Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[jc456]

The actors are not deciding any of the pay.

Why then do they have agents?

Not real familiar with the industry, but my understanding is the agents help them find work and negotiate better pay.

You just said that the actors do not decide any of the pay. Here you say, "the agents help them find work and negotiate better pay." Which is true. But how can you have it both ways? Oh, that's right, you're a Progressive!

Everyone can negotiate their pay. But it is dependent on getting their boss to agree. Same for an actor. For a CEO they just decide their own pay. Strange you can't see the difference. Actors even get help negotiating from an agent. If they decided their own pay, why would they bother with an agent?

well then an actor decides his or her own pay, right? why negotiate if you don't have a number in mind? oh wait, that is exactly what a person looking for a CEO position does. Exactly the same thingy.

 

[jc456]

Being overpaid is probably the only thing those two have in common. The ceo at the television station makes the decision that they are making enough money off the show to pay the actors what they get. If the show isn't good it gets cancelled.

CEO's are giving themselves large raises. The complaints come because he is giving himself much larger raises than everyone else. And the feeling is a company only has so much for compensation and the CEO is taking so much the people doing the real work get very little. A ceo with good people below him can get away with doing very little.

And right there you hit the nail on the head. You actually believe that a CEO is taking pay away from other workers. There is no truth to that.

It's just like with the acting. How much do you think their hair people make? How about their makeup people? How about the stage hands? What about the people who actually create the episodes or write the jokes for the show? Do you believe any of them are near the pay scale of the actors themselves? And if you paid the actors less, would all those other people get more money?

I used to know a guy who was a drummer. Not bad drummer, but certainly not one of the best I've ever seen. Because his love was music, he became a roadie for a somewhat famous band. Yeah, he traveled around with them, set up and tore down the equipment, met a lot of interesting people, a lot of beautiful girls, but the job didn't pay squat. He would have made out better working here at McDonald's. The musicians of the band? Very wealthy and living the good life.

People get paid what they are worth. In other words, your worth to an employer is only as much as the next person willing to do the same job with the same quality. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a floor sweeper. If you are not bringing in money or contributing more than you get paid by a company, a company has no use for you.

CEO pay? If a CEO has a track record of increasing revenue of companies by 35%, then you pay that CEO what he wants or your competitor will and take business away from your company. That's just how it works.

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Why you have a hair up your behind CEO's pay, I have no clue. Unless you own stock in that company and they're doing a terrible job and your stock is plunging, why do you care? Sell the stock and buy one with superior management.

In years past CEO's did not receive such lucrative contracts. For that, you can blame Bill Clinton. Like you, he wanted to limit the pay for CEO's. How did that work out?

Brain (and others) are convinced that CEO pay is responsible for others not making better money in a company. Therefore if a CEO is making 10 million a year, that's why the floor sweeper is only making $12.00 an hour.

They believe that if we could somehow reduce CEO pay drastically, that floor sweeper would be making $18.00 per hour instead. All other blue collar workers would receive much better money as well.

It really doesn't work that way, but they think it does.

In 1955, CEOs made 23 times the workers' pay, 1980, 40x. Then as always with the rich under Reaganism, it skyrocketed, now 300x. The only way to limit it is to raise taxes at higher amounts. Do it. They've lost touch with workers and we could use the money for investment in Americans like the good old days. It's just part of this Reaganist mess, dupes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A capital gains preference only helps the rich get richer faster

How?

By not paying ordinary income tax rates on capital gains.

How are they getting their gain?

By not paying ordinary income tax rates on capital gains. It helps if you understand the concepts, you try to argue.

The lower rate doesn't help if they don't have a capital gain. How are they getting the capital gain?

If you sell your house for more than you paid for it, you've achieved a capital gain. If you buy a business, break it apart and sell off the pieces, thereby ending any jobs associated with that business, you'll achieve a capital gain. Any time you sell an asset for more than you paid for it, you achieve a capital gain, even if you did nothing to improve that asset or its value while you owned it.

If you sell your house for more than you paid for it, you've achieved a capital gain.

So why does the Federal government deserve 30% or more of my home profit?
I'd like to use that money for retirement.

 

[jc456]

Your article became very suspicious to me because it seems like it was an opinion of an anti-CEO writer.

It all boils down to the Board of Directors. the BOD is a group of people elected by the stockholders of a company. They are not "fellow CEO's" as you suggest, but people that work within the company or at times, outside. Either way, they are not a bunch of rich people looking out for each other. The BOD does their job, or lose the interest of their investors. That could cause them to get voted out next election.

As you pointed out, CEO pay is substantial, so it's up to the BOD to prove to their clients that CEO pay is merited. CEO pay can help bring down growth of a company, so they have to be able to justify to their shareholders that CEO pay is an investment and not a player in a companies reduction of growth.

If a CEO is paid twenty millions dollars, but the growth of the company increases by 2% then the CEO did his or her job and the BOD made a wise decision. But if they increase a CEO pay to twenty million dollars, and the company loses growth, then the company risks losing investors, or the members of the BOD that gave that CEO that kind of money risk being voted out.

Board Of Directors - B Of D

No, a BOD really does have lots of CEO's:
2017 Proxy | GE.com

So yes they give the CEO a raise and then get one themselves to keep up with that raise. You really are blind to how things really work. The game is obviously rigged.

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

shareholders vote in the BOD's you fking idiot.

 

[jc456]

No, a BOD really does have lots of CEO's:
2017 Proxy | GE.com

So yes they give the CEO a raise and then get one themselves to keep up with that raise. You really are blind to how things really work. The game is obviously rigged.

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

the dude is one fked up socialist. doesn't know what a CEO does or what their role is. Too funny watching this in here.

 

[Markle]

The deficit has fallen every year since Obama raised taxes.

Lie

 

[danielpalos]

By not paying ordinary income tax rates on capital gains.

How are they getting their gain?

By not paying ordinary income tax rates on capital gains. It helps if you understand the concepts, you try to argue.

The lower rate doesn't help if they don't have a capital gain. How are they getting the capital gain?

I am only referring to income from gains. It should be taxed as ordinary income, and delete the term, capital gain from the, "tax preference rolls".

I am only referring to income from gains.

Right. Someone starts a business, risks their money, invests their time, creates jobs, becomes successful.
Then he wants to sell to take his gains and start a new business, but you want to take 40% of his gain.

Ordinary income; and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work (ethic) from the Age of Iron.

 

[jc456]

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How are they getting their gain?

By not paying ordinary income tax rates on capital gains. It helps if you understand the concepts, you try to argue.

The lower rate doesn't help if they don't have a capital gain. How are they getting the capital gain?

I am only referring to income from gains. It should be taxed as ordinary income, and delete the term, capital gain from the, "tax preference rolls".

I am only referring to income from gains.

Right. Someone starts a business, risks their money, invests their time, creates jobs, becomes successful.
Then he wants to sell to take his gains and start a new business, but you want to take 40% of his gain.

Ordinary income; and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work (ethic) from the Age of Iron.

Ordinary income

Right, to suppress business formation.

and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work

Founders typically do more work than anyone they hire.

 

[jc456]

Nothing but diversion, because you have such knowledge?

The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I never said differently, you are obviously unable to comprehend the English language, I hope you one day master it.

lol. nothing but diversion? A mixed-market economy is part socialism and part capitalism.

is the monopoly that is your power company a socialist endeavor?

it is if it Only exists due to government fiat. Socialism is supposed to "bailout" capitalism, whenever possible.

the power company has a monopoly, it has zero competition. It is regulated by the government. But, it is still a profit motivated organization. If it was a socialist organization, it would just break even on cost vs income, and your power would suck.

The profit motive is what gives us good products and good services.

I do agree with you that the govt should not bail out failing businesses, like GM. But you do realize that the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM don't you?

a monopoly corporation sets the cost of the product sold, not the consumer through supply and demand. That is why the US does not allow monopolies.

 

[Markle]

Do Republicans still predict that Social Security will lead to communism?

Are you so desperate that you need to lie? Why?

You lost, get over it.

 

[danielpalos]

By not paying ordinary income tax rates on capital gains. It helps if you understand the concepts, you try to argue.

The lower rate doesn't help if they don't have a capital gain. How are they getting the capital gain?

I am only referring to income from gains. It should be taxed as ordinary income, and delete the term, capital gain from the, "tax preference rolls".

I am only referring to income from gains.

Right. Someone starts a business, risks their money, invests their time, creates jobs, becomes successful.
Then he wants to sell to take his gains and start a new business, but you want to take 40% of his gain.

Ordinary income; and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work (ethic) from the Age of Iron.

Ordinary income

Right, to suppress business formation.

and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work

Founders typically do more work than anyone they hire.

There is no suppressing anything; business is more serious; and, should require ordinary income tax rates for creation. It could help Persons realize that they need to do better planning and not rely on tax breaks or cheap labor, to "make it".

 

[jc456]

Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?

WOW! THAT'S what you got from Dr. Williams essay?

Our situation is worse than I thought.

I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.

there will always be rich and there will always be poor. Nothing we do, or any government does, will ever change that. Its a fact of life, we do not all get equal results, however, in this country we all have an equal opportunity to succeed.

or elite's and poor, there will always be poor. Always, and there will always be someone or elitist dictator over them. ALWAYS.. These fools in here think they can save the poor and they cheapen the poor by their observed belief. They kill progress that would actually benefit the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?

 

[Dragonlady]

By not paying ordinary income tax rates on capital gains.

How are they getting their gain?

By not paying ordinary income tax rates on capital gains. It helps if you understand the concepts, you try to argue.

The lower rate doesn't help if they don't have a capital gain. How are they getting the capital gain?

If you sell your house for more than you paid for it, you've achieved a capital gain. If you buy a business, break it apart and sell off the pieces, thereby ending any jobs associated with that business, you'll achieve a capital gain. Any time you sell an asset for more than you paid for it, you achieve a capital gain, even if you did nothing to improve that asset or its value while you owned it.

If you sell your house for more than you paid for it, you've achieved a capital gain.

So why does the Federal government deserve 30% or more of my home profit?
I'd like to use that money for retirement.

You took a tax deduction for your mortgage interest didn't you? The means, in essence, you paid for the house without paying taxes on the income you used to pay your mortgage. So that income gets taxed when you sell the house.

In Canada, we don't get to claim a tax deduction for our mortgages, but in paying our mortgage with "after tax" dollars, we don't pay capital gains on the sale of our houses. That capital gain is tax free, if you've owned and lived in the house for 1 year.

This no tax on capital gain only applies to your principal residence. If you own more than one property, one has to be designated as your principal residence for tax purposes.

Basically, you can pay the tax now or pay it later. Americans pay it later, Canadians pay it now. I think we've got the better deal.

 

[jc456]

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

Oh, and athlete and entertainer pay really is based on performance. The best players make the most money. If their stats go down the pay will with their next contract. Same goes for entertainers. If ratings go down or a movie isn't so good they start making less.

same with CEOs. If they do not make the numbers the BOD tells them to make, they are out of a job. If the stock price goes down, so do they.

I do agree with you that some of them make too much, but maybe the corps think making money for the shareholders is that important.

Why does Tom Brady make so much? Because he produces wins.

But that isn't true:
A new report from MSCI has found that better paid CEOs tend to run worse performing companies, while their underpaid peers achieve significantly better results.

The authors, who studied 429 large U.S. companies over a 10-year period, summarized their findings this way: "Has CEO pay reflected long-term stock performance? In a word, 'no.'"

The report found that average shareholder returns over the decade were 39% higher when a company's CEO was in the bottom 20% of earners compared to a CEO in the top 20% of earners.

Top-paid CEOs aren't very good at their jobs

if true, which I doubt, then blame the BOD for giving the guy/gal a bad contract and not insisting on results.

Do you want the government stepping on when a CEO fails to produce? Exactly what do you think should change?

Well yes the BOD is the problem. The BOD consists of many other CEO's who can look forward to high pay themselves by giving high pay.

wow, are the members of the BOD usually part of the company they are board members of, or do they have other jobs and compensated by shareholders with stock options and a salary the shareholders determine? what is it exactly do you know about this except nothing?

 

[jc456]

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.

Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.

And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.

Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners

Sounds like you may be expecting life to be fair, and life is anything but fair.

Well stagnant wages slows an economy. I'd much rather workers were treated fairly so our economy could be stronger.

and obummer fail caused stagnate wages. why are you for something that ruins an economy if you are in here arguing otherwise? you're confused.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The lower rate doesn't help if they don't have a capital gain. How are they getting the capital gain?

I am only referring to income from gains. It should be taxed as ordinary income, and delete the term, capital gain from the, "tax preference rolls".

I am only referring to income from gains.

Right. Someone starts a business, risks their money, invests their time, creates jobs, becomes successful.
Then he wants to sell to take his gains and start a new business, but you want to take 40% of his gain.

Ordinary income; and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work (ethic) from the Age of Iron.

Ordinary income

Right, to suppress business formation.

and, who cares as long as he didn't have to earn his "bread from the sweat of his own brow", but hired others to perform the actual work

Founders typically do more work than anyone they hire.

There is no suppressing anything; business is more serious; and, should require ordinary income tax rates for creation. It could help Persons realize that they need to do better planning and not rely on tax breaks or cheap labor, to "make it".

There is no suppressing anything;

But there is......the higher the tax, the less business creation.

 

[jc456]

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.

Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.

And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.

Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners

CEO should be increasing other workers pay with their own? Why? Who made that rule up?

Well the CEO isn't doing any of the real work. So the success of a company has much to do with the workers, they should be sharing in the success obviously.

And who made that one up?

I get paid to do X work. It doesn't matter if the company is breaking even, it doesn't matter if the company is losing money, it doesn't matter if the company is making a ton of money. I get paid to do X work and that's it.

If I don't like my pay and they won't increase my pay after making profits, I can go get another job at another company. it's fking a simple concept that these idiots can't fathom.

 

[Dragonlady]

Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?

Well that way they keep the focus squarely on the poor as the source of middle class misery, and away from the 1% who are benefitting most from these wage supplementing social programs.