Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I put forth my arguments, at length and in multiple threads.
When the return is a canned, rote piece of econ dogma, I move on. Especially if it's repeated despite multiple suggestions there are other viewpoints. I stopped trying to convert the true believers long ago; there are many with more open, flexible minds to engage.
ETA: and even more so when someone insists on misreading what I've written or lumping me in with other general opinions they don't happen to like. I'll argue my words with someone who has evidently read them; I am not going to argue with your Econ 101 professor or ideas other people have troubled you with.
K. Bye.
I gave examples from 2 blue chips, not the classroom. Sorry professor, but you telling everyone they’re coming from a Econ 101 class is a load of bull****.
Publicly traded corporations often reward their top officers in stock shares rather than, or in conjunction with, cash.
The chairman of Amazon, for example, makes $81,800 salary. Almost all of his wealth is in his shares of Amazon. Every year, he liquidates about $1 billion in stocks mostly to fund his Blue Origin space company.
Technically, he does get another $1.6m in compensation, bonuses or profit sharing or some such, so possibly Amazon might fall under this law, were it located in SF (it's not). But they would have to use some very convoluted language in the legislation. And, of course, smart companies will simply structure the compensation to evade this tax.
The $1.6 million is not compensation, bonuses or profit sharing, from the proxy:
"(2) Represents the approximate aggregate incremental cost to Amazon of security arrangements for Mr. Bezos in addition to security arrangements provided at business facilities and for business travel. We believe that all Company-incurred security costs are reasonable and necessary and for the Company’s benefit, and that the amount of the reported security expenses for Mr. Bezos is especially reasonable in light of his low salary and the fact that he has never received any stock-based compensation."
Publicly traded corporations often reward their top officers in stock shares rather than, or in conjunction with, cash.
The chairman of Amazon, for example, makes $81,800 salary. Almost all of his wealth is in his shares of Amazon. Every year, he liquidates about $1 billion in stocks mostly to fund his Blue Origin space company.
Technically, he does get another $1.6m in compensation, bonuses or profit sharing or some such, so possibly Amazon might fall under this law, were it located in SF (it's not). But they would have to use some very convoluted language in the legislation. And, of course, smart companies will simply structure the compensation to evade this tax.
The $1.6 million other compensation for Bezos is security costs. From the Amazon proxy statement:
Represents the approximate aggregate incremental cost to Amazon of security arrangements for Mr. Bezos in addition to security arrangements provided at business facilities and for business travel. We believe that all Company-incurred security costs are reasonable and necessary and for the Company’s benefit, and that the amount of the reported security expenses for Mr. Bezos is especially reasonable in light of his low salary and the fact that he has never received any stock-based compensation.
Every time this ridiculous issue comes up, I have to wonder if the proponents are thinking clearly. Take Amazon. Under the compensation scheme for top executives, they get a low salary, less than $200,000, and occasional, possibly significant, restricted stock grants. Those grants do not occur every year. The largest annual compensation I saw, excluding one executive who took a leave of absence, which affected how compensation was reported, was about 600 times the earnings of a warehouse associate. The executive is in charge of Amazon Web Services, where earnings are likely higher, and not 600+ time the earnings of a warehouse worker. Would it be fair to reduce his earnings? Are warehouse workers paid the same as other similar jobs in the areas where they work?
San Francisco is going to regret this, as jobs leave the city.
I gave examples from 2 blue chips, not the classroom. Sorry professor, but you telling everyone they’re coming from a Econ 101 class is a load of bull****.
Don't bother trying to get Therblig to take ownership of anything he/she says, they'll just refuse and say you're too stupid to understand the clever point they were making (but never made).
Publicly traded corporations often reward their top officers in stock shares rather than, or in conjunction with, cash.
I've always worked for corporations who provide equity compensation to every employee from the CEO down to the receptionist. Equity compensation is a good thing.
Technically, he does get another $1.6m in compensation, bonuses or profit sharing or some such...
I believe it is slightly different. The corporation provides him with a security detail -- standard practice for a CEO flying around the globe on company business. Perhaps the company provides a private jet (I don't know about that; this is hypothetical).
What happens in these scenarios is the value of that security detail is considered imputed income and its value is reported to the IRS. Bezos then pays income tax on the value of that security detail that has been provided to him.
Regarding travel, it is a bit more complicated. Let's say the price of a round-trip first class ticket on United Airlines is, say, $5,000 just to pull a number out of thin air. Let's say the cost of providing that round-trip on the company owned aircraft is $15,000. The difference - $10K in this case - is considered imputed income reported to the IRS. Bezos then pays income tax on that.
So, Amazon will report to the IRS that Jeff Bezos' compensation exceeds his $81K salary, and Bezos will pay income tax on it.
At one time the income tax rate for the highest earners was 92%. That gave us the GI bill and free tuition at many colleges as well as a lot of infrastructure improvements that the middle class didn’t go broke creating. Just a reminder.
Yup! Everyone seems to forget that part. We could have higher taxes for rich people. It could even start as low as people making $25M.
Yup! Everyone seems to forget that part. We could have higher taxes for rich people. It could even start as low as people making $25M.
The rich already pay most of the income taxes. They pay high property taxes since they own a lot of property. And they pay a lot of capital gains taxes since they tend to have their wealth in investments.
Basically, the wealthiest Americans already pay a lot of the overall taxes. This "tax the rich" thing is nonsense.
People should be focusing on encouraging more business formation and growth, which is where all the money comes from. With lots of business growth, you get organic growth in government revenues from both the businesses themselves and from all the income tax, sales tax, property tax etc. paid by the employees.
Business growth is a win-win.
Taxing the dickens out of "the rich" is for losers.
SF is already experiencing a net outflow of population and businesses shutting down or moving. Now is a terrible time to slam them with yet another tax!
I like income inequality. It gives people incentives to make more money via adding value to the economy.
I like wealth inequality. It gives people incentives to generate new wealth via adding value to the economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
