Wall Street bonuses...$144 billion

[Chris]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

 

[JFK_USA]

These guys honestly don't get it. I am all for wealth, but their is wealth, then there is unneccessary excessive wealth. You have to eventually put a cap on it, there is only so much money out there. If they continue to get more and more, none will be left and we are a third world country.

Stop using credit cards, don't buy houses, don't give any more money to anymore bankers.

 

[DiamondDave]

Funny JFK... I don't see you calling for a cap on athletes, actors, musicians, lottery winners, gamblers, etc

 

[Mr Natural]

Money for nothing . . .

 

[Oddball]

Awwwww....Ain't that too goddamn bad?

BTW, the tax code is structured so that it's better to take the bulk of your compensation in bonuses, rather than salary.

Still, the politics of avarice and resentment will march on, as long as there are covetous little progressive/Fabian snivelers in the world.

 

[martybegan]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

This is great for NYC's economy, as well as the NY suburbs. Resturants will be crowded, car sales will increase, people will be able to pay thier mortgages and property taxes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny JFK... I don't see you calling for a cap on athletes, actors, musicians, lottery winners, gamblers, etc

No cap, simply a return to the progressive income tax schedule pre Ronald Reagan.
It is generally assumed that we are taxed too much, and if all taxes and fees are combined that assumption seems pretty accurate.
Yet the Republicans and tea party types simply focus on income tax. Why? I suppose because the purveyors of propaganda - Murdoch and his minions, Limbaugh and the Republican leadership - hammer the idea over and over and over.
It is the hoi pollio who subsidize high salaries: Costs continue to grow as business and industry does everything they can think of to increase profit - customer service is at best an afterthought. Tickets to a ball game, a movie or a stage play funnel dollars from the wage earner to the millionaires.
How many people do athletes, actors, musicians and banksters earning high salary and bonuses each year employee?
Keep on doing this same thing and soon we will no longer have a middle class, with the cost of college becoming beyond the means of the typical American Family, the annual rise of health insurance, and the constant increase in local fees we are on the road to a nation of haves and have-nots.

And no amount of personal liberty puts food on a plate, clothes on a back or a roof over ones head.

 

[martybegan]

Funny JFK... I don't see you calling for a cap on athletes, actors, musicians, lottery winners, gamblers, etc

No cap, simply a return to the progressive income tax schedule pre Ronald Reagan.
It is generally assumed that we are taxed too much, and if all taxes and fees are combined that assumption seems pretty accurate.
Yet the Republicans and tea party types simply focus on income tax. Why? I suppose because the purveyors of propaganda - Murdoch and his minions, Limbaugh and the Republican leadership - hammer the idea over and over and over.
It is the hoi pollio who subsidize high salaries: Costs continue to grow as business and industry does everything they can think of to increase profit - customer service is at best an afterthought. Tickets to a ball game, a movie or a stage play funnel dollars from the wage earner to the millionaires.
How many people do athletes, actors, musicians and banksters earning high salary and bonuses each year employee?
Keep on doing this same thing and soon we will no longer have a middle class, with the cost of college becoming beyond the means of the typical American Family, the annual rise of health insurance, and the constant increase in local fees we are on the road to a nation of haves and have-nots.

And no amount of personal liberty puts food on a plate, clothes on a back or a roof over ones head.

Our tax structure is already progressive, but probably not progressive enough for you, which is fine.

The issue with our tax structure now is the complexity, with far to many layers, Federal Income taxes, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, payroll taxes. Since it is all spread out one does not see how much one is truly giving to the government.

The issue I have with raising taxes on a small minority is that basically you are doing a form of taxation with inadequate representation. Sure, the majority will support a tax increase on someone other than themselves, it is simple human nature. But in the end how does funneling more money to the government help that person directly? Unless thier taxes go down, or they basically get a check it really does not.

 

[Claudette]

If the Boards of Dirctors and stock holders want to pay big salaries thats up to them.

I sure can't figure out why anyone would care what someone else makes in the way of salary.

Actors and athletes make big bucks. Don't see anyone giving a shit about that.

Oh wait. I forgot. Its the "evil" bankers. Never mind. Jeeze.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny JFK... I don't see you calling for a cap on athletes, actors, musicians, lottery winners, gamblers, etc

No cap, simply a return to the progressive income tax schedule pre Ronald Reagan.
It is generally assumed that we are taxed too much, and if all taxes and fees are combined that assumption seems pretty accurate.
Yet the Republicans and tea party types simply focus on income tax. Why? I suppose because the purveyors of propaganda - Murdoch and his minions, Limbaugh and the Republican leadership - hammer the idea over and over and over.
It is the hoi pollio who subsidize high salaries: Costs continue to grow as business and industry does everything they can think of to increase profit - customer service is at best an afterthought. Tickets to a ball game, a movie or a stage play funnel dollars from the wage earner to the millionaires.
How many people do athletes, actors, musicians and banksters earning high salary and bonuses each year employee?
Keep on doing this same thing and soon we will no longer have a middle class, with the cost of college becoming beyond the means of the typical American Family, the annual rise of health insurance, and the constant increase in local fees we are on the road to a nation of haves and have-nots.

And no amount of personal liberty puts food on a plate, clothes on a back or a roof over ones head.

Our tax structure is already progressive, but probably not progressive enough for you, which is fine.

The issue with our tax structure now is the complexity, with far to many layers, Federal Income taxes, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, payroll taxes. Since it is all spread out one does not see how much one is truly giving to the government.

The issue I have with raising taxes on a small minority is that basically you are doing a form of taxation with inadequate representation. Sure, the majority will support a tax increase on someone other than themselves, it is simple human nature. But in the end how does funneling more money to the government help that person directly? Unless thier taxes go down, or they basically get a check it really does not.

I'll answer your question, first, with a question. How does funneling middle class dollars to millionaires help getting our economy moving again?

The enormous wealth of the few is basically subsidized by the many. Consider the taxes you mentioned. If millionaires and billionaires were taxed by the schedules in effect in 1980 more revenue sharing dollars would return to the states, reducing the states, local communities and special districts the need to raise fees and taxes. More money will be available for wage earners to pay for college, go to movies, eat out and enjoy life - in short stimulating the economy.
McConnell, Boehner, Murdoch, Limbaugh are all wealthy - surely they all earn over $250,000 per year. How many f/t employees do they employ?
Cut taxes for the American Family, they will put money back into the economy - and the economy will grow. More jobs = more income tax revenue and government at all levels able to finance rebuilding our infrastructure, creating more private sector jobs.

 

[Sallow]

These guys honestly don't get it. I am all for wealth, but their is wealth, then there is unneccessary excessive wealth. You have to eventually put a cap on it, there is only so much money out there. If they continue to get more and more, none will be left and we are a third world country.

Stop using credit cards, don't buy houses, don't give any more money to anymore bankers.

Well..this is going on during massive labor and benefit cuts..and after TARP.

None of these guys are even thinking of a "rainy day fund"...just in case the whole collapse happens again..either.

Which is seriously nuts..and why government has to step in. This isn't capitalism. This is corporatism.

 

[Sallow]

If the Boards of Dirctors and stock holders want to pay big salaries thats up to them.

I sure can't figure out why anyone would care what someone else makes in the way of salary.

Actors and athletes make big bucks. Don't see anyone giving a shit about that.

Oh wait. I forgot. Its the "evil" bankers. Never mind. Jeeze.

Stock holders have little or no say in compensation. And the board of directors is generally made up of people that are voting themselves bonuses.

 

[martybegan]

No cap, simply a return to the progressive income tax schedule pre Ronald Reagan.
It is generally assumed that we are taxed too much, and if all taxes and fees are combined that assumption seems pretty accurate.
Yet the Republicans and tea party types simply focus on income tax. Why? I suppose because the purveyors of propaganda - Murdoch and his minions, Limbaugh and the Republican leadership - hammer the idea over and over and over.
It is the hoi pollio who subsidize high salaries: Costs continue to grow as business and industry does everything they can think of to increase profit - customer service is at best an afterthought. Tickets to a ball game, a movie or a stage play funnel dollars from the wage earner to the millionaires.
How many people do athletes, actors, musicians and banksters earning high salary and bonuses each year employee?
Keep on doing this same thing and soon we will no longer have a middle class, with the cost of college becoming beyond the means of the typical American Family, the annual rise of health insurance, and the constant increase in local fees we are on the road to a nation of haves and have-nots.

And no amount of personal liberty puts food on a plate, clothes on a back or a roof over ones head.

Our tax structure is already progressive, but probably not progressive enough for you, which is fine.

The issue with our tax structure now is the complexity, with far to many layers, Federal Income taxes, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, payroll taxes. Since it is all spread out one does not see how much one is truly giving to the government.

The issue I have with raising taxes on a small minority is that basically you are doing a form of taxation with inadequate representation. Sure, the majority will support a tax increase on someone other than themselves, it is simple human nature. But in the end how does funneling more money to the government help that person directly? Unless thier taxes go down, or they basically get a check it really does not.

I'll answer your question, first, with a question. How does funneling middle class dollars to millionaires help getting our economy moving again?

The enormous wealth of the few is basically subsidized by the many. Consider the taxes you mentioned. If millionaires and billionaires were taxed by the schedules in effect in 1980 more revenue sharing dollars would return to the states, reducing the states, local communities and special districts the need to raise fees and taxes. More money will be available for wage earners to pay for college, go to movies, eat out and enjoy life - in short stimulating the economy.
McConnell, Boehner, Murdoch, Limbaugh are all wealthy - surely they all earn over $250,000 per year. How many f/t employees do they employ?
Cut taxes for the American Family, they will put money back into the economy - and the economy will grow. More jobs = more income tax revenue and government at all levels able to finance rebuilding our infrastructure, creating more private sector jobs.

That few is already paying 75% of the Federal Taxes. What percentage should they pay? They also probably pay the majority of local taxes as well (with the exception of property and sales taxes probably.)

And say you do increase taxes on the wealthy, you get the same problem unless you lower taxes for everyone else. Now that extra 100k you got from Dr. so and so goes to the government, dissapearing into the hole of the federal budget. So no new lexus, less dinners out, no new roof on that 1.5M dollar house. So screw the roofer, the car salesman, the resturant employees. Since rich people have more to spend, they tend to be able to spread it around more, enabling jobs for all those nice middle class people.


Taxes take money OUT of the economy at all levels. It is then re-inserted via government contracts. So in the end, you are still making rich people richer, just in a more convoluted, and I guess for a progressive, more politically acceptable way.

 

[kiwiman127]

Now if these companies invested the 144 billion in themselves and created jobs, that would be patriotic.
Shhhh, what's that sound I hear?
Oh, it's the Weath Gap expanding again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Pay Czar needs to institute a cap and floor of $100,000 per annum for every working American; it's the American way

 

[Wry Catcher]

Our tax structure is already progressive, but probably not progressive enough for you, which is fine.

The issue with our tax structure now is the complexity, with far to many layers, Federal Income taxes, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, payroll taxes. Since it is all spread out one does not see how much one is truly giving to the government.

The issue I have with raising taxes on a small minority is that basically you are doing a form of taxation with inadequate representation. Sure, the majority will support a tax increase on someone other than themselves, it is simple human nature. But in the end how does funneling more money to the government help that person directly? Unless thier taxes go down, or they basically get a check it really does not.

I'll answer your question, first, with a question. How does funneling middle class dollars to millionaires help getting our economy moving again?

The enormous wealth of the few is basically subsidized by the many. Consider the taxes you mentioned. If millionaires and billionaires were taxed by the schedules in effect in 1980 more revenue sharing dollars would return to the states, reducing the states, local communities and special districts the need to raise fees and taxes. More money will be available for wage earners to pay for college, go to movies, eat out and enjoy life - in short stimulating the economy.
McConnell, Boehner, Murdoch, Limbaugh are all wealthy - surely they all earn over $250,000 per year. How many f/t employees do they employ?
Cut taxes for the American Family, they will put money back into the economy - and the economy will grow. More jobs = more income tax revenue and government at all levels able to finance rebuilding our infrastructure, creating more private sector jobs.

That few is already paying 75% of the Federal Taxes. What percentage should they pay? They also probably pay the majority of local taxes as well (with the exception of property and sales taxes probably.)

And say you do increase taxes on the wealthy, you get the same problem unless you lower taxes for everyone else. Now that extra 100k you got from Dr. so and so goes to the government, dissapearing into the hole of the federal budget. So no new lexus, less dinners out, no new roof on that 1.5M dollar house. So screw the roofer, the car salesman, the resturant employees. Since rich people have more to spend, they tend to be able to spread it around more, enabling jobs for all those nice middle class people.


Taxes take money OUT of the economy at all levels. It is then re-inserted via government contracts. So in the end, you are still making rich people richer, just in a more convoluted, and I guess for a progressive, more politically acceptable way.

I suspect a roof every 30 years, one car every year a dinner out every night does help employment; I also suspect dinner out once a month for 10 or 20 million, one car every five years for 10 or 20 million and one roof every 30 years for 10 or 20 million trumps your post.
That said, most very wealthy individuals invest their income, an argument which might help make your point. However, even that cannot trump the amount of capital the masses could put into the system, including investments.
Are you familiar with the term "iron law of wages"? It seems the attacks on unions and wage earners has reved up in recent years, and imho another example of a rennissance of reactionary thought.
The iron law of wages states that wages must remain at the subsistance level. This level, according to 18th century economic theorist David Ricardo, is labors natural price, the income of which is necessary for the worker to exist. Ricardo argued that wages should be left to free competition and should never be controlled by government interference.

 

[martybegan]

I'll answer your question, first, with a question. How does funneling middle class dollars to millionaires help getting our economy moving again?

The enormous wealth of the few is basically subsidized by the many. Consider the taxes you mentioned. If millionaires and billionaires were taxed by the schedules in effect in 1980 more revenue sharing dollars would return to the states, reducing the states, local communities and special districts the need to raise fees and taxes. More money will be available for wage earners to pay for college, go to movies, eat out and enjoy life - in short stimulating the economy.
McConnell, Boehner, Murdoch, Limbaugh are all wealthy - surely they all earn over $250,000 per year. How many f/t employees do they employ?
Cut taxes for the American Family, they will put money back into the economy - and the economy will grow. More jobs = more income tax revenue and government at all levels able to finance rebuilding our infrastructure, creating more private sector jobs.

That few is already paying 75% of the Federal Taxes. What percentage should they pay? They also probably pay the majority of local taxes as well (with the exception of property and sales taxes probably.)

And say you do increase taxes on the wealthy, you get the same problem unless you lower taxes for everyone else. Now that extra 100k you got from Dr. so and so goes to the government, dissapearing into the hole of the federal budget. So no new lexus, less dinners out, no new roof on that 1.5M dollar house. So screw the roofer, the car salesman, the resturant employees. Since rich people have more to spend, they tend to be able to spread it around more, enabling jobs for all those nice middle class people.


Taxes take money OUT of the economy at all levels. It is then re-inserted via government contracts. So in the end, you are still making rich people richer, just in a more convoluted, and I guess for a progressive, more politically acceptable way.

I suspect a roof every 30 years, one car every year a dinner out every night does help employment; I also suspect dinner out once a month for 10 or 20 million, one car every five years for 10 or 20 million and one roof every 30 years for 10 or 20 million trumps you post.
That said, most very wealthy individuals invest their income, an argument which might help make your point. However, even that cannot trump the amount of capital the masses could put into the system, including investments.
Are you familiar with the term "iron law of wages"? It seems the attacks on unions and wage earners has reved up in recent years, and imho another example of a rennissance of reactionary thought.
The iron law of wages states that wages must remain at the subsistance level. This level, according to 18th century economic theorist David Ricardo, is labors natural price, the income of which is necessary for the worker to exist. Ricardo argued that wages should be left to free competition and should never be controlled by government interference.

Again, short of taxing richer people, and then GIVING money to other people, how does increasing taxes on the rich allow for middle class people to buy more? To do this you have to lower taxes/fees etc on them, even if you dont cut any governmental budget. And by investing thier money they now pay stock brokers, allow businesses to invest and expand, and create, again, more jobs.

The current state of unions and labor is a seperate argument. And most wages in the US are far from what the rest of the world considers subsistance level.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That few is already paying 75% of the Federal Taxes. What percentage should they pay? They also probably pay the majority of local taxes as well (with the exception of property and sales taxes probably.)

And say you do increase taxes on the wealthy, you get the same problem unless you lower taxes for everyone else. Now that extra 100k you got from Dr. so and so goes to the government, dissapearing into the hole of the federal budget. So no new lexus, less dinners out, no new roof on that 1.5M dollar house. So screw the roofer, the car salesman, the resturant employees. Since rich people have more to spend, they tend to be able to spread it around more, enabling jobs for all those nice middle class people.


Taxes take money OUT of the economy at all levels. It is then re-inserted via government contracts. So in the end, you are still making rich people richer, just in a more convoluted, and I guess for a progressive, more politically acceptable way.

I suspect a roof every 30 years, one car every year a dinner out every night does help employment; I also suspect dinner out once a month for 10 or 20 million, one car every five years for 10 or 20 million and one roof every 30 years for 10 or 20 million trumps you post.
That said, most very wealthy individuals invest their income, an argument which might help make your point. However, even that cannot trump the amount of capital the masses could put into the system, including investments.
Are you familiar with the term "iron law of wages"? It seems the attacks on unions and wage earners has reved up in recent years, and imho another example of a rennissance of reactionary thought.
The iron law of wages states that wages must remain at the subsistance level. This level, according to 18th century economic theorist David Ricardo, is labors natural price, the income of which is necessary for the worker to exist. Ricardo argued that wages should be left to free competition and should never be controlled by government interference.

Again, short of taxing richer people, and then GIVING money to other people, how does increasing taxes on the rich allow for middle class people to buy more? To do this you have to lower taxes/fees etc on them, even if you dont cut any governmental budget. And by investing thier money they now pay stock brokers, allow businesses to invest and expand, and create, again, more jobs.

The current state of unions and labor is a seperate argument. And most wages in the US are far from what the rest of the world considers subsistance level.

Wow. The attacks on union contracts has become a loud and on-going theme in debates around the country. To dismiss such attacks is at best disingenuous. As for wages relative to world-wide levels it's very unlikely American's top 2% are hurting.
I suggest you actually think about the points I made, I'd enjoy a reasoned response.
In regards to your question, I am not suggesting the rich subsidize the middle class; as I pointed out, we in the middle class are in a very real sense subsidizing the rich. However, on point, if the tax schedule were to return to pre Reagan levels revenue to the Federal Government will increase. IF the congress chooses to return more money to the states, in terms of revenue sharing, grants and (to be provocative, a public option for health insurance) each state will be able to address its own needs and require less fees from its citizens. Providing more money will stimulate the economy, particularly small business.

 

[Mr Natural]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

This is great for NYC's economy, as well as the NY suburbs. Resturants will be crowded, car sales will increase, people will be able to pay thier mortgages and property taxes.

That might be true to some extent but the reality is that this money is concentrated among relatively very few people so the trickle down effect is not going to be that great.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

gee just think of all the taxes that will be collected on that money and be happy.