With The U.S. Government Shutdown...

[Rickster71]

"What did one butt cheek say to the other at a Twister tournament?"

"That's correct."

"Audioholics Trivia for $800, Alex."

This is what led to the strategic reinforcement of certain areas of the official twister unitard.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I like Rick's comparison between CEO's and athletes/celebrities. Does someone catching a ball warrant a higher salary than someone running a multi-billion dollar industry that employs tens of thousands of people (all of whom would need to find new jobs if that company went under)? I don't think so...but I'm not a sports fan.

The difference I see between CEO's and athletes/celebrities is the manner in which their compensation packages are negotiated. When you have boards of directors deciding what's fair, it's just like politicians awarding themselves their salaries - there's an inherent conflict of interest. The majority of shareholders (the actual employers) have no say in setting executive salaries - just like voters having no say in politicians salaries. Whereas with athletes, actors, etc. there is an employee/employer relationship. The employee accepts what he's willing to accept and the employer pays what he's willing to pay. The question of whether athletes and actors deserve what they get is decided entirely by the team owners or studios. Did Chainsaw Al Dunlop deserve his salary when he was more adept at fraud and running companies into the ground than actually running those companies responsibly? Hmmm...

And Adam, by itself, three million people is a lot, looked at in isolation, but it's still just 1%. You'll find in addition to corporate executives, the aforementioned athletes and actors, inherited wealth, doctors, lawyers, etc. Within that 1%, you'll find a wide range of income/wealth. I'm sure you know that already.

 

[Adam]

The difference I see between CEO's and athletes/celebrities is the manner in which their compensation packages are negotiated. ... The majority of shareholders (the actual employers) have no say in setting executive salaries.... Whereas with athletes, actors, etc. there is an employee/employer relationship.

Hmmm. I'll have to give some more thought to this one. This is in the realm of publicly versus privately owned business, which I'll have to ponder. However, the thought of employees setting the salary of another employee is a bit odd to me. After all, where do you draw the line on that - should they set the salary for everyone, including themselves?

Outside of that, there are reasons not to have the average employee of a large company have a significant say in the salary of a CEO. One reason is that the average employee, while likely having an opinion on what the CEO does, almost certainly has no concept of the reality. When someone does a job that is significantly different than what you do, it's easy to judge but difficult to understand what that other person is actually doing. For example, I would guess that they average software engineer or designer at Apple has no idea what Tim Cook does.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Hmmm. I'll have to give some more thought to this one. This is in the realm of publicly versus privately owned business, which I'll have to ponder. However, the thought of employees setting the salary of another employee is a bit odd to me. After all, where do you draw the line on that - should they set the salary for everyone, including themselves?

Outside of that, there are reasons not to have the average employee of a large company have a significant say in the salary of a CEO. One reason is that the average employee, while likely having an opinion on what the CEO does, almost certainly has no concept of the reality. When someone does a job that is significantly different than what you do, it's easy to judge but difficult to understand what that other person is actually doing. For example, I would guess that they average software engineer or designer at Apple has no idea what Tim Cook does.

Ummmm....what? I wasn't suggesting that employees have input in setting executive compensation. If it read that way, I apologize for my poor Engrish...

 

[Adam]

Ummmm....what? I wasn't suggesting that employees have input in setting executive compensation. If it read that way, I apologize for my poor Engrish...

Whoops. I read "the actual employers" as "the actual employees." I was thinking about companies in which the employees own stock in the company.

 

[Rickster71]

The difference I see between CEO's and athletes/celebrities is the manner in which their compensation packages are negotiated. When you have boards of directors deciding what's fair, it's just like politicians awarding themselves their salaries - there's an inherent conflict of interest. The majority of shareholders (the actual employers) have no say in setting executive salaries - just like voters having no say in politicians salaries. Whereas with athletes, actors, etc. there is an employee/employer relationship. The employee accepts what he's willing to accept and the employer pays what he's willing to pay. The question of whether athletes and actors deserve what they get is decided entirely by the team owners or studios. Did Chainsaw Al Dunlop deserve his salary when he was more adept at fraud and running companies into the ground than actually running those companies responsibly? Hmmm...

I hate to use the term 'end user' with this crowd.
It comes down to what the end user is willing to pay. Whether it's for a PC from Dell, or a movie ticket, or tickets/seats to see the Yankees.

The difference I see between CEO's and athletes/celebrities is the manner in which their compensation packages are negotiated.

I don't see a real difference here.
The stockholder has no more control over a CEO's salary, than a ticket holder does in the salary of Tom Cruise.

Both deals are made in a back room, with the Athlete claiming to be an asset to the team, just as a potential CEO with claim his worth at turning around a lagging company.
Both will have negotiating clout commensurate with their skills and past history.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I hate to use the term 'end user' with this crowd.
It comes down to what the end user is willing to pay. Whether it's for a PC from Dell, or a movie ticket, or tickets/seats to see the Yankees.

I don't see a real difference here.
The stockholder has no more control over a CEO's salary, than a ticket holder does in the salary of Tom Cruise.

Both deals are made in a back room, with the Athlete claiming to be an asset to the team, just as a potential CEO with claim his worth at turning around a lagging company.
Both will have negotiating clout commensurate with their skills and past history.

Gotta disagree with you, Rick.

The stockholder and the film goer are two different beasts. As an owner, the stockholder has a vested interest in the compensation for executives, while the film goer is just a customer. The pay going to the CEO impacts the company's (the shareholders) bottom line. And, as in the case of Al Dunlop, there's no guarantee that he will provide value for money. The film goer couldn't care less what Tom Cruise is paid, since the ticket price won't change.

The executive doesn't negotiate with the person paying the bills. He negotiates with "cronies", for lack of a better term. The team owner is the one paying the bills and is the one who approves the salary for each athlete. Big difference.

 

[Adam]

I'm going to swerve off of the 1% thing for a second, just to say that I still think whoever had the idea to shutdown government websites and national parks/monuments to make a statement were a group of colossal c***s.

See, I made that gender neutral...just like Rick.

(Sorry, Rick. It was your turn. )

 

[psbfan9]

I have some catching up to do.. I think it was Rick that asked why we had money to bomb Syria byt not keep the government open. From what I have read, the Saudis said they would cover the costs of a military campaign. Not that makes it better, but i wanted to touch on that point as well as a few others that.

The Koch brothers are just evil, greedy, blah, blah, yet Oprah is cute and huggable. . I do see some difference in the way someone earns their money. If you make a billion $'s raping the earth, poisoning the air, and not paying employees fairly you'll be seen as more of a villain than someone that was born to slaves and rose to power through hard work and is now a powerful woman of color. I doubt that Oprah made that climb to the top without stepping on some toes. But she is considered a true American success story.

A question I ask myself is, Why would a millionaire want to take a civil service job making what, $170 - 230,00.00 a year?

 

[psbfan9]

Guys, I apologize for my disjointed convoluted rant. My dad is in the hospital again so ?I'm making these drive by posts as I come to home shower and get some food.

 

[Adam]

Barry, best wishes for your dad. I hope that he gets to feeling better real soon.

Btw, your post seemed normal to me. Now, that's not to say that it wasn't disjointed and convoluted...

 

[panteragstk]

One thing about people with money is the way they pay taxes, not that they have huge breaks (they do, but it's different). One reason corporations don't pay as much in taxes is that they get to pay all their expenses before they pay taxes on what's left. We w-2 folks get to pay our taxes before we pay anything else. The super rich (and the sorta rich) usually own a corporation that pays them a salary (say $55k/yr) and then the corporation controls all of the rest of their money. So a person who is the sole owner of a corporation worth say $100 million is only paying taxes on the actual cash received, not the assets it owns that make up it's worth. So that corporation could really only have say $100k to pay taxes on after all the expenses are paid and the corporation owner would only have to pay taxes on their $55k salary. It's not that hard. It's actually pretty crazy that things can work out that way. The only reason we don't do stuff like that is because we mostly aren't aware of how to do that or that you can even do it.

Basically, the rich use loopholes to not have to pay as much in taxes. Until they are closed (won't happen) things aren't going to change. The whole "get good grades, get into a good college, get a degree, make money for someone else to earn a paycheck" way of thinking is what keeps us far away from that 1%. Until our thinking changes, we'll all be stuck in that same loop of work for paycheck, pay taxes, die.

Plus, the whole idea of the government running off of our tax dollars is a joke. I say that because if they need money for something they print it and take the value of the dollar down even lower. Like someone said above, our "value" is a number on a computer screen. If I figure out how to make that number bigger without actually generating any income the bank will trust it. Money has value because we believe it does.

The talk of national debt is pretty crazy too. Check out this article about how much the top countries are in debt. How can people think we're in debt to other countries that are also in debt. In debt to who? Taxpayers? How? I don't remember issuing out any loans. The entire concept is pretty ridiculous to me.

Rant over.

 

[Rickster71]

Gotta disagree with you, Rick.

The stockholder and the film goer are two different beasts. As an owner, the stockholder has a vested interest in the compensation for executives, while the film goer is just a customer. The pay going to the CEO impacts the company's (the shareholders) bottom line. And, as in the case of Al Dunlop, there's no guarantee that he will provide value for money.

The stock holder isn't an owner. At best he or she is a quasi owner.
The stock holder simply puts some of their money at risk, in hopes that the real owner will make the best choices for the company and it's holders.

The film goer couldn't care less what Tom Cruise is paid, since the ticket price won't change.
The team owner is the one paying the bills and is the one who approves the salary for each athlete. Big difference.

Sure they care about paying Tom Cruise. If they didn't care they would pay to see you or me.

I didn't say the ticket price would change. I said Tom Cruise has a certain box office draw, that say, I wouldn't have.
A CEO that's known for his or her abilities to turn a failing company around, has an asking price that they will get.
Those skills benefit all involved. It's the price we all pay, for an expected return.

I did mention end users, it's all paid for by them. Multiple times, once when they see a movie on the big screen. Again, when it's on DVD. Yet again when it shown through their cable or satellite provider. All paid for by the end user.

The executive doesn't negotiate with the person paying the bills. He negotiates with "cronies", for lack of a better term.

You may have to help me out with this one. It's Greek to me or Canuk or whatever it is you guys speak up there.
Must be the Molson. Stop drinking that. I'm pretty sure they put something in it.

I can say that the "cronies" are acting as agents of the owner and acting on his behalf...... if that's what I think you think you mean.

 

[Rickster71]

Guys, I apologize for my disjointed convoluted rant. My dad is in the hospital again so ?I'm making these drive by posts as I come to home shower and get some food.

Hey Barry, hope all is well with your Dad.
We'll save the discussion for another time.
Give Dad our collective best.

 

[Rickster71]

One thing about people with money is the way they pay taxes, not that they have huge breaks (they do, but it's different). One reason corporations don't pay as much in taxes is that they get to pay all their expenses before they pay taxes on what's left.

A very big part of a corporation's expenses are payroll and paying into every employee's unemployment fund.
That payroll allows the employees to live their lives and also pay taxes.
Company taxes are paid quarterly, however employees are paid first.

I always wait for the Critical Thinkers among us to notice that the same dollar gets taxed multiple times.


I had to get my accountant wife and ask her about some of this.
I touched on a few points.
Won't go much further, since she tells me the post is mostly incorrect.
Sorry to say, and no offense meant.

We w-2 folks get to pay our taxes before we pay anything else.

That's not a choice or function of corporations. It's what the government mandates.

The super rich (and the sorta rich) usually own a corporation that pays them a salary (say $55k/yr) and then the corporation controls all of the rest of their money. So a person who is the sole owner of a corporation worth say $100 million is only paying taxes on the actual cash received, not the assets it owns that make up it's worth. So that corporation could really only have say $100k to pay taxes on after all the expenses are paid and the corporation owner would only have to pay taxes on their $55k salary. It's not that hard. It's actually pretty crazy that things can work out that way. The only reason we don't do stuff like that is because we mostly aren't aware of how to do that or that you can even do it.

Basically, the rich use loopholes to not have to pay as much in taxes. Until they are closed (won't happen) things aren't going to change.

This is true.
It must be understood that all politicians put the loopholes there, and all politicians allow it to go on.
Despite what they tell us to get out votes.
Anyone that doesn't realize that virtually all politicians are in bed with corporations are kidding themselves.

I say that because if they need money for something they print it and take the value of the dollar down even lower.

This is very good and right on the money....so to speak.

 

[Adam]

I always wait for the Critical Thinkers among us to notice that the same dollar gets taxed multiple times.

In the immortal words of Ethan Hunt,

Yeah, I've noticed that. Taxed when I'm paid, taxed when I save, and taxed when I spend. Stings, but then again, our salaries would be lower if we didn't pay taxes. Our compensation takes the whole system into account.

Here's how I see it. I have enough money to buy food for me and Niki, we both have a roof over our heads, and I can afford transportation. I live in a country where I have to travel all of half a mile to get to a supermarket - a SUPERmarket - that has all sorts of food. If I get cold or hot, I push a couple of buttons on a thermostat. If I get thirsty, I move a handle (well, I wave my hand in front of an electronic sensor), and water is there. All in all, I've got just about zero to complain about. Doesn't stop me, though.

 

[panteragstk]

A very big part of a corporation's expenses are payroll and paying into every employee's unemployment fund.
That payroll allows the employees to live their lives and also pay taxes.
Company taxes are paid quarterly, however employees are paid first.

I always wait for the Critical Thinkers among us to notice that the same dollar gets taxed multiple times.


I had to get my accountant wife and ask her about some of this.
I touched on a few points.
Won't go much further, since she tells me the post is mostly incorrect.
Sorry to say, and no offense meant.




That's not a choice or function of corporations. It's what the government mandates.





This is true.
It must be understood that all politicians put the loopholes there, and all politicians allow it to go on.
Despite what they tell us to get out votes.
Anyone that doesn't realize that virtually all politicians are in bed with corporations are kidding themselves.


This is very good and right on the money....so to speak.

Good points. In my example I was talking about a privately held corporation that only had one employee, the owner. It would be like if I started a real estate corporation that just owned a whole bunch of rent houses or something along those lines. It's my money, but my company controls it. Not what people normally think of when they think of a corporation.

That is another discussion however.

I do commend you guys for having an intelligent political discussion without getting crazy. Not the norm on most forums. I like it here for that reason.

 

[panteragstk]

In the immortal words of Ethan Hunt,

Yeah, I've noticed that. Taxed when I'm paid, taxed when I save, and taxed when I spend. Stings, but then again, our salaries would be lower if we didn't pay taxes. Our compensation takes the whole system into account.

Here's how I see it. I have enough money to buy food for me and Niki, we both have a roof over our heads, and I can afford transportation. I live in a country where I have to travel all of half a mile to get to a supermarket - a SUPERmarket - that has all sorts of food. If I get cold or hot, I push a couple of buttons on a thermostat. If I get thirsty, I move a handle (well, I wave my hand in front of an electronic sensor), and water is there. All in all, I've got just about zero to complain about. Doesn't stop me, though.

I think that you summed it up very well. Everything you said is what is actually important and the truly poor don't have. Granted we as a country (all of us included) like to have things. We want to retire and continue that comfort. We want to travel. I'm very happy with my simple existence. I just wish I didn't spend more time with my co-workers than with my family.

Back to govment. I personally think that elected officials should have a salary that is "good enough" to be comfortable, not what they are now. They shouldn't be allowed to vote for their own raises (why would that ever not go through?). They should be in the job to help the country, not collect money. PAC's need to go. Lobbyists that work for or run major companies that government regulations can benefit or hurt need to go. Someone with a net worth of $50k should be able to win a major election. Campaign contributions should not come from big companies. Campaigns should not cost $100 million a month.

The money aspect of elections and elected positions needs to go away that way the people doing the job will actually do it for more of the right reasons. Power shouldn't be one of them, but no body should ever have enough of it to make a difference.

 

[Chu Gai]

Is there a chart that illustrates the wealth inequality by factoring in how lower income people are provided assistance, be it public or private, when it comes to food, shelter, clothing, and any other form of assistance?

 

[GO-NAD!]

The stock holder isn't an owner. At best he or she is a quasi owner.
The stock holder simply puts some of their money at risk, in hopes that the real owner will make the best choices for the company and it's holders.




Sure they care about paying Tom Cruise. If they didn't care they would pay to see you or me.

I didn't say the ticket price would change. I said Tom Cruise has a certain box office draw, that say, I wouldn't have.
A CEO that's known for his or her abilities to turn a failing company around, has an asking price that they will get.
Those skills benefit all involved. It's the price we all pay, for an expected return.

I did mention end users, it's all paid for by them. Multiple times, once when they see a movie on the big screen. Again, when it's on DVD. Yet again when it shown through their cable or satellite provider. All paid for by the end user.




You may have to help me out with this one. It's Greek to me or Canuk or whatever it is you guys speak up there.
Must be the Molson. Stop drinking that. I'm pretty sure they put something in it.

I can say that the "cronies" are acting as agents of the owner and acting on his behalf...... if that's what I think you think you mean.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, Rick.

The stockholders are the owners of a publicly traded company, not quasi-owners. However, if you don't have sufficient shares, you have virtually no say in how the company is run. I used the term "cronies", because that's what the cynic in me would consider them to be. The board of directors would be the ones to sign off on the top executive compensation packages. Many of these directors are executives of other companies and serve on each other's boards. That does not allow for completely honest negotiation, as far as I'm concerned.

You keep bringing up end users into the argument (not sure what Freud would've had to say about that ). I'm really not sure what the direct connection is here. When Steve Jobs died, the price of iPhones didn't change. Yes, some CEO's such as Jobs, have very strong influence on the success or failure of a company and may warrant the premium they are paid. I think those are few and far between. The majority would be interchangeable, with little difference in company performance. For most companies and industry sectors, there are just way too many factors influencing company performance for the CEO to make a big difference.

And no, people do not care what Tom Cruise is being paid to star in a movie, because it doesn't affect the price of tickets. I don't think anyone is going think about what he is paid before deciding whether to see his movie or not.

It looks like were going in circles here, Rick. Perhaps we should just let it drop. And no, I don't mean your pants....