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.
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.
Liberals aren't choosing to hone in on a select few. Liberals are honing in on top executives whose compensations don't make sense. If you lead a company into bankruptcy, then bonuses for your leadership don't make sense. If your job performance is so poor that the board asks you to resign, then a golden parachute doesn't make sense. When the average employee makes $35,000 at a company, and the top executive makes $35 million in salary, benefits, stock options and other amenities, the discrepancy is so large that it needs to be explained. And the explanation that that is what a top executive makes is nonsensical. The discussion is why is that what a top executive makes. Top executives in other countries don't make so much. The discrepancy between average employees and top executives has exploded over the past two decades in the United States, but hasn't exploded elsewhere. Why?
My "only recourse" isn't to attack the BLS definition. Pointing out that the BLS definition is overly broad isn't even an attack. If the BLS definition means that over 2 million workers are "top executives", the definition clearly is overly broad.
And the discussion about compensation, and why true top executives are compensated so handsomely in our country is a perfectly legitimate discussion. You are attempting to say that that discussion is not legitimate. If that's your only recourse, perhaps you should think a little more about the topic. I've never asserted class warfare, either, for the record. But I do think that executive compensation in the United States is out of kilter, and I do think that the stockholders and regular-Joe employees should have input into what the top executives of a company is paid, both in salary and other compensation. I don't think that corporate boards who've been charged with this responsibility have been acting responsibly when putting together these compensation packages. And I think that the meme that these top executives have special skills and abilities is false. When an executive who's never set foot in a car factory, who's experience has been with snack foods, gets hired as top executive of a major car manufacturer, he's not bringing knowledge or past performance to the table. He's bringing some mythical "executive skills" to the table. And maybe he's a great manager. But realistically, there are a lot of great managers out there. Just because he's been the head of one company doesn't mean the skill set translates to all companies. But that's what top executives have been telling and selling to corporate boards.
The median expected salary for a typical Chief Executive Officer in the United States is $725,456. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.
The median expected salary for a typical Chief Executive Officer in the United States is $725,456. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.
Here is another case of comparing the wrong data. The OP was about Top Executives which included CEOs and then a slew of other "top executives" that included Mayors, City Admins and College Presidents.
You are posting about CEOs only and most people are complaining about Wall Street Executives beyond just a CEO.
Using data that comes from a different group of individuals than being discussed does not support or go against anything. It just steers the discussion in a whole other direction.
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.
"Broaden the base" is con-code for taxing poor people. "Simplified tax code" is con-speak for lowing tax rates, which lowers rich people's rates. Taxing poor people more and lowering the rates on the rich doesn't correct the fact that we tax very rich people too little. It just makes the tax code even more regressive.
One of the main arguments of the Liberal Establishment is that all the money and control is flowing to the top executives while the little man gets crapped on with barely survivable wages.
It makes for good politics, and even better propaganda, but it does not square up with the data.
The median wage for America's Top Executives is $101,250 per year. (BLS, 2010)This is hardly wealthy. It wouldn't even qualify for a tax increase should Barack Obama be successful in his quest to "make the rich pay their fair share."
Further, if the median pay of top executives is $101,250, then the median pay of middle and upper management is even lower. Liberals have not spared any scorn for these folks either, and for no good reason.
It's time to put a stop to the idea that America's top executives are kicking the average man in the shins while steadily making themselves filthy rich. It's time to put a stop to the sky-high, false election-year rhetoric and come back down to earth.
America's top executives are NOT the root of America's problems. America's top executives are the driving force behind America's successful businesses. And the vast majority are not getting rich through their hard work.
Liberals need to find a new argument. This one is DEAD ON ARRIVAL.
No it is not dead, not dead at all and this doesn't even put a dent in it. That CEOs make more then the average worker was never an issue and nobody has complained about that. The issue is the widening gap due to the CEOs giving themselves huge raises while at the same time bending over backwards to screw the workers. It blows to all hell this rising tide lifts all boats bull****. And it also blows to all hell the idea that when these people get more money the first thing they're going to do is create jobs
Liberals aren't choosing to hone in on a select few. Liberals are honing in on top executives whose compensations don't make sense. If you lead a company into bankruptcy, then bonuses for your leadership don't make sense. If your job performance is so poor that the board asks you to resign, then a golden parachute doesn't make sense. When the average employee makes $35,000 at a company, and the top executive makes $35 million in salary, benefits, stock options and other amenities, the discrepancy is so large that it needs to be explained. And the explanation that that is what a top executive makes is nonsensical. The discussion is why is that what a top executive makes. Top executives in other countries don't make so much. The discrepancy between average employees and top executives has exploded over the past two decades in the United States, but hasn't exploded elsewhere. Why?
My "only recourse" isn't to attack the BLS definition. Pointing out that the BLS definition is overly broad isn't even an attack. If the BLS definition means that over 2 million workers are "top executives", the definition clearly is overly broad.
And the discussion about compensation, and why true top executives are compensated so handsomely in our country is a perfectly legitimate discussion. You are attempting to say that that discussion is not legitimate. If that's your only recourse, perhaps you should think a little more about the topic. I've never asserted class warfare, either, for the record. But I do think that executive compensation in the United States is out of kilter, and I do think that the stockholders and regular-Joe employees should have input into what the top executives of a company is paid, both in salary and other compensation. I don't think that corporate boards who've been charged with this responsibility have been acting responsibly when putting together these compensation packages. And I think that the meme that these top executives have special skills and abilities is false. When an executive who's never set foot in a car factory, who's experience has been with snack foods, gets hired as top executive of a major car manufacturer, he's not bringing knowledge or past performance to the table. He's bringing some mythical "executive skills" to the table. And maybe he's a great manager. But realistically, there are a lot of great managers out there. Just because he's been the head of one company doesn't mean the skill set translates to all companies. But that's what top executives have been telling and selling to corporate boards.
DC At The Ridge--I agree with all you are saying. I think one part is getting mired by details though.
The BLS did a study on "Top Executives". That is the highest paid person at ANY corporation. As I stated earlier, this includes Manual the Lawn Man at Manuel's Landscaping. Manuel makes about $40,000 per year as Manuel's Landscaping's "top executive. The BLS study includes every top executive in the country. Some of them might make $50 a year.
The bizarre part of this thread is the equation made by somebody, and I'm not sure who, that liberals are after all "top executives." Where the heck did THAT come from? The contention is against folks, top executives or not, that make so much money yet their effective tax rate is very low.
I don't think one issue has to do with another but it has been some incredible spin here to link them and try to make it look like the current administration is going after every top executive in the country. But, hey, if that's what helps them sleep at night...more power to them.
WHAT IS THE ARITHMETIC AVERAGE? Using the MEDIAN hides the effect of the extremes and thus discounts the economic effect of the thousands of "executives" being paid millions in cash and stock. There is also the effect of companies calling hourly and/or salaried employees "executives" in order to eliminate paying benefits.
This is just another piece of propaganda from our obviously well paid source.
Forget all that, most executives aren't taking most of their compensation in WAGES anymore. Most are taking income as capital gains at a lower tax rate.
Last edited by buzzards27; 04-10-2012 at 12:23 PM..
One of the major stated benefits of the flat tax is that it would make filing your tax return easier. Because there aren't any deductions. Trouble with that argument is that you don't need a flat tax to file your income tax without taking any deductions and if you don't take any deductions your taxes can be done in like 15 or 20 minutes
$75,250,000 That's the income owed on an income of 215M at 35%. I figured that out in like 30 seconds with my calculator.
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.
