ourbigdumbmouth: All countries should follow Iceland's lead.

This is what liberals actually believe.

bdub77: TheDumbBlonde: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: R.A.Danny: make me some tea: To think he could've donated it to charities to help the poor or something.

The My Little Pony Killer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Jump you f*cker

As much as I was defending Dimon in another thread, this. Dimon is trying to make money, he's creating jobs, and he is helping to keep the economy churning. This guy's just an asshole.

I tend to see investment bankers as pure parasites, but as far as JP Morgan Chase goes I would agree with you - Dimon is an excellent CEO.

Still doesn't deserve 23 million in compensation every year. I'm sorry, but no one in America deserves that much money each year, except a rare number of entrepreneurs who actually made that much money. 1 million, 2 million, I'm fine with. 23? Now you're just being a greedy bastard.

No one "deserves" that much money? Who are you?

I'm the guy setting the rules so they are fair. The easiest approach is to tax the hell of out people. You make 2 million, you are taxed at 40%. You make 23 million, you are taxed at 90%. You want to complain about your 2 million after taxes, talk to the farkin wall. Boo hoo. Most people make a tiny fraction of that every year.

FYI, the top tax rate was between 79-95% from the 30s until the 60s, 70% until 1980 when it started becoming a joke.

FYI there was no income tax before 1913.

But if you like the 1950s so much, can we go back to the deductions allowed then? And also social spending levels? No, then stfu about the ridiculously inefficient tax system of the era.

Debeo Summa Credo: You farking coonts should at least pay attention to the fact that were going to have to do something about the deficit, Medicare, and social security at some point instead of sticking your ignorant heads in the ground and pretending there's no problem.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but its too muffled from the billionaire's cock you're deep-throating.

buttondip: Obama's failure to choose sound policies which would have hastened a genuine recovery and acceptably grown the economy, i.e. stop the spending

is the one crying... its all someone else's fault.... not meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Account created: 2012-05-14 20:25:20

Has anyone seen winterwhile recently? Just asking...

R.A.Danny: Marcus Aurelius: Now, now, the compensation committee has studied the issue carefully, and they make sure that all the CEOs get the same 15% to 25% increase in annual avarice as everyone else. It's a very fair system.

The numbers are staggering aren't they? But when a CEO like Dimon is putting money into so many hands, I guess he can also be allowed to sell himself to the highest bidder. No less unfair than some lady that makes millions because she was blessed with a great voice (or a friend with autotune) or a guy with a knack for hitting a spherical object with a stick. I don't see capitalism going away any time soon.

Wrong.

German CEO's are some of the best in the world via performance metrics, yet cost fractions what a American CEO costs. There's no import market for harder working, smarter, cheaper German CEO's, even though it be easy to do so. A normal, efficient market would demand it.

CEO / BOD / Institutional shareholders are in fix together. It's a Ivy league cartel, and they don't want to change their money train anytime soon. So workers will continue to get screwed and non institutional shareholders fleeced.

Only 1 out of every 5 publicly traded companies even bothers to separate the "jobs" of Chairman and CEO now.

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: You farking coonts should at least pay attention to the fact that were going to have to do something about the deficit, Medicare, and social security at some point instead of sticking your ignorant heads in the ground and pretending there's no problem.

Oh, there's a very easy way to fix that: End the wars, raise the top marginal tax rate. Done. Fiscal solvency restored.

But for some reason, nobody in Washington wants to do this.

The scary thing is that there are a lot of people as dumb as you out there.

R.A.Danny: TyrantII: German CEO's are some of the best in the world via performance metrics, yet cost fractions what a American CEO costs

Get the hell over the salary. The market pays this, so you can't vilify someone for getting what the market is paying. This "He has more money that me, it isn't fair" handwringing isn't gonna get anyone else cent one.
Do us all a favor, yourself included:
step 1
Find yourself an econ book, read about what "the market" actually is and what market forces are.
step 2
Investigate who determines CEO pay.
step 3
Realize market forces have fark-all to do with CEO pay.

Debeo Summa Credo: Good for him. Why can't he use his own farking money to try tonnage America better and stronger (at least in his opinion).

You farking coonts should at least pay attention to the fact that were going to have to do something about the deficit, Medicare, and social security at some point instead of sticking your ignorant heads in the ground and pretending there's no problem.

Here you go:

Raise all tax rates across the board by 10%. So the 35% bracket becomes 38.5%, 25% becomes 27.5%, etc.

Raise the long term capital gains tax to be 75% of your normal tax bracket at all times: so if you pay 38.5% your capital gains rate is 28.875%

That would fix the deficit and then some. For the record, this more or less happens automatically if the Bush tax cut expire, though long term capital gains is still capped at 20%.

R.A.Danny: TyrantII: German CEO's are some of the best in the world via performance metrics, yet cost fractions what a American CEO costs

Get the hell over the salary. The market pays this, so you can't vilify someone for getting what the market is paying. This "He has more money that me, it isn't fair" handwringing isn't gonna get anyone else cent one.

Get the hell over yourself.

There is no market. That's the problem. If there was a market, there would be competition and there would be downward price pressure, just like there's been falling wages in college educated folk as more people became college educated.

This isn't about the money, but the institutionalized back patting plutocracy. Everyone from Adam Smith to Ayn Rand had something to say about it, and it wasn't peaches and cream.

balloot:

That would fix the deficit and then some. For the record, this more or less happens automatically if the Bush tax cut expire, though long term capital gains is still capped at 20%.

Better plan:

1) Keep all taxes the same
1b) Except capital gains tax, capital gains are income, tax them accordingly as income. Money taken out of investment is not "investment".
2) Strike every single loophole and tax credit. Housing, child, dependent, EVERYTHING. Make it illegal to chop up the tax code again with such loopholes.
3) Watch revenues skyrocket and maybe be able to lower the rates.

Honestly, there's big issues when how much you legally pay in taxes is determined by how well educated your tax lawyer is. That's great for the ultra wealthy and large corporations to skirt paying any taxes, but it's very anti-main street and anti-middle class.

It needs to end. Along with the damn talking point that the US has the highest corporation tax rate in the world, while most large conglomerates end up paying a net negative tax rate.

X-boxershorts: R.A.Danny: TyrantII: This isn't about the money, but the institutionalized back patting plutocracy.

Come see the Violence inherent in the system!

You're a loon.

so you've resorted to violence and insults?

He lost when he open his mouth.

R.A.Danny: Smackledorfer: R.A.Danny: TyrantII: German CEO's are some of the best in the world via performance metrics, yet cost fractions what a American CEO costs

Get the hell over the salary. The market pays this, so you can't vilify someone for getting what the market is paying. This "He has more money that me, it isn't fair" handwringing isn't gonna get anyone else cent one.
Do us all a favor, yourself included:
step 1
Find yourself an econ book, read about what "the market" actually is and what market forces are.
step 2
Investigate who determines CEO pay.
step 3
Realize market forces have fark-all to do with CEO pay.

Whothewhatnow? Market forces decide everyone's pay. Even taking into account the fact that a company's board decides the compensation package, they will obviously look at comparatives in making that decision. Baseball players, network engineers, crack whores. They are all able to set rates based on what the market can and will pay. Note that I didn't say anyone "deserves" what they are making, but the act of vilifying someone for being well paid is childish. This is also off on a tangent.

--------------------

The "correct" fix for out of control pay is a very progressive tax structure. It's no coincidence that CEOs now make way more (in respect to the common worker) than they did in the 70's when the top rate was 70%. In "golden age" America there simply did not exist much value in paying a top executive $5M instead of $1M, since the company was paying the full 4M and the employee was getting just a fraction of that money.

balloot: Debeo Summa Credo: Good for him. Why can't he use his own farking money to try tonnage America better and stronger (at least in his opinion).

You farking coonts should at least pay attention to the fact that were going to have to do something about the deficit, Medicare, and social security at some point instead of sticking your ignorant heads in the ground and pretending there's no problem.

Here you go:

Raise all tax rates across the board by 10%. So the 35% bracket becomes 38.5%, 25% becomes 27.5%, etc.

Raise the long term capital gains tax to be 75% of your normal tax bracket at all times: so if you pay 38.5% your capital gains rate is 28.875%

That would fix the deficit and then some. For the record, this more or less happens automatically if the Bush tax cut expire, though long term capital gains is still capped at 20%.

All historical evidence on congressional spending suggests that you are incorrect. Fix the spending problem first, then figure out is raising taxes does more harm than good.

TyrantII: balloot:

That would fix the deficit and then some. For the record, this more or less happens automatically if the Bush tax cut expire, though long term capital gains is still capped at 20%.

Better plan:

1) Keep all taxes the same
1b) Except capital gains tax, capital gains are income, tax them accordingly as income. Money taken out of investment is not "investment".
2) Strike every single loophole and tax credit. Housing, child, dependent, EVERYTHING. Make it illegal to chop up the tax code again with such loopholes.
3) Watch revenues skyrocket and maybe be able to lower the rates.

Honestly, there's big issues when how much you legally pay in taxes is determined by how well educated your tax lawyer is. That's great for the ultra wealthy and large corporations to skirt paying any taxes, but it's very anti-main street and anti-middle class.

It needs to end. Along with the damn talking point that the US has the highest corporation tax rate in the world, while most large conglomerates end up paying a net negative tax rate.

---------------------------------------

I'm proposing solutions that actually have a snowball's chance in hell of happening. If you cut tax write-offs for mortgage interest and kids then the home ownership and birth rates would plummet. Those write-offs are there for good reason - it is in the best interest of America as a country to have lots of kids born and hove people owning their houses. And there's little chance that will change.

MeinRS6: balloot: Debeo Summa Credo: Good for him. Why can't he use his own farking money to try tonnage America better and stronger (at least in his opinion).

You farking coonts should at least pay attention to the fact that were going to have to do something about the deficit, Medicare, and social security at some point instead of sticking your ignorant heads in the ground and pretending there's no problem.

Here you go:

Raise all tax rates across the board by 10%. So the 35% bracket becomes 38.5%, 25% becomes 27.5%, etc.

Raise the long term capital gains tax to be 75% of your normal tax bracket at all times: so if you pay 38.5% your capital gains rate is 28.875%

That would fix the deficit and then some. For the record, this more or less happens automatically if the Bush tax cut expire, though long term capital gains is still capped at 20%.

All historical evidence on congressional spending suggests that you are incorrect. Fix the spending problem first, then figure out is raising taxes does more harm than good.

-------------------------------

Huh?

In 1993, Clinton raised taxes. Within 3 years, the federal government was running a surplus for the only time in recent history.

In 2001, Bush lowered taxes. and we immediately plummeted back to a massive deficit.

What exactly am I missing here? I'm just saying to do what Clinton did. It worked in 1993, and it will work now.

balloot: What exactly am I missing here? I'm just saying to do what Clinton did. It worked in 1993, and it will work now.

What you are missing is that it was a projected surplus that never actually happened. And not only did the surplus never take place, but congress used the existence of a projected surplus to spend even more money.

Raising taxes won't get you where you want to go(and it may not even raise gov't revenues). You have to cut spending and change congressional spending behavior.

R.A.Danny: Whothewhatnow? Market forces decide everyone's pay.

Either you don't what 'market forces' actually are, or you don't understand how CEO pay is set, or both.

Though I suppose there is a third option that you understand both of those, but believe that as long as market forces have the slightest influence on their pay scale then they could be technically stated to "decide" CEO pay. Even a hypothetical monopoly who pollutes and deceives the customer base still technically is affected by market forces. I'd certainly hesitate to defend that monopoly as the result of mysterious and vague 'market forces' and call people childish for critiquing the situation we have ourselves in. We could be talking past each other in this case.

Would you say the high level executives at Enron had their pay determined by market forces? Why or why not?



On a related note, given your 'its childish to villify them' statement, how about the following situation: is it wrong for the very wealthy to essentially buy our legislature to get their income taxes reduced from A to B? Does it make a difference to you whether that level of B is below the tax rates of the poor or not? Purely hypothetical, of course. Would they rise to the level of vilification if they did lobby for, and get, an income tax rate that was lower than that of the lower classes? If not, how would you justify their ability and right to do that? If so, then you should be able to understand why people who believe that the wealthy, who could only gain their wealth on the backs of society and thus pay more back in order to maintain a healthy society, should be vilified for buying their way to a better position at any cost.

Debeo Summa Credo: ourbigdumbmouth: All countries should follow Iceland's lead.

This is what liberals actually believe.

Yossarian decided that the Soldier Who Saw Everything Twice was a genius, and inspired, resolved to follow this young man to the very end. When Yossarian awoke the next morning the Soldier Who Saw Everything Twice had died, and Yossarian resolved to follow him no further.

"I see everything ONCE!" He declared. And instantaneously he was accosted by every specialist in the medical ward. One held up a finger and asked "How many fingers am I holding up?"

"One!" said Yossarian. The physician held up a second finger and again asked how many were being upheld.

"One!" said Yossarian. "By God", said the dashing young doctor, "He DOES see everything once."

Yossarian was released into the general hospital population before having his gums and toes painted purple, given a laxative to throw into the woods, discharged and sent back to combat flight status.

/what were we talking about?

R.A.Danny: TyrantII: German CEO's are some of the best in the world via performance metrics, yet cost fractions what a American CEO costs

Get the hell over the salary. The market pays this, so you can't vilify someone for getting what the market is paying. This "He has more money that me, it isn't fair" handwringing isn't gonna get anyone else cent one.

When "the market" and "the people" become indistinguishable, I can damn well get angry at the people for taking what they choose to pay themselves.

You foolish, foolish person. I can only assume you don't understand how CEO compensation is chosen, or are somehow heavily invested in public perception of American Corporations.

X-boxershorts: MeinRS6: balloot: What exactly am I missing here? I'm just saying to do what Clinton did. It worked in 1993, and it will work now.

What you are missing is that it was a projected surplus that never actually happened. And not only did the surplus never take place, but congress used the existence of a projected surplus to spend even more money.

Raising taxes won't get you where you want to go(and it may not even raise gov't revenues). You have to cut spending and change congressional spending behavior.

You're provably wrong in re budget deficits and the Clinton years:

Incorrect. You need to adjust your head to DC math(aka fake math) and budget trickery. And again, this trickery encouraged even more spending by congress.

Clinton did not have a surplus of $230B in the year 2000 because he had to borrow $246.5 From numerous other off budget funds. Clinton NEVER ran a surplus during his 8 years in office, he just borrowed yearly from different budgets, (primarily the SS budget) to offset the general fund losses. In 2000 the following funds were borrowed which resulted in a $16.5 deficit.

Link

So now you want to talk about Bush instead of just admitting your mistake? You were taken in by a Dem talking point for however many years and now you need to readjust your thinking to reality. You would do well to ignore all Dem talking points in the future as well.

I'll settle for you getting it thru your head that the congress must dramatically cut spending - and I don't mean just slightly decreasing future increases, which is normally what passes for a "spending cut" in DC.

There was no surplus. It was an accounting gimmick.

Get over it.

TheDumbBlonde: quickdraw: R.A.Danny: and he did it (presumably)in a legal manner

Ay theres the rub Danny Boy. Wealth of that kind is usually inherited from the coffers of long dead thieves, scoundrels and war profiteers.

And in this day, computer/software giants.

He already said "thieves"

bdub77: FYI, the top tax rate was between 79-95% from the 30s until the 60s, 70% until 1980 when it started becoming a joke.

If anything it should have gone up as wealth increased. If millionaires could survive 95% tax rates, todays billionaires could survive 99% tax rates.

Think it's not fair to only get on $100,000,000 after paying into a system you exploited? Cry some more.

quickdraw: R.A.Danny: and he did it (presumably)in a legal manner

Ay theres the rub Danny Boy. Wealth of that kind is usually inherited from the coffers of long dead thieves, scoundrels and war profiteers.

"I earned my money the old-fashioned way. I inherited it from my grandfather, who stole it."

X-boxershorts: MeinRS6: There was no surplus. It was an accounting gimmick.

Get over it.

There was enough money in the budget from other funds to actually start paying down the debt.
I guess paying down the debt when yer a democrat doesn't matter? Unless it's a blah democrat.....

LOOK AT THE GOD DAMN DEBT CHART MORAN!!!!

Partisan ignorant obstinate Asshole. Motherfarking reason. heritage, hoover, fox, limbaugh, drudge, enterprise talking point echo chamber is what you are.

ADDRESS THE UNEMPLOYMENT FIRST..... idiot.

Holy shiat, dude. Looks like you blew a gasket.

Don't be mad at me because you've been fooled by a libby talking point for years.

Oh, and one more thing, there was no surplus. I'm sorry that you are too stupid to understand that and are still clinging to your little graph that was produced by the same people responsible for the accounting trick and lying to you.

And yell at your boy in the WH if you want unemployment addressed - not me. He's doing a real bang up job.

Ishkur: Garble: If anything it should have gone up as wealth increased. If millionaires could survive 95% tax rates, todays billionaires could survive 99% tax rates.

In fact, part of the reason why the average CEO's salary in the 70s was only 25x more than the average floorworker, compared to 400x-500x today, was because of these exorbitant tax rates. There was less incentive to accumulate wealth. As soon as the top marginal tax rate came down, the rush to hoard wealth took off.

no.....

Taxes don't depress anything in the 1% (except inversely, their investment). There's just simply no relationship between productivity, income, taxes, ect at that level. When it literally cost you more money to stop to pick up a $100 bill, nothing, including taxes are going to effect you besides a irrational feeling of butthurt that the gov shouldn't get any.

They can effect investment though. When taxes and gains taxes are low, less money is put into business ventures, and money is actually taken out because of the low barrier to remove it. The whole idea of high taxes on the rich is the idea that they keep it as investment expenditures and don't take that money away to throw in a low interest savings account. When it's costly to take money out of your business as profit, or out of a investment fund as income; you tend to leave it in and continue building interest and dividend. So instead of sucking out every dollar from a business, you're encouraged to grow it.

We only tax gains, not that investment, so ideally taxes should be higher to encourage top earners to keep their money investing and circulating. Otherwise businesses just become revenue streams and are very brittle.

MeinRS6:

And yell at your boy in the WH if you want unemployment addressed - not me. He's doing a real bang up job.

I agree!

Fastest rate of private hiring since Reagan, and through cuts and sequestration we've lost 700,000 public sector jobs (where Regan was adding gov jobs)

If you're a fiscally conservative person like me, there's really only one choice this Nov: Obama.