I’m The 1%…

Spread the love

Loading

I own a business with earnings of $6.25 Billion per year. I employ 4,992 production workers and 1,513 administrative personnel. There are 47 people in my corporation that make more than $1,000,000 per year. The total St. Louis City payroll alone is $323 Million. After expenses (including $423 Million in donations), the corporation pays $825 Million per year in Local, State, and Federal Taxes. I fly in a G5 Private Jet. I drive a Maserati. I live in a 12,200sqft house that cost $3.2 Million to build. I am the 1%.

I’ve watched outside my business offices and factories located in St. Louis Missouri, Oakland California, and Atlanta, Georgia as the so-called 99% have engaged in their Occupy Movements. I’ve watched as all manner of illegal, criminal, and law-breaking activity has been committed in their encampments. I have watched as the mayors of these cities have looked the other way, ignored the breaking of laws, and shirked their responsibility.

I watched as St. Louis representative of Mayor Slay, Jeff Rainford, sarcastically suggested that the Occupy Movement try to encamp in cities of Manchester, Ballwin, or Wentzville near to St. Louis (I think those were the three cities he listed). Clearly, he was inferring that the law enforcement in such cities would not allow this law-breaking activity.

I’ve watched as all manner of elected Democrats – from freshmen House members and the DNC Party Chair to President Obama himself – have endorsed the criminal Occupy Wall Street movement and verbally thrashed the peaceful and respectful Tea Party movement.

Can you tell me why… …why in the world would I keep my business in St. Louis, Oakland, and Atlanta? Why would I keep my business in the United States of America? Why would I subject myself to this kind of abuse after working 16 hours a day for years to improve my lot in life?

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If the 1% leave this country, who will pay the people not to work?

A lot of people really do seem to believe that the wealthiest 1% are somehow responsible for virtually all productive activity in the nation, and that the remaining 99% couldn’t muddle along without them.

A more recent development is the belief that anyone who openly challenges that ridiculous notion must be some sort of anti-American leftist extremist.

Any fucking moron could get off his ass, set up a grill on a street corner, sell hot dogs, and make $100 a day. That’s $2000-3000 a month. It ain’t 1% earnings, but it’s earnings not temporary aid morphed into a lifestyle for a modern day class of society slackers.

What if people were taxed (or forced to work off tax debt) based on what they contribute to society? Wouldn’t that make people want to make society better? Would the 1%’er who employs 300,000 people be taxed (or forced to work off his tax debt) more than the asshat who sits around in a tent complaining about how oppressed he is…via his twitter account and his iPad?

Maybe the top 1% should be taxed LESS, and the 30% of Americans who live below the poverty line should be forced into a WPA, a TriC, a TVA, a Hoover Dam project, or an Americorps program. Either an American gets up, and contributes to America, or they’re taxed or they’re forced to work for the govt filling potholes, building dams, etc.

@Curt

Whilst I don’t agree with the OWS lack of coherent solutions and certainly the anti-capitalist messages and those hold up Anarchy as somehow a viable better alternative – I do think they have a point in their rage against a small minority holding excessive wealth and the bankers who caused the economic crisis. For a start look how CEO/executive pay has risen over the last 50 years. In 1965 CEOs were earning 24 times the amount of the average worker in the US. In 2006 – that was 262 times! Does that mean they are now 10 times better than they were back then – that they have improved so much whilst the average worker hasn’t?

I’m all for a meritocracy where those who are better get ahead but instead we have too much corruption and greed that can be tolerated. Why do bankers, executives or any employees get bonuses if their company failed to make profits – especially if it’s be bailed out by public money? I would of thought a bonus would be based on profits. Also how many hired CEOs have run companies which they don’t own, get paid millions in dollars, mess up the company, get paid off in millions whilst thousands of people are laid off.

Take the case of Fred Goodwin in the UK. He ran Royal Bank of Scotland – in 2008 it has losses of £24.1bn. So Fred resigned and got 2.7 million pay off in pounds. Tax free. Meanwhile 20,000 people lost their jobs. Why should I as a taxpayer have to contribute anything towards this and any other fat cats for their incompetenc? Sure – if a CEO raises profits then should get a handsome share – but when they take disasterous risks which don’t pan out and everyone but them finanically suffers – how is that good capitalism? This story is repeated all over the west. Capitalism is a great system but in a mixed economy it has to be continually ( as it has over the centuries) be reformed and that means reigning rewarded poor performance with millions of dollars.

@ Greg
Whatever. See how productive you are when the guy that owns the business you work for decides to leave and take his business with him.

@ GaffaUK
I agree. But you bring up two different areas. First is CEO compensation. This is typically decided by a board of directors. Corporations seem to have a problem in this area, but in the end it is the board’s decision and nothing anyone outside the board and the stockholders that have a say. Hell, I can’t even blame politicians for this. As individuals, we can invest in a corporation and vote as stockholders.
As for bailouts, they just shouldn’t happen…ever. There should be no such thing as too big to fail.

@Scott: While I agree with your general sentiment that anyone with initiative and a willingness to work can make a living, your hot dog example just shows that government isn’t helping. In pretty much any city in America, you aren’t going to be able to set up a hot dog cart without getting some sort of license – and in most places that isn’t something an unemployed person will be able to do easily.

As for the parent article, I’m not sure what sort of ‘abuse’ the writer feels he’s being subjected to. Is it the criminal activity in the encampments? I doubt he’s been a victim. Is it the rhetoric? Hey, welcome to the USA, buddy – you have freedom to run your business, other people have freedom to run their mouths. Is it the implied threat of political changes (like higher taxes) that would hurt him? Well, now he has a point – but in that case, I think he should be complaining about people like Warren Buffett (calling for higher taxes) rather than the comparatively ineffectual OWS protesters.

In pretty much any city in America, you aren’t going to be able to set up a hot dog cart without getting some sort of license

…um, really? Dude, do you know what I’ve been doing for the past year and a half?
http://www.thestewpotkitchen.com

see about you page

@Scott:

Any fucking moron could get off his ass, set up a grill on a street corner, sell hot dogs, and make $100 a day. That’s $2000-3000 a month. It ain’t 1% earnings, but it’s earnings not temporary aid morphed into a lifestyle for a modern day class of society slackers.

What if people were taxed (or forced to work off tax debt) based on what they contribute to society? Wouldn’t that make people want to make society better?

I’d love it if people had to be taxed to cover what they cost society.
We have a whole lot of illegal food vendors around Long Beach.
They know the Inspectors all call it a day at about 4 PM.
So, that’s when they hit the streets.
Their unregulated fruits and veggies lead to many cases of food poisonings all the time.
If they were forced to foot the ER bills they would be out of business for good.

@Scott Malensek:

I hope we have a reason to go to Akron some day, that menu sounds yummy!!!! I love soup!

Congratulations! You did it and it sounds fabulous!

@Aqua, #5:

Whatever. See how productive you are when the guy that owns the business you work for decides to leave and take his business with him.

Perhaps they should have gone along with all of the jobs and factories they’ve exported to China.

Greg: Perhaps they should have gone along with all of the jobs and factories they’ve exported to China.

Well now, Greg… why do you think they are moving the jobs and factories to China? Or has that never crossed your mind?

Scott! The website looks great! And what good news that you’ve got so much demand… tho not becoming one of the evil “rich” in the process… that you need to get more space. While we so miss your authorship here at FA, I can honestly say there are those that “do”, and those that “write”. You’ve moved on to the “do” category, and I’m so very proud of you and the family.

But I do seem to remember that getting everything in place with licenses, health department standards etal were downright hair-pulling…. do I not remember that correctly?

But there’s an interesting battle going on via executive pay, the mantra of what is too much (since the Dems so want to tell private industry how much they can pay an exec), and Obama’s “designated” (quasi appointee) of FHFA, Edward Demarco. It seems that the GSE execs are reaping huge rewards for a job not so well done. Yet Demarco insists that the bonuses are merely “deferred salaries”, and these huge amounts of cash… at the tax payers expense (unlike private sector agreements)… must be high to “incentivize executives to stay on board.”

Hummmm… haven’t I heard this from private sector corporations as well? But again, the cash for CEOs of private corporations aren’t paid for by the taxpayer.

DeMarco was a Clinton Treasury employee, moved to the SSA in 2003. In 2006, he joined the OFHEO as the Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Director. The OFHEO was the predecessor agency to the FHFA, which was created by Pelosi/Reid’s Congress in 2008 under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and signed into law by Bush in July. It was supposed to be the new oversight agency since the old oversight agency apparently didn’t want to do the job… ahem, Congress.

Of course, Politico’s Joseph Williams can’t get his history straight, and lays DeMarco… whose public sector career has spanned three POTUS, starting with Clinton… on Bush. Mr. Williams also attempts to say that Obama did not “appoint” DeMarco (parsing the Obama “designation” or elevation of DeMarco’s status in 2009), and since he was a czar of an independent advisory board, ergo cannot be fired. Without going back to the 2008 legislation that the super Dem Congress passed, I don’t know that’s true. But if Obama can “designate” DeMarco as a czar, he most certainly can UNdesignate that same czar.

But, if there’s one thing that both the GOP and the Dems can agree on, it’s that these outrageous GSEs salaries for Fannie/Freddie – still highly in debt to the tax payer and sitting on more and more toxic mortgages daily – don’t make them look like credible stewards of the taxpayers cash.

right… like they have ever been?

So the Senate fired off a letter to the WH and Geither about a crack down on this about a week ago. The Dem controlled Senate lags far behind the GOP House on the issue, who began pushing their GSE reforms back in March.

And what does this have to do with the original Most Wanted post, you ask? If the spoiled, great unwashed in the streets, so wrapped up in self with their entitlement mentality, want to focus on the problem, it lies at the Capitol Dome in the beltway. For it is those who waste the money stolen from taxpayers and regulate amidst unmitigated hypocrisy. The private sector… their target… lives only to serve the masters in the Capitol, keeping them flush in cash to spend and redistribute.

If the “infestants”… er, occupiers… had a single amoeba of grey matter upstairs, they’d realize that if they want to be “kept” in the 3rd world pig sty quality to which they’ve become accustomed, you can’t cut off the hand the feeds you. It is the working people… obviously not those who have time to be professional campers… who pay the government, who siphons off the top, then doles out the remains to the great unwashed. And if the government weren’t so busy creating unfriendly business economic conditions, there would be more jobs, more private sector cash for the government to steal.

Instead, the entitlement mentality has taken firm hold all over the world. Austerity measures, stripping away government “freebies” stolen from the productive, and inciting riots every where. Mob rule is pure thuggery, nor is it indicative of the majority of the nation. But they will threaten, whine, intimidate, and incite violence and this POTUS and most local elected leaders will duly cower under the politically correct banner. And this society and nation will crash, just as the euro-socialist nations are doing. It’s only a matter of time.

@GaffaUK: For a start look how CEO/executive pay has risen over the last 50 years. In 1965 CEOs were earning 24 times the amount of the average worker in the US. In 2006 – that was 262 times! Does that mean they are now 10 times better than they were back then – that they have improved so much whilst the average worker hasn’t?

You’re looking at a drop of the ocean instead of the ocean, Gaffa. There is much you leave out, just quoting percentages or cash.

Take, for example, just the CEO compensation methods via this Forbes chart from 1989 to 2011. The pay structure is broken down into three categories… salary and bonuses, “other”, and stock options. The stock options relatively consistent. The other two categories fluctuate along with the economic times… i.e. they were higher in the late Clinton years, riding the dot.com and housing bubble, fell in the wake of the recession Clinton left and compounded by the Sept 11th attacks, rose again thru the Bush term until the 2008 crash and then fell.

In other words, their salaries, bonuses and other compensation were reflective of performance.

Now how does that contrast with the GSEs CEOs that I mentioned above? I don’t care what the private sector does to compensate their CEOs. But I do care that federal government is rewarding the GSEs while heading the fiscal toilet bowls known as Fannie and Freddie…. because that’s cash that comes from me.

As for that drop in the ocean view of joe blow salaries, it’s probably this graph that has your knickers in a twist. The site of that graph, the Consumerist, which exhibits the numbers that those taking a more narrow and less informed view of economic compensation for both workers and CEOs, points out a few realities…

It looks like while CEO pay rose 298.2% by 2005, and corporate profits by 106.7%, the average worker pay has only risen by 4.3%.

The chart seems to show no direct relationship between CEO pay and profit performance, however, CEO pay does track nearly parallel with the S&P 500. That stock options are included in the CEO pay, and those have gotten more popular in recent years, might be a factor. Another is that the CEO population is smaller than that of the average workers, so naturally there’s going to be more volatility.

Profits or losses, stocks up or down, the average worker gets paid nearly the same. Maybe the breed of CEOs is just working harder while everyone else is just treading water…

The fact that the CEO compensation follows the S&P performance is exactly what I mentioned above, about the CEO salaries following the economic times.

There’s two basic points in the analysis above, Gaffa.

1: The CEO’s take the risk of annual salaries, based on performance, while the employees enjoy less, but stable wages, regardless of the corporate performance. Cry about the number of zeros behind that number for each, but the fact is if one is accustomed and indebted based on a triple digit plus annual salary, he or she is in just as much trouble if they fall short that year as the individuals accustomed and indebted based on their double digit annual income.

2: Secondly, and most important, the figures used for these sundry charts are based on an employees salary alone. It does not include the perks of health insurance, pension plans and 401Ks that are matched by the employer on behalf of the worker. Also, many employees of corporations are awarded shares, and they also benefit when the corporation profits.

Compensation for employees has changed considerably since the early 90s, with more offered in benefits vis a vis these plans. So I suggest that the 4.3% increase in the wages alone does not reflect the additional income and accrued wealth not depicted.

Thanks for the kudos guys

Yeah, I was being sarcastic re taxes and fees. omg…..I never, ever, ever, EVER imagined there’d be so many. Most are cheap, but add em together, and it’s huge. You just wouldn’t believe it. For example, last year we got robbed (twice in 2wks in fact). I installed a few independent security systems to the tune of about $1000+. Couple weeks later….the city threatened to fine me $500 for not registering the security system & not getting a license to have it. I get robbed, the cops did shit (there are good cops, and then there are the oxygen parasites that we have here), and I WAS THE ONE who was gonna get punished by the gov. Still pisses me off.

Someday I’ll try and list all the fees and taxes. It’s pathetic.

Better to sell illegal produce in Long Beach. Oh, btw, here in Ohio it is illegal to use food from your garden, illegal to collect rain water, and illegal to protect yourself w a security system. All of these things are made legal only by paying a tax/fee. It’s fucking bullshit. I’m all for paying taxes, but they are literally running out of ways to tax businesses.

So when will you be opening your franchise in China, Scott? LOL

No Hong Kong locations in the near future, but Qatar is lookin’ AWESOME!

btw, got Fox8News coming tomorrow. They, called ME. Gonna do a feature on us to air 12/10. I’ll post vid when poss.
Got a bigwig hobnob w rich folk (1%ers). Charity gig.
Total scramble mode today, oh, and did I mention we didn’t even have a sign up until last night? Yeah, all this (record breaking day on Tues), and w not even a sign. Word of mouth.

Pretty cool. Not gettin rich, but damned if I’m not workin for it! I refuse to be one of those whiners sitting in a tent and complaining about how da man has all da powa and munny

Scott Good luck on getting your 12,200sq.ft. house,your Masseratti and your private jet. Then you too can be a loud mouthed braggart.LOL

Thanks, but don’t need all that. All I need to be a big mouthed braggart is a degree in 16th Century Congolese Lesbian Literature. With that, I can get a job, and if I can’t then I’ll just get a tent and go whine about how the man is oppressin’ me.

Nah, I couldn’t do that. I’m LITERALLY right across the street from the Federal Building in Akron. I even had special coupons made up to give to the protesters so they’d come across to my place and eat. You seen my PEOPLE’S SOUP LOGO yet?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=233334743349201&set=a.156634484352561.40652.141417869207556&type=3&theater

Scott, that logo is hilarious…. talk about “playing” the audience. LOL

BTW, can’t resist posting it here for a grin to all…

Now why does Seinfeld’s “The Soup Nazi” come to mind??

@ Greg

Perhaps they should have gone along with all of the jobs and factories they’ve exported to China.

Can’t answer the question so you deflect.
You said:

A lot of people really do seem to believe that the wealthiest 1% are somehow responsible for virtually all productive activity in the nation, and that the remaining 99% couldn’t muddle along without them.

And I asked you how productive you would be if the person that owns the company you work for packed up shop and left.

If my boss closed the doors, I would be able to find another job. My name is pretty respected in my industry. But I rely on someone else to own the business. I design networks and I’m good at it. No, not just good, I’m amazing. That may sound like bragging, but in the words of Kid Rock, “it ain’t bragging expletive if you back it up.” But being good at designing networks does not mean I would be good at running a company that designs networks. As a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure I would suck at it. Therefore, I have a quasi-symbiotic relationship with the owner. He could probably get along without me, but it would be tough, and I could find another job, but I doubt I would be as happy. But I never forget that he’s the one that took the risk to start the company and the one that faces those risks daily. I receive a paycheck every payday, sometimes he doesn’t. I hope he becomes a multimillionaire, he deserves it.

@MataHarley, #12:

Well now, Greg… why do you think they are moving the jobs and factories to China? Or has that never crossed your mind?

Let me make a wild guess: Because they can make more money producing goods for the U.S. market by using foreign labor that costs an average of $1.36 per hour? (The 2008 average hourly wage in China.)

What this means, I suppose, is that all American workers would have to do to successfully compete is lower their wage and benefit expectations “somewhat”. And perhaps accept levels of environmental degradation that are common in China.

So, Greg… you think it’s wages only? EPA, OSHA, federal taxes, regulations, business permits, Pensions, Union don’t affect costs?

Tell me Greg, do the non union American auto factories (i.e. Toyota, Suburu, Mercedes) pay Chinese caliber wages?

pffft….. fish in a barrel

@MataHarley, #21:

Tell me Greg, do the non union American auto factories (i.e. Toyota, Suburu, Mercedes) pay Chinese caliber wages?

If they were paying Chinese caliber wages, who would be left that could afford their cars? Maybe each 1 percenter would buy 10 or so, to offset the loss of middle class American consumers.

@ Mata
Well, there’s another one he won’t be coming back to answer. He’ll cut and paste another dim talking point. edited Ok, he did come back to answer, but the answer made no sense.

I had a meeting with a manufacturer last week. I use some of their equipment and some of their competitor’s equipment. Both moved their operations to Mexico about ten years ago. The company I met last week just finished moving their operations back to the States. They said they saved a bit on labor, but the biggest reason for moving back was the cost of space. It seems commercial property is just as expensive over there as it is here and the corporate tax rate is 30%. They said the cost of labor in the manufacturing business is usually not as important as the cost of space.

@Scott Malensek: That’s awesome. That’s not too far from New Castle PA, where I am; sometime when I next travel to OH I should stop by. I don’t know whether it really refutes my point; could anyone really have done something like that, or did it require significant startup capital? But I really wasn’t looking for an argument – it’s not like I know the street vendor laws for the whole USA, I’m just extrapolating from Pittsburgh (where it’s a hassle, unless you set up as part of a farmer’s market). Maybe anyone could do it in Akron.

@NanG:

‘We have a whole lot of illegal food vendors …
Their unregulated fruits and veggies lead to many cases of food poisonings all the time.’

How do you know? For what it’s worth, licensed food establishments lead to many cases of food poisonings all the time, too. Worst food poisoning I ever had was from a Qdoba on the South Side of Pittsburgh. I expect all their paperwork was in order.

‘If they were forced to foot the ER bills they would be out of business for good.’

If their food were really that bad, I expect people would stop buying it.

Of course he won’t answer, Aqua. We’re all still waiting for that magic number that Greg believes is the top amount of money anyone should be allowed to make. So I wouldn’t be holding your breath… LOL

Yes, commercial real estate prices may have much to do with it. But then there are write offs for commercial buildings and land owned which may offset some of those costs. Not to mention our building codes are far more stringent here, compounding the costs of the structure – especially when using union workers.

oops.. there’s that third party middleman, creaming off the top, again… unions.

But you’re probably better he doesn’t answer, Aqua. At least you’re spared drivel like below:

Mata: Tell me Greg, do the non union American auto factories (i.e. Toyota, Suburu, Mercedes) pay Chinese caliber wages?

Greg: If they were paying Chinese caliber wages, who would be left that could afford their cars? Maybe each 1 percenter would buy 10 or so, to offset the loss of middle class American consumers.

???? I take that as a “no”…. much as it must have hurt you to say so.

Do you need a refresher of your chicken little response when I asked you why corporations are racing overseas? You said:

Because they can make more money producing goods for the U.S. market by using foreign labor that costs an average of $1.36 per hour?

…snip…

What this means, I suppose, is that all American workers would have to do to successfully compete is lower their wage and benefit expectations “somewhat”. And perhaps accept levels of environmental degradation that are common in China.

Obviously, Greg, the American factories I pointed out are not paying Chinese slave wages. However without even just the union middleman costs, they are competitive and keep businesses here. And they aren’t the one’s needing taxpayer bailouts, then after seized by Mr. Obama, gifted to majority shares to the union.

Apparently you’ve never had a business, been subjected to matching FICA payroll taxes, and bled like a stuck pig for permits, licenses, fine and inspections.

I swear, Greg.. you’re an extremist who – like a light bulb – only knows two positions – on or off. In your view, if we don’t have unions and all these nanny regs that drive companies out of the country, all of the sudden there are 3rd world, unsafe working conditions for people working for pennies on the dollar. Get serious.

Don’t you realize that the cost of providing medical for workers injured in an unsafe work environment, not to mention the ambulance chasing lawyers who would compound those costs, could drive them out of business as fast as the union, OSHA and the DPA/DEQ? Business savvy dictates it’s smarter to provide a safe environment, and they don’t need Congress to tell them that.

Unplug your ears and eyes…. Over regulation and middlemen like the unions are sinking jobs fast. Been a steady drain, starting with the steel mills back in the 70s. Worse today because Congress and the unions are dipping even deeper into the wallets of business… desperately seeking more to cover their overspending butts.

CEO : Avg Worker ratio is a meaningless stat.

Those who allege that executives in the United States are overpaid point to the large differential between the compensation awarded to the CEO and that of the average employee. Recentestimates put this ratio anywhere between 180 and 500, depending on methodology and the sample employed. Dodd-Frank now requires that companies calculate and disclose this ratio in the annual proxy. Proponents of this approach believe that companies with a high ratio will faceshareholder pressure to decrease CEO pay.

However, the ratio of CEO-to-average worker pay is a metric that suffers from several shortcomings. First, it is difficult to compare across companies. The ratio is influenced by a company’s industry, size, location, and structure of the workforce. For example, a company that retains low-wage employees on a full time basis will have a higher ratio than one that relies on temporary or outsourcing contracts. As a result, companies might appear to have grossly different pay practices when in fact their ratios are skewed by situational factors relating to their strategy or environment. Furthermore, the statistic is difficult to interpret. Is the ratio supposed to measure the relative value creation between the work of the CEO and that of the average employee (i.e., does the CEO creates 200 times more shareholder value than the average employee)? Or does it measure relative responsibility (i.e., does oversight responsibility for a
$20 billion company merit 200 times more in compensation than the oversight responsibility of the average worker in that company)? Or does it measure relative expendability of the positions (i.e., would the company choose to eliminate the CEO position or 200 other positions selected at
random)? Although pay inequity is an important social consideration, it is dangerous to collapse a complicated issue into a single ratio.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cgrp/research/documents/CGRP17-MythsComp.pdf

@MataHarley, #25:

Over regulation and middlemen like the unions are sinking jobs fast.

Only 11.4 percent of all workers in the United States–both public and private sector–are unionized. In the private sector, the percentage is below 9 percent.

Unions are not responsible for the mess we’re in. They’re not responsible for job losses. They’re not responsible for the systematic abuses of the financial system. They’re certainly not responsible for the disappearance of defined employee pension plans, the reduction in employee benefits, or for the decline in real wages. Unions aren’t causing that. They’re resisting it. That’s why they have targets on their backs.

The reason we’re up to our ears in regulation is because of the damages that were done by irresponsible people in their absence. There are people who would poison the land, the water, and the air to make a buck. They’ll happily sell the public all manner of unsafe products if no one stops them. They’ll shake you down at any and every opportunity, given half a chance. That’s a simple fact of life.

Want to blame somebody? Blame the people who are responsible. Don’t blame their victims, or those who point out the crime.

Oh… so now the small percentage of union workers works in your talking points favor, even as you insist on standing on the opposite side when the taxpaying public battles the public sector unions and their increased costs on the local and state governments. LOL Ain’t that convenient. So which is it, Greg? Is it the vast amount of working people (that 11.4% you say) are being screwed and trampled because the taxpayers can’t afford their perks? Or are you now going to admit that 98.6% of the working private sector are being sucked dry by public sector unions, which now outnumbers the private sector unions. Why? Because businesses figured out they couldn’t afford them…. duh

Here’s the rub, Greg… those large corporations who bolt the US for friendlier business digs (no, not Chinese slave labor)… feed the chain of other businesses. It’s a domino effect. Also, it’s completely naive to insist unions have no effect, when it’s the union pension and wage demands that are sinking the local and state governments all over the place. It also contributed to sinking both GM and Chrysler.

So that small percentage… that you stand up for while screwing over the other non public sector taxpayers… has a serious fiscal effect on both business and governments’ budgets.

And the unions are not “victims”. They are parasite middlemen with vast amounts of power in government at all levels.

Oh yes, Greg… to this screed…

There are people who would poison the land, the water, and the air to make a buck. They’ll happily sell the public all manner of unsafe products if no one stops them. They’ll shake you down at any and every opportunity, given half a chance. That’s a simple fact of life.

Greg, there are state EPA and DEQ regs. Tell me you aren’t so stupid as to buy into that BS that “conservatives want dirty air”. These issues are really localized, and not federal. New Jersey has different environmental issues than Montana. It’s called the 10th Amendment, and powers reserved to the states…. and wisely so. You have a serious problem with blanket assessment that every business and corporation wants to “poison the land”, screw the worker… all to “make a buck”. Cynical, much? Looked around at the charities, jobs and opportunities the majorities of businesses do in their communities, when not shackled by money grubbing politicians at all levels, endeavoring to feed the great unwashed with their hands out?

@Scott Malensek Malensek#7 – I absolutely love your story…and it looks as though you are a ‘success story’ too!! You are moving into bigger diggs! And, you have a following..How wonderful for you!! You are an inspiration to all of us… You have a lot of courage/confidence especially since you say you knew nothing about the food industry… just a “great idea” that fits you – your love of cooking!

What is that old expression ‘work at what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life’

As with those who run this site, all successful in their own right…

You…. “ARE” AN AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY!!

Hear that OWS???… THAT’S how you do it!!!

Well Scott, I wish you tons of success in the future! You deserve it!!

@MataHarley, #29:

The EPA was established by a republican president, precisely because state government responses had proven inadequate to the task of dealing with national scale environmental problems.

The environmental impact of irresponsible behavior within a state doesn’t automatically stop at the state line.

@Mata

Take, for example, just the CEO compensation methods via this Forbes chart from 1989 to 2011. The pay structure is broken down into three categories… salary and bonuses, “other”, and stock options. The stock options relatively consistent. The other two categories fluctuate along with the economic times… i.e. they were higher in the late Clinton years, riding the dot.com and housing bubble, fell in the wake of the recession Clinton left and compounded by the Sept 11th attacks, rose again thru the Bush term until the 2008 crash and then fell

Your chart proves my point – even taking into account changes in the stock market bonuses etc – CEO pay in 20 years (let alone the massive difference in 50 years) has quadrupled. Do reckon those so-called joe-blows combined salaries, stocks and bonuses have quadrupled in 20 years? CEOs get handsomely paid just by salary alone and on top of that the get lucrative bonuses, pensions and stock options. Do you reckon many of those joe-blows, many on contracts have access to such stock options, bonuses + pensions or can afford them? If joe-blow screws up do you reckon he or she will get a generous golden handshake?

Politican pay compared to the millions of workers out there may be a drop in the ocean but it is also symbolic. In the UK we are tired of MPs telling people (private and public sector) that they mustn’t have salary rises above inflation and yet the vote on inflation busting salaries for themselves! It’s a case of don’t do as we do – do as we say. That’s hypocrisy. During boom times – everyone within a company should profit and do well proportionally but also everyone should understand the need to cut back during the hard times. And CEOs – and those running organisations in public and private spheres – set the example. Joe-blow doesn’t have staple pay if he or she is more likely to lose their job.

The same with golden handshakes – why are they even legal? To attract great leaders companies feel obliged to offer stupid renummeration to wealthy business leaders in the chance they may screw the company? For a meritocracy let’s forget poor vs rich but instead work out means how we can encourage good behaviour, something which is productive to the country in the system. So sure let’s seperate the thousands on welfare who aren’t looking hard (or at all) for a job etc from those who are. Let’s seperate the wealth creators who create jobs and looks after their employees, pays their taxes etc from those who screw up their companies, lose thousands of jobs, uses tax havens, pay themselves massively more than their average worker etc.

Globally we can’t rely on the right or left. You might not like governments bailing out businesses but it was Bush who bailed them out along with Obama later and around the world many companies were bailed out by left and right governments. The crisis was particularly increased when Lehman brothers weren’t bailed out. But bailing out sucks – so let’s put in (that hated word) regulation to stop banks over-leveraging their debts and getting into a big mess in the first place. Clearly we can’t rely on stockholders to reign in the excesses of such behaviour. After this crisis which effects still continue – what would stop this happening again? So many of us don’t want OWS style anarchic revolution but we also don’t want the status quo, business as usual. Instead we should put in decent reforms to stop bail outs but also symbolically prevent greedy CEOs from getting paid millions for screwing up and taking dumb short-term risks. We need to look at unequality. I don’t want equality – but rather lessening the widening gap. I’m not so concerned with the unemployed but rather those decent people who work many hours for little pay. If we believe capitalism should be allowed to run as it is – or even wind back reforms such as minimum wage etc – because we are afraid business owners may pick up sticks and go to another country then we go back to Victorian Age values. And most countries don’t have a lack of leaders. If RBS lowered the pay of Fred Goodwin and he left – well for a start good riddance – secondly there would be plenty of talented people more competent than him. A company is not one person. If everyone stopped working then we all lose. So there has to be balance. That includes responsibility from business owners, governments, unions and individuals. And this relies on getting the system – the game rules right. Because if someone can legally live off benefits without the requirement to search for jobs or if the wealthy can legally use tax loop holes – social stigma isn’t going to stop many of them.

If joe-blow screws up do you reckon he or she will get a generous golden handshake?

Gaffa, you tenaciously cling to numbers of no import. It’s not yours, mine, or the government’s right to tell any private sector employee what to pay their employee. If an employee is unhappy with his/her compensation, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. It’s as simple as that.

As I said, the risk and onus is on the CEO to perform, keeping that company afloat thru good and bad times. The employee has no such risk. In bad times, the CEO pays the price with lesser income. Again, the employee doesn’t suffer a lower income when the CEO doesn’t perform. He has the stability of the same compensation in good times or bad. So you want the employees to have more pay, but not a smidgeon of risk? Just how do you justify that? Without those that created the product/corporation, and those that market and grow the product/corporation, the employees… who merely kick out the product on equipment purchased and maintained by the corporation…. have no stability at all.

And you still ignore than many employees are compensated with undocumented income with shares of their employer, and therefore share in increased earnings when the CEO’s performance is successful.

So how is it you can decide, without knowing what perks are afforded to any of the employees, that their income has not increased more than what the chart shows. After all, I’ve gone the extra mile to point out the obvious… that all the employees income (i.e. shares, pensions/401Ks and bonuses) are not documented in these charges. They are only taking the base wage, and ignoring the other income perks, which skews the numbers at the onset. Also skewed are the amount of employees to CEOs, as the excerpts above point out.

I doubt you’ll find much disagreement on the taxpayer paid income to politicians, and their pensions, here in the states. Frankly we all think they are overpaid and their pensions outrageous. Not to mention there’s more than a few of us who’d like term limits in order to prevent this career dependence upon the taxpayers’ dime. I also wrote a post back in May about the questionable track record of Congressional members in the stock market. Convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, not only finished his sentence, but is out and making the media rounds, singing about the prolific insider trading by Congressional members. They are not only privy to much inside information in the course of their legislative tasks, they take advantage of it, and profit with that information far more than the average investor…. which includes almost half of the US employees. (Again I’ll have to remind you that almost 50% of the working force has some sort of pension, shares or 401K that is vested in the stock market… again income not reflected in the charts where you base your wrath.)

If Abramoff isn’t enough, a new book out by Peter Schweizer, “Throw Them All Out” also documents elected individuals, parlaying profits on their inside information.

Legislation has been stalling in the Capitol dome for years on this… everyone seems reluctant to give up their edge. But finally, with more and more surfacing about their cash cow profits, and culminating with a 60 Minutes spot a few weeks ago, the Senate is finally set to take up an investigation next week. Now how absurd is that? Policing themselves? Think that will result in much, save for a token scapegoat? While they have, on occasion, voted not to give themselves their annual pay raise, do you think they will vote for term limits or cutting off the ability to use their inside information? I don’t. And this is across both parties. My disdain for Congressional corruption knows no party boundaries.

But here’s the base difference between me… and you and the “infestants”… er, occupiers. You see the problem as the corporations, the world of stock markets and investors. I see the problem as Congress and government. There are regulations… like, for example, not mixing client funds with investment brokerage funds (think MF Global). Will some step outside that and try to get away with it when desperate? Of course. Just as there are those that play the government welfare net to the max, so they don’t have to ever work another day in their lives. I happen to know far too many of those right now, preferring to be Obama socialized parasites rather than work, and I find it personally distressing.

Of course. Jon Corzine, former NJ Gov and Goldman Sachs exec who took over MF Global after losing the election to Christie last year, managed to tank MF Global in just over a year. He played the roulette game with high risk brokerage bets, severely over leveraging the firm, because that’s what he did successfully with Goldman Sachs over a decade ago. Doesn’t work so well today, and in a panic, they shifted client cash to cover the brokerage losses, hoping a merge/buyout would happen and they wouldn’t be discovered.

Does Corzine, who was a Congressional member for a few terms, as well as a Dem governor, know these regulations? Of course. It’s just as likely that he hoped, with his strong contacts in the WH and Congress, that he was likely to be overlooked if successful. Is this indicative of all “Wall Street”? Not likely. And if it is, we’re all in trouble as a result.

There are regulations, just like there are immigration laws for the US… and most of the time, Congress refuses to exercise their oversight. Why? Because they benefit. What is the purpose of regulations and laws, if they pick and choose what to enforce?

The corporate and investment world works within the framework dictated by government regulations. And like everything else, the government overlooks what pads their own pockets. And yet you blame the CEOs, the corporations and Wall Street? Now why is that?

Now that I’ve reminded you that government and our Congress is at the heart of all of what is wrong, you say this:

I don’t want equality – but rather lessening the widening gap. I’m not so concerned with the unemployed but rather those decent people who work many hours for little pay.

And who are you tasking with the authority to “lessen the widening gap”, but a corrupt group of lawmakers, Gaffa? This is like saying you want your shop protected against the mafia thugs’ protection racket, so you hire a ring of thieves as your Pinkerton security guards. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house…. So who decides what “gap” is acceptable, Gaffa? And how is that gap you find acceptable determined? Do you understand you, and the OWS types, are foolishly asking the highest degree of corruption – government – to determine “balance”?

What you are *really* saying is that you want to cap a threshold on how much anyone can make. And in the interest of “social justice”, that threshold is based on some sort of vague percentage or ratio on the highest wage of what some no-risk employee makes. You do know that our Congress would love your idea since it would put more money into their pockets. If the company has a banner year, and the CEO is not allowed his rewards, Congress swoops in to seize the rest in taxes… wouldn’t they love that. And why would that give any company incentive for performance, other than to be the slave worker for a corrupt government?

The government has no right to tell any one how much wealth they may earn… as long as it’s done legally. And Gaffa, neither do you. If you want to control CEO to employee wages, start your own business and stop telling other business owners how to run theirs. I suspect you’d learn your lessons very quickly, if you were successful.

Honest ta Gawd the other night I got home and actually started a blog oped re the entire 1% gig. Made it through the title and a draft of the thesis….then ran outta energy.

Next day I tried again, but at 1300wds had lost control of the piece. Then I posted on this thread.

Something occurs to me that is NOT being said:
We could tax the 1% more than others
We could tax the 1% even more than they’re already taxed (a fact that the left simply ignores)
We could tax everyone the same since we’re all created equal, are all equal under the eyes of God and under the blind balance of justice.

On part of the debate/conversation is NOT BEING ASKED:
Should we tax the 1% less!!!!?

Yeah, I know it sounds stupid, but hear me out (especially since I’m far from a 1%er. Yeah I own a business, but that means I don’t get union 40hr wks, 8hr days, breaks, and paychecks are so rare that they’re a fantasy sometimes)

The idea of a progressive tax came about mostly by European philosophers, sociologists, etc during the 1700’s and wasn’t really tried until the early 1900’s. HOWEVER, these thinkers were addressing a problem in Europe, and that problem was not how to ring in more dinero for European governments. It was how to add more balance to the inequality in Europe brought about by aristocracies that controlled the money to the point that banks often didn’t even exist, and governments to the point that people were often completely and totally unrepresented (ala monarchies).

Newsflash!
As I was leaving the restaurant around 10 last night, I looked out at downtown Akron, and I realized:
-Almost all the tall buildings are banks, and while they’re run by rich people called the 1%, even po people can put money in em and make SOME money. It ain’t like it was 300yrs ago in Europe.
-I looked at the Federal Blg across the st and the County building and the Courthouse, and-well, my own building was even the mayor’s office for a while after the 8/22/1900 riots burned the city. These are nice buildings, but…they’re not aristocratic palaces for monarchs. The people are represented. I’d like to see more, and we can do more, but even the homeless guys living under the bridge next to the Federal building can’t be shot on sight because some aristocrat feels like it. And I looked next door to my restaurant, and I saw the Akron/Summit Cty library-arguably one of the best in the nation, and aside from the Library of Congress…it’s the best library I’ve ever seen! That matters because a library’s doors are a gateway to information, to intelligence, to learning, and all those things are 1) free 2) the only thing you need to advance your lot in life in this country (unlike the Austrian-Hungarian Empire or the Romanov Empire in the 1700 and 1800’s when progressive “thinkers” came up w progressive taxation.

Again, PROGRESSIVE TAXES are not primarily designed to boost the moola in a govt. They are designed to give non-aristocrats more abilities in states where they were not represented and not able to do more than stash cash in their mattress. We’ve advanced past that in the past 200-300yrs.

So, why do we need progressive taxes today?
The left says we need em to flood the govt w money so as to build roads and do things that make it so you can get rich, and so that people who need temporary aid (often called welfare) can get it.

However, you can flood the govt w the exact same money with other taxation formulas that are NOT progressive based. So the idea that we need a progressive tax structure for that reason is moot; it’s not the only tool for that job. I’m sorry, but if I’ve gotta pound a nail, and I’ve got 4 hammers, a mallet, a rock, and a nailgun….I want the nailgun. Progressive taxation not only is NOT the only tool, it is NOT the best way to flood the govt w money (assuming the govt needs to be flooded w money at all)

The other argument is that today-like the aristocrats of old-banks and 1%ers hold all the money. Today they do it in banks; banks that do little more than store money. See, the problem w this is that people who believe it-(wait, gotta stop and roll back my disdain for some people for a moment…)

(coffee)

Ok, sorry. The problem w thinking that banks and 1%ers control all your money is that they only control the money YOU FREAKING GAVE THEM! Look, if you put your money in any sort of investment (and even a bank is an investment), then you are risking it no differently than if I bought a new piece of equipment for my restaurant in the hopes that customers like the whatchamacallits that it makes. There are no sure things. Still, if you beg a 1%er (a banker) for a loan to get an iPad, then you bitch about the payments, then you’re a hypocritical, whiny, little bitch. If you begged a 1%er for a home loan, promised to make the payments, and you can’t…then I know that sucks, and I know you don’t like it, but a broken promise=a foreclosure. You cannot promise to pay someone, then not pay em and have no consequences. Hell, I’m not a banker, but if I had $100 in my pocket, and you asked for it, and I gave it to you, then you never gave it back…Dude, believe me, I’m gonna start bitchin at you. I’m gonna tell all your friends you’re a slacker/liar (kinda like ruining your credit report).

Sorry, but anyone who complains that the 1%ers have all the money is ignoring the pure FACT that the only money they have is the money people gave em. People can save for 4yrs and buy a car w cash rather than buy a car on credit and then pay on it for 4-5yrs. You have the freedom and responsibility of that choice.

So, where do I come off asking if the top 1% should be taxed LESS?
Well, if there are better tools for filling the govt coffers, and if the social inequality of 21st Century America is far less than that of 18th Century Russia….then why use the tool? Why not use better tools?

If the idea of progressive taxation (taxing the rich more than the poor) is to bring about more social equality, and the social equality of today (in the United States) is different, then why bother?

Moreover, if we ignore for a moment that we’re really talking about shaping our society by the use of punitive taxes (taxing people unequally is mathematically punitive), then is there a better tool?

Here’s the big catch:
If the desired outcome of progressive taxation is to make the rich contribute more to society and to make the poor more able to contribute to society, then what happens in 21st Century America if we tax-not based on what a person financially could do for society, but based on what they ACTUALLY do for society?

For example:
We take 2 people. Both have no parents, grow up in the ghetto, have no money, and have to go to shitty public schools.

Person A bores of school, rarely attends, goes on temporary welfare aid for the rest of his life, gets public housing, survives off his EBT (food stamps) card, and that’s that. The guy does nothing for society other than take from it, and make NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT….there is no grey area. Either a person is in the positive or the negative re how much they help make America better. They either take money, or they give money (or time ’cause in 2oth and 21st Century America community service time has been interchangeable w money since FDR started building the Hoover Dam, the TVA, the TriC, the WPA, etc). So person A currently pays no taxes (is financially rewarded by not having to pay his debt to society for the roads that we can all use to make us rich), and person A isn’t contributing to the betterment of the USA by so much as even filling potholes or filing stacks of papers at some govt bureaucrat office.

Person B sees their surroundings, commits themselves to making it better. He forms community groups, becomes a community organizer, and these groups clean up trash, help feed the homeless, and does lots of good in his ghetto. He also wants to better himself, so he does go to school-even the shitty boring school, and he gets A’s. Realizing that welfare like the EBT card and public housing is supposed to be temporary he decides to make some money to pay for his own apartment, and his own food (cause someday his temporary aid will be turned off….well, this is a hypothetical). So Person B buys a couple of $15 coffee makers, some coffee beans, and starts selling coffee on the street corner. In just a few months, he can afford to rent a storefront where he can stay warm. He saves up, pays the lease, saves up, buys paint, saves up buys more coffee makers. Within a few years, the guy (never having even gone to college, but having forged his education by trying, but reading at the free library, by actually going to even a shitty class at a public school…he has learned math, and his business grows.

Today, in reality,

Person A is still on “temporary” public aid; still living in public housing, still living off his EBT food stamps card, still getting welfare money “cause he can’t find a job”, and since he’s learned to play the system he’s also gotten a car donated to him, gets reimbursed for gas money, he gets free gas heat, free electricity, a free cell phone to help him “look for a job,” and more. He’s also gone to Best Buy, bought a laptop, and a big screen, and an xbox all on credit, but stopped making payments cause he doesn’t get enough free money from the govt. He also bought a used car on credit, but stopped making payments on it ’cause the govt didn’t give him enough free money. Still, Person A doesn’t have to pay taxes today. In FACT! Since Person A has foregone any birth control, he’s fathered 3 babies & gets paid MORE by the govt because he chose to fuck irresponsibly.

Person B?
He’s got his own little coffee company called Starbucks, and he’s now worth $1.1 billion. Because his hard work has resulted in success, he should be penalized and have more money taken from him.

Sorry, but this is not working. Progressive Taxation is supposed to increase people’s ability to make society better. Today, the tax system is financially rewarding the people who contribute the least to society, and it does so by penalizing/taking a disproportionate amount of earnings from those who eanr and contribute the most.

A 1%er who has billions almost ALWAYS employs people-if not hundreds of thousands of people. He earns money and spends money and even gives money.
A 30%er (remember 30% of Americans live below the poverty line and pay no taxes…possibly even as much as 40% pay no taxes) pays no penalty for their financial drain on society, for their lack of making society better, or for their choice not to create jobs. The 30%er or 40%er is not contributing to society as the progressive tax is supposed to make happen.

Why do we tax the people who do the most, who earn the most, who have the best skills to share. It’s clearly not to make society better.

If we want to make society better; to encourage people to educate themselves, to try and work, to try and make new businesses, to try and grow food, to try and invest, to do community service….then perhaps instead of the vinegar of taxing society’s best and the honey for those who do the least for America…perhaps we should flip it.

What would happen if we told the top 1%ers that they could pay ZERO in taxes if they fully employed (w benefits) at least 100,000 other Americans. Would those 1%ers start hiring?

What would happen if we put a dollar limit to how much govt assistance a person could get. Every American pays into Social Security, later takes out of it. Every American pays into an aid acct, and then they either use money from it, or get it back when they retire. Every American pays into a medical security account, or they have to do 1hr community service to wash out $10 of tax that they (for whatever reason) couldn’t pay. Take it to the extreme…what if those 30%-40% of Americans were told that they could either work 2000hrs of community service (like in Clinton’s Americorps program or FDA’s New Deal public works programs), or they’d be taxed $20000, and that tax could come out of their Social Security Acct, their Aid Acct, and their Medical Acct. I’m thinkin that person B would be compelled to either start doing community service (the goal of a progressive tax structure) OR…the rest of the country wouldn’t have to pay for them.

ok, I’ve raved enough. Gotta go shopping and prep for my TV interview. If you’re in the Akron area today, please drop by The Stew Pot Kitchen. Otherwise….play devil’s advocate and ask yourself if the progressive tax idea is the best way to compel people to make America better, OR if perhaps, possibly, a reverse of the progressive tax structure should be used in 21st Century USA?

l8r

SCOTT Malensek
mmmm
look so good, I love soups and pannini
best to you

CURT
I think, he should stay to help us ,elect the right PRESIDENT IN 2012,
WE will be there faster than you think, faster than the time it would take you to relocate,
and like all those suffering from this entitlement regime on a smaller scale, we have to stick together as AMERICA is such in need of all the PEOPLE who believe in her to show her real face and rise as the GIANT SHE WAS AND WILL BE AGAIN, with all our efforts to help in putting the right person in place who will work passionatly to clean up that horrible nest of smelly dirt.
and LIKE THE WARRIOR FAR AWAY FIGHTING THE ENEMIES FOR AMERICA, WE MUST BECOME THE FIGHTERS TO RECLAIM IT AND SEND THE HATERS WHERE THEY BELONG.

Scott
I think you are very smart, I like what you write, it must inspire all who read it,
It gave me n idea, for your menu, as an addition, if you wish,
how about desert, pudding like every flavored and or fruits pudding, even what we call a bagatelle
which is a pudding with small pieces of pound cakes in it,
once you have an order of the desert, you take a cup of the basic vanilla recepy and add whatever the client order fruits and or flavor even some liquor skirk in if ask.
just an idea
bye

@ilovebeeswarzone:
DEFINITELY the most unique suggestion I’ve ever gotten, and DAMN GREAT ONE AT THAT!

Thanks!

btw, just gotta share…
So, this has been the busiest week in our restaurant’s history. Best sales, most sales, most transactions, best $ per sale, and most customers served ever (with the exception of a civil war reenactment we did, but that was just insane).

Yeah, topping it all off here, it’s Fri. In walks the Health Dept for an inspection. They want me to go from a class III to IV license cause I make stocks and then reheat them. ie they want another $118 in tax/fee. Then, while I’m pointing out that this bs law doesn’t apply to me, in walks the Fox8 camera crew to film me and the restaurant. Then, before they’re done, while I’m bs’in w em, in walks the Akron mayor’s staff, then in walks the mayor, and of course, there was a big ass lunch rush too. Best part of this true story is not the chaos of the moment, not the omg/wow of the moment, and not even the reputation-gamble taking place. No, the best part was when Akron Mayor Don Plusquelic (D) and I were talking, and he asked me to send him my resume because I’d be perfect for public office.

Yeah, he’s a solid (D)….who likes my politics.

No crap….the craziness of this week, today, and that moment has my head fully spinning off towards either Hoth or Tattooine.

I’m mentally spent

Scott Malensek
hi, so glad to hear that your hard work bring good results,
you have a very different place and you are standing in front because of your menu which is pinpointing what the client realy want,
best to you

@Mata

It’s not yours, mine, or the government’s right to tell any private sector employee what to pay their employee.

So how does minimum wage fit into that formula? Or are you against that? Hell why not go further – why should we or government have any right to tell private sector employers what they should do about anything? As surely a company knows best. Let’s scrap all laws which are aimed at business. Like those pesky health and safety laws, child labour etc. Because if a worker doesn’t like it – then they can always find another job in this current economic climate can’t they?

As I said, the risk and onus is on the CEO to perform, keeping that company afloat thru good and bad times. The employee has no such risk. In bad times, the CEO pays the price with lesser income. Again, the employee doesn’t suffer a lower income when the CEO doesn’t perform. He has the stability of the same compensation in good times or bad. So you want the employees to have more pay, but not a smidgeon of risk? Just how do you justify that?

That’s right because if the CEO doesn’t perform and the company share price goes down (not necessarily connected btw) and for some reason the company decides not to give millions of dollars in free shares then the poor CEO has to get by on a few million dollars on basic pay which is really hard. Or if they are really luck they maked get pushed out and get renumerated with many millions of dollars more. Of course the employee has no risk – except their job.

Without those that created the product/corporation, and those that market and grow the product/corporation, the employees… who merely kick out the product on equipment purchased and maintained by the corporation…. have no stability at all.

Wow I didn’t realise CEOs were the one who created the product and the marketing. There are plenty of CEOs who don’t create the product, don’t create the corporation and don’t market the product. Steve Jobs certainly created his corporation and was heavily involved with the products and marketing but even wasn’t the key innovator.

And you still ignore than many employees are compensated with undocumented income with shares of their employer, and therefore share in increased earnings when the CEO’s performance is successful

So possibly around 1 in 6 participate in a share schemes with their employer and that accounts for $4.5k. Not insignificant but no where near lucrative as CEO pay. http://www.esop.org/

So how is it you can decide, without knowing what perks are afforded to any of the employees, that their income has not increased more than what the chart shows. After all, I’ve gone the extra mile to point out the obvious… that all the employees income (i.e. shares, pensions/401Ks and bonuses) are not documented in these charges. They are only taking the base wage, and ignoring the other income perks, which skews the numbers at the onset. Also skewed are the amount of employees to CEOs, as the excerpts above point out.

Excellent – so let’s have all companies produce these fugures – publically show what their average salary + perks is and what their CEO salary + perks is. Of course I’m sure that would be too much trouble (i.e. embarassment) for many companies.

I doubt you’ll find much disagreement on the taxpayer paid income to politicians, and their pensions, here in the states.

Well we agree here – but I wonder if you believe that an employee has no right to comlain and they should vote with their feet or set up their own company then why don’t you extend these to politicians? So if you don’t like their pay – they don’t vote for the candidate. And if you don’t like any of them then set yourself up as a candidate. Easy isn’t it?

Not to mention there’s more than a few of us who’d like term limits in order to prevent this career dependence upon the taxpayers’ dime. I also wrote a post back in May about the questionable track record of Congressional members in the stock market. Convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, not only finished his sentence, but is out and making the media rounds, singing about the prolific insider trading by Congressional members. They are not only privy to much inside information in the course of their legislative tasks, they take advantage of it, and profit with that information far more than the average investor…. which includes almost half of the US employees.

Isn’t insider trading a law set up by those you dislike and distrust politicians? And if you believe comapnies know best and in the invisible hand of capitalism – then why not have insider trading? Too bad for the little guy. Information is power and could be traded. Same with cartels. Why have laws which restrict companies so much? Why not let them get together and fix prices? Surely we don’t want politicians regulating business do we?

(Again I’ll have to remind you that almost 50% of the working force has some sort of pension, shares or 401K that is vested in the stock market… again income not reflected in the charts where you base your wrath.)

Isn’t the average employer contribution 2.3 percent. Again drop in the ocean compared with execs.

But here’s the base difference between me… and you and the “infestants”… er, occupiers. You see the problem as the corporations, the world of stock markets and investors. I see the problem as Congress and government.

No I see the problem deeper than that. I see the problem consisting of certain corporations (banks in particular), government and individuals. If people use the system legally which give advantage to themself and disadvantage to the economic well-being of their country then they haven’t done anything wrong…however that shows up a problem in the system which needs fixing whether it’s tax havens, golden parachutes, claiming welfare when not trying to find work etc. Top to bottom. If governments have to bail out big companies to stop them wrecking the economy then government has failed in it’s regulation and companies have failed in showing self-restraint. If CEOs are awarded millions of dollars even when the company they are responsible for is in a mess, and thousands lose their jobs – and taxpayers end up footing the bill – you bet people are going to be resentful to a system that supposed to reward merit. CEOs talk about leadership – and the biggest leadership is setting an example and often the best leaders in history have done this.

The corporate and investment world works within the framework dictated by government regulations. And like everything else, the government overlooks what pads their own pockets. And yet you blame the CEOs, the corporations and Wall Street? Now why is that?

Again I blame both. But not all CEOs or all politicians – just those who are corrupt and/or greedy.

And who are you tasking with the authority to “lessen the widening gap”, but a corrupt group of lawmakers, Gaffa? This is like saying you want your shop protected against the mafia thugs’ protection racket, so you hire a ring of thieves as your Pinkerton security guards. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house

Although cynical towards politicians – I don’t share your depth of disgust. Lawmakers are the right people if you believe in representative democracy. Otherwise do you ignore all the other laws – like traffic regulations because you don’t like government? There has been a lessening of regulation of wall st during the last 15 years – remind me – how did that work out?

So who decides what “gap” is acceptable, Gaffa? And how is that gap you find acceptable determined? Do you understand you, and the OWS types, are foolishly asking the highest degree of corruption – government – to determine “balance”?

As for who decides – again that would be politicians. How do you decide a minimum wage or any law that has to draw a line? As for OWS you are making the mistake that they have a coherent solution – they don’t. Indeed many of them are like the Tea-Party in one key respect. They want less government. Some of them want no government! And many of them have an utter distrust of politicians and current political democratic system.

What you are *really* saying is that you want to cap a threshold on how much anyone can make. And in the interest of “social justice”, that threshold is based on some sort of vague percentage or ratio on the highest wage of what some no-risk employee makes.

Absolutely – I would like for executives pay to be reigned in using a formula attached to average salary. I don’t see other employees as non-thinking non-risktaking cogs.

You do know that our Congress would love your idea since it would put more money into their pockets. If the company has a banner year, and the CEO is not allowed his rewards, Congress swoops in to seize the rest in taxes… wouldn’t they love that. And why would that give any company incentive for performance, other than to be the slave worker for a corrupt government?

Not at all – if the enormous pay of CEO is clipped – all that extra goes to the other employees. It isn’t immediately lose in tax. Now the chances are that with thousands of employees getting a few thousand more in gifted stock options then those which are cashed in are more likely to help US economy rather than get shoved into a tax haven. Now you have thousands who are more incentivized. The execs still get paid loads and it’s still in a hierarchical pay structure. Just not so blantantly steep, corrupt or greedy.

The government has no right to tell any one how much wealth they may earn… as long as it’s done legally. And Gaffa, neither do you. If you want to control CEO to employee wages, start your own business and stop telling other business owners how to run theirs. I suspect you’d learn your lessons very quickly, if you were successful.

As long as it’s done legally. Remind me – who makes the laws again? lol. As for a company – I’ll do that as soon as you run for President;)

Now let’s give you an example to show the sheer size and inequality of CEO pay.

John Hammergren gets $131 million this year in compensation. On top of that his net income was $1.2 billion. Yep read that figure again. He’s CEO of pharmaceutical company McKesson. It’s not his company. You reckon he’s worth that?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/10/25/why-americas-highest-paid-ceos-are-insanely-overpaid/

So rather than getting a base salary of $1,664,615 (just over 1% but an amount most of us could only dream about) plus the millions on top of stock let’s do an exercise and redistribute that.

Let’s imagine the average salary of this company is $60k (I believe the average in the US is around $33k) and add another $10k for gifted stock, employer pension contributions etc. Let’s give our CEO a annual salary of $5.25 million a year instead of $1.6 million and stock etc of $2.5million instead of $129million. Spread that extra among the 32,500 employees – so to balance it so the company pays no more in salary or stock options employee salary would go down to $59,889 on average. However instead of $10k in stock etc – that is raised to $13,979. Hmm I wonder how many of those workers who have such ‘stable’ jobs would be prepared to take a great risk of having $111 less in their salary but $3,979 more in stock? Now the CEO doesn’t earn 1871 times more than the average employee but it’s now less than 100 times. And remember that’s just one exec – I’m sure in this same company there are more earning over $7million per year. But with $7million – how’s the CEO going to survive on that meagre multi-million pay packet? They might start to coast if they only get $2.5 million in shares. Well y’know they can also be asked go – like so many other ordinary employees who lose their jobs every day. And if $7million per year isn’t enough and they leave – I’m pretty sure their are plenty of talented people among the US 150 million workers who would step up to the mark and accept that paycheck. With 32,500 getting almost $4k more per year and those who cash that in – imagine how that would help US economy. Bad news for offshore tax havens though. And this is less likely to effect CEOs of small companies as not many of them would be earning 100 times more than their average employees. This would help to create a fairer meritocracy.

Seriously? 27 questions?

wow

Responses to you, Gaffa

So how does minimum wage fit into that formula? Or are you against that?

Yes, I am.

That’s right because if the CEO doesn’t perform and the company share price goes down (not necessarily connected btw) and for some reason the company decides not to give millions of dollars in free shares then the poor CEO has to get by on a few million dollars on basic pay which is really hard. Or if they are really luck they maked get pushed out and get renumerated with many millions of dollars more. Of course the employee has no risk – except their job.

Do you have a point in any of the above, Gaffa? First of all, are you saying a business who is not performing will have a booming stock reaction? pffft… Not unless they have something on the horizon that makes investors… which are comprised of almost half of all US private sector workers thru their pensions, 401Ks and/or share holdings as a perk… feel confident.

And, as I’ve already pointed out to you, the amount of zeros behind one’s income does not indicate the ease of income to debt. One who makes a mil a year, and is indebted above that amount, is in just as much trouble as one who makes $20K a year and is indebted more than that. The trailing zeros are only a matter of talking points for those who feel they have the right to dictate what anyone is allowed to make.

Wow I didn’t realise CEOs were the one who created the product and the marketing.

Something about the meaning of the word “and” that escapes you, Gaffa? Allow me to repeat my sentence, and then see if you’d like to walk back your extreme misconceived comprehension.

Without those that created the product/corporation,
and those that market and grow the product/corporation…snip…

duh….

So possibly around 1 in 6 participate in a share schemes with their employer and that accounts for $4.5k. Not insignificant but no where near lucrative as CEO pay

Actually, the ratio is more like 4 out of 10, Gaffa. We’ve all been here, done this before. And why should the employees pay be as “lucrative” as the CEO? And who are you to dictate that it should be? Is it your company? If it is.. do it. If it isn’t, you’ve crossed the line.

Excellent – so let’s have all companies produce these fugures – publically show what their average salary + perks is and what their CEO salary + perks is. Of course I’m sure that would be too much trouble (i.e. embarassment) for many companies.

They already do that for publicly traded companies… where ya been? Otherwise where are you getting your “beef” points? LOL

..but I wonder if you believe that an employee has no right to comlain and they should vote with their feet or set up their own company then why don’t you extend these to politicians?

That’s already there. Unfortunately, as many here prove, there is no dearth of really stupid voters.

Isn’t insider trading a law set up by those you dislike and distrust politicians? And if you believe comapnies know best and in the invisible hand of capitalism – then why not have insider trading?

Already been here, done that too, Gaffa. Insider trading is illegal in the private sector. Seems that the elected elite… whom so many of you want to “fix” and “equalize” things… manage to escape that themselves. Since it would take them policing themselves (unlikely), it’s more likely that voters who aren’t as dumb as what seems to be the majority will take care of their elite position on an upcoming election. We can only hope.

Isn’t the average employer contribution 2.3 percent. Again drop in the ocean compared with execs.

Lawdy, Gaffa… considering that shares, 401Ks and pensions plans are all different, not to mention the matching of FICA by the employers, what are you asking and just how did you manage to come up on a number like that?

401Ks are not a pension plan, but a contribution plan. The cap changes, but as of 2012, it’s $17K. As of 2013, it has an index for inflation at $500 increments. Considering you don’t know what an employee makes, or how many employees any given business has, where do you pull a percentage out of your hat? And is an extra $17K a year anything to sneeze at for undocumented income? It can mean that what any chart says is a $30K income, is really a $47K income by just adding a 401K employer contribution alone. Add another $3-5K annually for health insurance. Add pensions and matching FICA for the employees social security, and it’s not hard to see employees can easily make $20-30K in perks and benefits that aren’t reflected in the wages charts.

For pensions, or a defined benefit plan, it’s usually the monthly wages to be paid to the retiree using one of two methods: $ times service or an average pay calculation… or some it’s a combination or variation of either of these methods. Varies from company to company. Thus, if you don’t like what the employer is offering, take your skills elsewhere where it may suit you more.

No I see the problem deeper than that. I see the problem consisting of certain corporations (banks in particular), government and individuals. If people use the system legally which give advantage to themself and disadvantage to the economic well-being of their country then they haven’t done anything wrong…

If they haven’t done anything wrong, why are you complaining? The problem is when they do something wrong, the government either doesn’t investigate and prosecute, or it takes the taxpayers money and bails them out. Either way, the problem isn’t the private sector. They play by the rules the government sets, and when they don’t, the government doesn’t bother to bring charges. Still the government…. no matter how you look at it. They simply choose who to prosecute, usually based on their political advantage.

Although cynical towards politicians – I don’t share your depth of disgust.

Obviously. Because you don’t blame the government for what is of their own making. You prefer to blame the private sector.

Lawmakers are the right people if you believe in representative democracy. Otherwise do you ignore all the other laws – like traffic regulations because you don’t like government?

You’re not making a lick of sense, Gaffa. Those who are ignoring prosecuting the laws are the central government (finance and immigration are the two that immediately come to mind… but not the only). I might also add that those who are ignoring the laws and breaking them at every turn are your beloved “infestants”. Thus why they are mob rule… attempting intimidation and lawlessness, daring any law enforcement officer to reign them in, via a mob.

Begs the question, is it not you who is supporting the lawless approach by the “infestants”, and hoping to give more power to the corrupt central government who chooses not to enforce laws on the books?

As for who decides – again that would be politicians.

After all that, you still haven’t figured out how utterly stupid it is to hand the fox the keys to the hen house? LOL

As for OWS you are making the mistake that they have a coherent solution – they don’t. Indeed many of them are like the Tea-Party in one key respect. They want less government.

You really need to brush up on your reading skills, Gaffa. Perhaps you don’t speak “colonialist”… :0)

I’ve never said they have a “coherent” solution. They have no solution. Just a lot of self indulgent whining and a seriously demented entitlement mentality. And they are nothing like the TPers, who did indeed have solutions, and also put forth support for specific candidates as a movement.

Also, the “infestants” don’t want “less government”. They want more… just like you. They want the “foxes” in the government to seize the eggs from the hens, and distribute them to other foxes. That process takes more regulations and more staff agencies… i.e. *more* government designed to redistribute according to what that same government feels is socially and economically “just”.

sigh…

Absolutely – I would like for executives pay to be reigned in using a formula attached to average salary. I don’t see other employees as non-thinking non-risktaking cogs.

Ain’t none of your business. Start your own business, and stop telling others what to do. Then get back to us with your progressive results. Altho I will say there are business models that do profit sharing. But then, the ratios they use, you probably wouldn’t like either.

Not at all – if the enormous pay of CEO is clipped – all that extra goes to the other employees. It isn’t immediately lose in tax.

You aren’t very good at this, are you? If the employees get more, are they not taxed more and perhaps end up in a higher tax bracket? Ever been union and paid overtime, Gaffa? I got soaked so bad on the time and a half and double time wages via taxes that I really fought ever getting overtime….

On the flip side, if the CEOs, who also pay individual income tax on their bonuses make less, will those who actually provide the bulk of revenues to the Treasury not pay less income taxes? (just different on their capital gains… ask Buffet. He’s the master at tax evasion, right behind Geithner). They may end up falling into an income bracket that isn’t as advantageous for the feds as if they were in the top 1% or 10% So the feds would be banking on the increased revenue from the new “upper middle class” you just created.

If the corporation makes more, the share holders make more… but then they are responsible for more taxes via capital gains.

Yup… the government would love your idea. No matter how you look at it, or redistribute it, they’d certainly have a better chance at more taxes with new higher bracket “millionaires”. Redistribute it so you’re happy with everyone’s respective income, and the tax revenue will likely go up. Why, Gaffa? Because the high money earners invest their income. The worker bees just spend it, and grow into their new income with added debt. Bigger houses, more toys, more vacations, more expensive cars. They they’ll want more “equal” to sustain their new lifestyle. If you don’t believe me, check on the increased consumer debt thru the past three decades by people sucking out their home equity to spend on anything BUT their home improvements.

Either way, the government is going to get it’ hands on that cash, and less will be invested for growth of new business and jobs. Why do you think the progressive/socialist lib/progs push your idea? You think they care about the worker? Nope… looking to line their elected elite pockets with more spending money.

As long as it’s done legally. Remind me – who makes the laws again?

Are you laboring under the assumption that it would be against the law for a company to make CEO and employee pay equal by choice? Be mighty dumb, mind you. But not against the law. Hey, start your own business. Pay every worker you hire the same amount of money as you pay yourself. No law against that. No law against being a dumber than dirt business owner/employer either. Again, do you have a point anywhere?

As for your anecdotal example, I will again remind you it’s none of my, yours or the government’s business what any CEO makes. That is an issue for the contract made between the corporation and the CEO, their Board and their shareholders. And I also reminded you of my “and” in my statement above (your reading problem, not mine), so what difference is it that it is not his company or start up?

Your “exercise” is somewhat amusing. I dare say that most employees would prefer a pension, the 401K contribution and/or shares. After all, these are investments or incomes that generally survive post employment days (assuming minimal vesting in pension, and wise divesting of the 401K). However it’s not unusual to have a combination of all three perks in an employment situation. Even the evil, non union Walmart does that. Pray tell, what were you trying to accomplish with your little exercise?

Again, you make many assumptions about any particular individual’s income to debt scenario, just because there’s a lot of zeroes that make your eyes bug out. Zeros mean nothing.

If a CEO lived in a modest $250K home on a city lot, owned or invested in nothing else, certainly he’d appear to be raking in the dough… but he wouldn’t. The IRS would nail him to the wall for income tax. Which is why those that make big money invest, and give to charities. However investments are not always a positive fiscal result.

I’ve posted the history of the “top 1%” ratio since the 1930s several times here already. What should be readily apparent to anyone looking at is is that the ratio of presumed “wealth” is always higher for “the 99%” during recessions or depressions because the evil rich tend to lose their shirts at that time.

You don’t win big if you don’t roll the dice with investments and risk. Employees risk nothing, and gain by what employers contribution to their contribution plans (like 401Ks), benefits plans. When the company does great, their shares do well. And the employer even throws in money on his behalf for that as well. Money thrown in that is not reflected on any of these charts.

What you really need to get over is the assumption that the employee worker is as valuable as the CEOs, those that originally did the start up, or those that continue to keep the product line or services state of the art and competitive. If an employee possesses that skill, he can start his own. Otherwise, he’s just part of those that keep the production line or services flowing, as they are instructed to do. Their risk is low for their predictable income, and only becomes threatened when you have those like you who seem to know a short cut to tanking a successful business.

This would help to create a fairer meritocracy.

It’s as simple as this, Gaffa. When being exceptional is no longer rewarding, no one will strive to be exceptional. Meritocracy discourages excellence. No need to improve because you’re guaranteed rewards even for mediocrity.

GaffaUK
hi,
yes but but, the UNIONS won’t allow the employers to deal with their COMPANIES,
you see why, because the UNIONS RUN THE COMPANIES AND THE EMPLOYEES,
they even use the employees against the COMPANIES which are the one paying their employees,
so the employees think they are having a good protection against their evil boss and are ready to break the dishes when the UNIONS DECIDE TO PUT THE COMPANIES ON THEIR KNEES TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE ALL KINDS OF OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, BOSS WE DON’T DO THIS
OR THAT, IT’S NOT IN OUR UNION AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SIGNED LAST TIME, IF ASK TO DO SOME OTHER SIDE JOBS WHEN THEIR OWN IS IDLE, so the BOSS DON’T WANT TROUBLE and
wish he could be free to fire those thugs, that is the FREEDOM OF CEO WHO EMPLOY MANY PEOPLE BELONGING TO A UNION AND the BOSS IS dreaming of far away countries where someday, he will relocate and be free,

@Greg: The EPA was established by a republican president, precisely because state government responses had proven inadequate to the task of dealing with national scale environmental problems.

The environmental impact of irresponsible behavior within a state doesn’t automatically stop at the state line.

I’m not sure why you’d think I care that it was a GOP or Dem POTUS who begat the EPA, Greg. And I sure don’t care about Nixon.

What I care is that it’s yet another example of the ineffectual growth of the central government. The duties of the EPA were tasked to other agencies. With the creation of the EPA, those agencies did not shrink in size.

Typical idiocy that when the government creates laws and regulations, then doesn’t bother to enforce them, they create yet another agency and hire a bunch more public sector goons…. then bestow yet more power and authority on these unelected officials.

There was never a need for the EPA. The various departments should have been doing their jobs, and weren’t… which is usual for this behemoth federal entity. As for Nixon? Well, Vietnam still a major dividing point, secret negotiations with the Russians, only to find out they were expanding their bases in Cuba, a poor economy and high inflation… yup, Nixon needed some “feel good” initiatives. And when the first Earth Day happened that year in the spring, complete with happy hippies dancing with flowers in their hair, he saw his opening for a popular cause…. jump on the nanny conservation bandwagon.

Not a fan of the corrupt RINO, Nixon. Didn’t like his own version of a universal health plan for the low income. Frankly, he belonged in your party.

And none of that has much to do with the fact that laws were on the books, the agencies weren’t doing their job, so they just grew government. HHS was created the same way by Carter when they split up the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

All of these agencies do nothing but get bigger and bigger, more expensive, more powerful, and more inefficient.