should his/her income be limited?

America is becoming less and less about "producing" within the economy.  When you take a look at NAFTA which opened a bunch of plants just south of the border to help companies cut costs and the fact that we do little if anything to restrict the flow of migrant workers into the country, it's obvious Americans don't want certain types of production and agricultural jobs anymore.  Price pressures on consumer goods assures that many of those goods are now cheaper to make in countries half way around the world.  I never thought I'd see a day where it's become cheaper to ship American made components and raw materials to China for assembly then have them shipped back.

No one wants to pay $5 a pound for oranges, that's why we more or less turn a blind eye to undocumented workers being paid cash to do the job.  Not everyone wants to pay $900 for a new Fender Stratocaster, so you can buy one made in Mexico for $400, or one made in China for $100.  Consumer electronics have become virtually a commodity and pricing drives the market at the lower end.  This has resulted in companies like RCA who used to have a large factory presence here in the states moving a large portion of their production (and jobs) out of the country.

People are worth certain amounts.  People with more education are generally rewarded better financially for it (MBA's, MD's, JD's, PhD's) because what they do has more of a value to a company or organization.  That's not to say that the least educated and most junior person on the shop floor isn't important to the company, but they are far easier to replace and their contribuition is not considered to be as large a percentage to the company as that of department managers, the sales people, or the upper management.

[Gaspar]

Please pardon the length.  It's worth it if you finish it all.

Crap!  There went 5 minutes of my life.

[nathanm]

I don't begrudge anyone else for what they make or don't make.

I don't, either, at least when they don't make it running a business into the ground. (clawbacks are good...mmkay?)

However, I don't see how sitting on a board of directors and meeting a few days a year is worth 70,000 a year plus another 2,000,000 a year in stock options to the company. Of course it's worth it to the director, and I don't blame people for taking cushy compensation when offered.

[fotd]

Really. What happened to this stupid thread? It fell off the edge today.

"  It's generally assumed that people are paid commensurate with what return they bring to the organization. " POMPOUS CONANUS, this really explains much about the center of your ideology. I don't ever assume that. And to say, " I don't blame people for taking cushy compensation when offered" reflects the basic difference between the right and the left. You know, individual greed versus what's best for all? Guido would refer to it as capitalism versus socialism ....but it's not. It's about integrity and right from wrong. It's about going outside the realm of regulation. Goldman Sachs operations compared to Whole Foods.

Gaspar is correct.

[fotd]

ah, it's not about socialism...it's about that man in the White House!

[nathanm]

I think more people need to actually read the tax return they file before going on about not getting a tax cut.

[Conan71]

Why would the guy swabbing toilets be worth more than the head of accounting, fotd? What about my concept is so wrong or foreign?

[fotd]

Why would the guy swabbing toilets be worth more than the head of accounting, fotd? What about my concept is so wrong or foreign?

Your post is a soiled rhetorical question based on extremes instead of looking at the abuse of those at the top.
Perhaps a better question would be why would an exec get 100 times the pay of an employee who comes up with a major marketing idea? Those tea partiers average $50,000 a year in government hand outs and personal investments make more than your man swabbing toilets while they run around Sarah Palin rallies in their RV's. It's a wild world.