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.
Read the rest of the thread. I plainly make my case for why those numbers should be used, and why its disingenuous to outright ignore them.
What's disingenuous is that you argue that liberals are making war on rich people that are "top executives", then you want to change the definition of "top executives" so that it includes people who aren't rich. While I appreciate your effort to "spin" the issue, the facts are that if you are making $101,250 annually, you are neither rich nor a top executive.
What's disingenuous is that you argue that liberals are making war on rich people that are "top executives", then you want to change the definition of "top executives" so that it includes people who aren't rich. While I appreciate your effort to "spin" the issue, the facts are that if you are making $101,250 annually, you are neither rich nor a top executive.
So now in your world the title of 'Chief Executive Officer' is not defined as being a top executive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Warren Buffett's salary is $100,000, case in point.
Please actually read the thread. The mean total compensation, including stock options, bonuses, etc. is $250k for CEOs in America.
Median Top Executive Salary: $101,250 per year - Liberals Need Another Argument. This One Is DEAD
Sounds great until you factor in the Bonuses, Perks and tax exemptions............ What they take home then becomes a different ball game.
Read the rest of the thread. I plainly make my case for why those numbers should be used, and why its disingenuous to outright ignore them.
The Top 1% is a political creation, not a logical argument for or against wages and compensation for the average American worker.
What I find to be astoundingly hiliarious is that you start off your post with "Statistics do not lie but liars use statistics," but then come forth with a round of statistics that you feel don't make you a liar. How are BLS statistics a lie, and yours not? LOL Idiotic to the core, and very telling.
The difference is that I put my statistics in context and provide the source.
You point to the BLS and don't discuss their methodology. How do they define "top executive?"
When Bill Gates walks into a bar that has 49 people in it, the average person in the bar is a billionaire. That's how statistics lie and I suspect the claim that the median salary for top execs is $101K, suffers from a similar error and a slew of asterisks -- like most of their income is not salary.
So now in your world the title of 'Chief Executive Officer' is not defined as being a top executive?
Chief Executive Officer of Zippy's Pizza, total number of employees 4, where the Chief Executive Officer is responsible for washing dishes and keeping gas in the van is not a top executive.
What's disingenuous is that you argue that liberals are making war on rich people that are "top executives", then you want to change the definition of "top executives" so that it includes people who aren't rich. While I appreciate your effort to "spin" the issue, the facts are that if you are making $101,250 annually, you are neither rich nor a top executive.
Again, you completely confuse the points I have made.
1) Why do liberals choose to hone in on a select few well-compensated executives to make the case that rich people are "evil" and getting richer and richer while simultaneously keeping the wages of the average American low? How do a select few orchestrate such an event when in fact it's small businesses (ie. lower paid executives) who actually employ and set the wages of the vast majority of Americans?
2) You have a probem with the broad definition because it doesn't quite jive with the class warfare schtick that you and your colleages erroneously cling to.
Of course you don't have a logical answer to this. So your only recourse is to attack the BLS definition.
But this is a poor argument, at best. CEOs that are paid for poorly performing companies are simply having their contracts honored. Suppose your salary was $50k/year, but your division lost a lot of money that year. Is it fair for the company to say "we promised you $50k, but since the company performed poorly, we are actually going to only pay you $30k".
The average worker fails at their job and gets paid all the time! Are you seriously saying you have never worked with someone who is completely useless but somehow kept their job for years?
Bonus. Not stock options, not other compensation. Performance bonuses. That are paid out based on a company cutting employees to hit certain numbers.
Again, you completely confuse the points I have made.
1) Why do liberals choose to hone in on a select few well-compensated executives to make the case that rich people are "evil" and getting richer and richer while simultaneously keeping the wages of the average American low? How do a select few orchestrate such an event when in fact it's small businesses (ie. lower paid executives) who actually employ and set the wages of the vast majority of Americans?
2) You have a probem with the broad definition because it doesn't quite jive with the class warfare schtick that you and your colleages erroneously cling to.
Of course you don't have a logical answer to this. So your only recourse is to attack the BLS definition.
What I've said previously is that 70% of the top 0.1% are executives.
It's not a matter whether this group is 'evil,' it's a matter of policy implications and whether this group should have preferentially lower taxes than ordinary workers.
What is really needed is a simplified tax code that broadens the base and makes it hard to cheat on taxes and easier to catch thsoe who do. The government estimates that tax cheats cost 300 billion a year in revenues.None of the proposed tax increases on the rich which will also have other conseqeunces amounts to near that.
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.
