Who NEEDS This Kind Of Income?

[Mr. Shaman]

Seriously!!!!!​

"It was the 1970s, and the chief executive of a leading U.S. dairy company, Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.

Forty years later, the trappings at the top of Dean Foods, as at most U.S. big companies, are more lavish. The current chief executive, Gregg L. Engles, averages 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did, or about $10 million in a typical year. He owns a $6 million home in an elite suburb of Dallas and 64 acres near Vail, Colo., an area he frequently visits. He belongs to as many as four golf clubs at a time — two in Texas and two in Colorado. While Douglas’s office sat on the second floor of a milk distribution center, Engles’s stylish new headquarters occupies the top nine floors of a 41-story Dallas office tower. When Engles leaves town, he takes the company’s $10 million Challenger 604 jet, which is largely dedicated to his needs, both business and personal.

The evolution of executive grandeur — from very comfortable to jet-setting — reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening.

The case of Dean Foods appears to bolster the argument that executive compensation moves with company size: The profits for Dean Foods in 2009 were roughly 10 times what they were in 1979, adjusted for constant dollars. Engles’s compensation has averaged 10 times that of Douglas.

“It’s a different company today,” company spokesman Jamaison Schuler said. He declined to comment further.

But back in the ’70s, something was holding executive salaries back.

Harold Geneen, the president of ITT, then one of the nation’s largest companies, told Forbes in 1975 that while he might be worth six times as much to the company as he was making, he hadn’t sought a raise.

Over at Dean Foods, Kenneth Douglas was likewise resistant to making more.

“He would object to the pay we gave him sometimes — not because he thought it was too little; he thought it was too much,” said Alexander J. Vogl, a members of the Dean Foods board at the time and the chair of its compensation committee. “He was afraid it would be bad for morale, him getting a big bump like that.”

“He believed the reward went to the shareholders, not to any one man,” said John P. Frazee, another former board member. “Today we get cults of personality around the CEO, but then there was not a cult of personality.”

Breakaway Wealth​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

 

[boedicca]

At some point, you've made enough money...and Obama claims it's $250,000 for everybody besides himself and his cronies.

So the real question is: are these CEOs Obama Cronies or Opponents?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Bullshit!!!

How many times can you fill your stomach, in one sitting??

How many vehicles can you drive, at once?

How many homes can you live-in, at once?

Is it possible to be addicted to cash?? And...if so...why should the U.S. population be expected to support their addiction???

​

 

[del]

i support you in your addiction to stupidity.

how could i do any less?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Bullshit!!!

How many times can you fill your stomach, in one sitting??

How many vehicles can you drive, at once?

How many homes can you live-in, at once?

Is it possible to be addicted to cash?? And...if so...why should the U.S. population be expected to support their addiction???

​

 

[Oddball]

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Aw, jeez.....The Mods chumped-out, again.

This isn't a political-issue, huh?

 

[Oddball]

Damned rich people....Never do anything beneficial to anyone else with all their "obscene profits"!!

 

[MikeK]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

The pivotal word in that notion is "needs." Suggested modifiers to apply to the concept of "need" are rational and reasonable. And why is government alone capable of determining one's financial needs?

(Incidentally, this is a good question.)

 

[Oddball]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

The pivotal word in that notion is "needs." Suggested modifiers to apply to the concept of "need" are rational and reasonable. And why is government alone capable of determining one's financial needs?

(Incidentally, this is a good question.)

This is a horrible question.

Rationality and reasonability are the antithesis of aggression and force, which are the only tools in Big Daddy Big Gubmint's tool kit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How much money Do I need?

As much as I can possibly make and it's none of you fucking business how much that is.

 

[boedicca]

How much money Do I need?

As much as I can possibly make and it's none of you fucking business how much that is.

QF Frelling T!!!!!!

 

[editec]

Some of us need to make a lot of money because otherwise we feel like losers.

Who am I to tell somebody who needs a lot of money not to feel like a loser that he's wrong?

They know what they're really worth if they don't have any money far better than I do.

 

[MikeK]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

The pivotal word in that notion is "needs." Suggested modifiers to apply to the concept of "need" are rational and reasonable. And why is government alone capable of determining one's financial needs?

(Incidentally, this is a good question.)

This is a horrible question.

Rationality and reasonability are the antithesis of aggression and force, which are the only tools in Big Daddy Big Gubmint's tool kit.

That might be true for the nature of our government as it evolved under Ronald Reagan. But it certainly wasn't true for the government that took form under FDR and enabled three decades of constructive social change, phenomenal economic growth and constraint of the corporate oligarchy.

Aggression and forcefulness are necessary governmental tools and there is nothing wrong with government having them at its disposal. But use of those tools must be tempered and constrained by reason and rational purpose, qualities which are antithetical to contemporary right-wing philosophy and political orientation.

What is needed is the kind of change promised by Obama but thus far has not manifested. Rationality and reason in government are indeed possible but their restoration will require some level of aggressive political force, which the left-wing thus far seems incapable of asserting.

So your opinion seems to be shaped by narrow focus.

 

[Oddball]

The pivotal word in that notion is "needs." Suggested modifiers to apply to the concept of "need" are rational and reasonable. And why is government alone capable of determining one's financial needs?

(Incidentally, this is a good question.)

This is a horrible question.

Rationality and reasonability are the antithesis of aggression and force, which are the only tools in Big Daddy Big Gubmint's tool kit.

That might be true for the nature of our government as it evolved under Ronald Reagan. But it certainly wasn't true for the government that took form under FDR and enabled three decades of constructive social change, phenomenal economic growth and constraint of the corporate oligarchy.

Aggression and forcefulness are necessary governmental tools and there is nothing wrong with government having them at its disposal. But use of those tools must be tempered and constrained by reason and rational purpose, qualities which are antithetical to contemporary right-wing philosophy and political orientation.

What is needed is the kind of change promised by Obama but thus far has not manifested. Rationality and reason in government are indeed possible but their restoration will require some level of aggressive political force, which the left-wing thus far seems incapable of asserting.

Bullshit.

The very nature of the Fabian/progressive socialistic welfare/warfare/nanny state (which started up faaaaaaaaaaar before Reagan showed up on the scene Captain Strawman) is compulsion, at gunpoint if necessary....And it's the very essence of the look-down-your-nose, I-know-what's-best-for-you-better-than-you-do, elitist windbag American left.

So your opinion seems to be shaped by narrow focus.

And your opinion is shaped by and rooted in rationalization of looting your neighbor.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.

It is the ABC's of the New Right.

 

[Oddball]

As the forum's leading sociopathic kleptocrat chimes in, with the usual bigoted stereotypes and ad homs.

Good job, Vermin.

 

[The Gadfly]

The pivotal word in that notion is "needs." Suggested modifiers to apply to the concept of "need" are rational and reasonable. And why is government alone capable of determining one's financial needs?

(Incidentally, this is a good question.)

This is a horrible question.

Rationality and reasonability are the antithesis of aggression and force, which are the only tools in Big Daddy Big Gubmint's tool kit.

That might be true for the nature of our government as it evolved under Ronald Reagan. But it certainly wasn't true for the government that took form under FDR and enabled three decades of constructive social change, phenomenal economic growth and constraint of the corporate oligarchy.

Aggression and forcefulness are necessary governmental tools and there is nothing wrong with government having them at its disposal. But use of those tools must be tempered and constrained by reason and rational purpose, qualities which are antithetical to contemporary right-wing philosophy and political orientation.

What is needed is the kind of change promised by Obama but thus far has not manifested. Rationality and reason in government are indeed possible but their restoration will require some level of aggressive political force, which the left-wing thus far seems incapable of asserting.

So your opinion seems to be shaped by narrow focus.

It's not going to happen, Mike. Among other things it's not going to happen because of the political influence big money yields. Oh, the pols will throw your upper-middle class neighbor under the bus, to placate you, but that's about it. Another reason it won't happen, is because the super-richare pretty well insulated from the taxation process anyway; they can move investments around to avoid a good portion of a supposedly "soak the rich" tax code; in fact, the politicians they virtually own write the legislation with that in mind.

Warren Buffett can bitch all he wants about how little he pays, but the truth is, he could easily restructure his investment portfolio so as to owe and pay more; of course, for all his talk, Mr. Buffett has not done that, nor do I expect he would.

Under our capitalist system, anyone can make as much as someone else believes his services are worth.Some of them make more in a day, than I make in a year, and I'm one of those upper-middle class entrepreneurs democrats are dying to raise taxes on. IN spite of that, I don't hate and envy the guy making ten or thirty or a hundred million a year, the way you people do. It's not fair? Life isn't fair, and it is NOT the function of government to try to MAKE it fair (as if that can be done at all). If Dean Foods thinks the services of its CEO are worth $10 million a year, then the company is free to pay him that, and he is free to receive it. Don't like that? Then move to socialist Europe, or to a communist/socialist country where they do things your way. There's one just to the north-that workers' paradise known as Canada. Don't any of you socialists let the door hit you in the arse on the way out, either; just go (and please, DON'T come back!)

 

[California Girl]

As the forum's leading sociopathic kleptocrat chimes in, with the usual bigoted stereotypes and ad homs.

Good job, Vermin.

I wonder how many on the left spent time last weekend working with homeless people, or collecting money for charity? That's what I did. And there I am, one of the avaristic, bigots on the right. LMAO.