Reply With Quote
I'll give you this. You are 100% right wing capitalist all the way...
I wasn't invested in any of those criminal enterprises. Or, if I was, it wasn't much.
The economic policies of the Congress and the Executive are stealing more from me than any criminal CEO could ever hope to pocket.
I'll give you this. You are 100% right wing capitalist all the way...
And, I'll give you this; you think you're somehow en led to someone else's wealth.
The term, "wealth inequality," itself, is a farce. Who ever said wealth was to be equally distributed?
Show it.
I am not the original poster. Somehow you've given me some beliefs I don't hold. I am not as passionate as you about it. I'm not a 100%'er, of anything.
I believe in capitalism, with adequate control and regulation. I believe in a progressive tax system. I believe stock holders should be protected from greedy corrupt executives. I believe in the need for unions. I believe in the rights of the working man. I believe kittens should be able to coexist peacefully with dogs of all breeds.
Yet, I've never once voted democrat but I just might because this republican party gets further and further away from me with each day that passes. I'm hoping someone can right the ship.
Manny, you've become just another gnat in the forum...
So much for that olive branch of yours. I'm sorry I bothered you by asking for proof of your statements other than anecdotes. I didn't mean to offend.
I doubt you did offend him. It was just another opportunity for Yoni to strut his evident superiority.
Vain, yes.
Yoni=olympian, elevated and sublime
MIG=gnatlike, base and chthonic
http://www.thomasjstanley.com/
80% of millionaires are 1st generation.
I'm assuming if the original charts had some integrity they would have measured much differently. For instance, eliminating the likes of Bill Gates and Warrent Buffet along with the Massive Prison Population would be a clearer representation.
I wonder what percentage of these millionaires makes above the $250K/year tax threshold?
Don't have the answer to that. What I do know is that most 1st generation millionaires are small business owners.
Yoni, you are aware that company executive are morally bound (and perhaps legally, not clear on that) to do what's best for stakeholders, correct?
Taking billions of money and putting it into bonuses... is that the best way for a stakeholder to realize the value of their money?
Also, are these bonuses public information? Available to all shareholders?
Yes. Each year when shareholders get their proxy statements and notice of annual shareholder meeting there's a section in there that details the compensation for the top executives and board of directors.
Ah, thanks for the info. I wasn't sure if they had to make that public or not.
well , then i guess idi amin was just a self-motivator ! the cartel leaders in mexico are just entrepeneurs !
outside the context of an individual who represents a fraction of a fraction of the population is reality, a reality in which not all roads are as open for such a fairy tale ( just a decent living) for all people.
but hey, i guess you just happen to be a mutli-mllionaire who spends his time on preaching to the rest of us on a forum.
If you go to yahoo finance you can also see the declared income (but not the unexercised stock options, which are generally MUCH more than the actual pay) of the top 5 execs.
You start at the page where they show the company base data:
(here is the link for citigroup)
Look down the left side, and you will see a list of links.
The group "Company" has a link with the text "profile". Click on that, or this link to go directly there.
That shows the base pay and exercised stock options in the lower right corner.
Note again, the UNEXERCISED stock options are not shown. Since most CEO's are paid pretty much by stock options, this doesn't generally capture the true compensation.
This is one of the reasons I am all for capital gains taxes being changed and simply counted as regular income.
just make sure you have reliable information on the performance of the company. the SEC already has found DELL to be guilty of illegal auditing practices before.
Most stockholders are absolutely clueless as to the amount of their money that is going to bloated executive pay.
I think that if the average stockholder really knew how much their shares were diluted, and how of their money went into the pockets of management, they would not be quite so sanguine about it.
Boards of directors are supposed to represent the interests of stockholders, but very often... don't.
Boards of directors generally defer almost entirely to management, especially given the number of CEO's who cooincidentally happen to be Chairmen of their respective boards.
Do you really know what the dilutive effects are of the stock options issued to the execs in the company you hold stock in?
How much more would your stocks earn if the top execs simply decided to pay themselves $200k per year and never took anything else from the company?
Everybody here knows you can't answer either question.
Don't forget Enron, WorldCom, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
First, someone needs to explain why an unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing.
Then, we can talk about if or how it should be fixed.
Simple thought experiment.
If everyone held the same amount of wealth (wealth equality), how would you determine who gets to purchase finite resources?
Second simple thought experiment.
If everyone held the same amount of wealth (wealth equality), who would be motivated to produce the goods everyone would be able to afford? In other words, if my wealth is equal to your wealth, what's my motivation to produce anything for more than my immediate family, friends, or associates? If I cannot enrich myself more than the non-producer (because that would result in a "wealth inequality"), what's the point in producing at all?
And, rjv, this isn't Uganda or Mexico.
As a stockholder, I'm either satisfied with my return or I'm not. What's your point?
Paying executives exorbitant bonuses or giving them golden parachutes does not equate to cooking the books or illegality. There's a difference. Conflating the two does your argument no good.
Do I want to be a stockholder in a company that cooks the books or engages in illegal activities? Probably not -- unless, of course, that illegality improves the value of my holdings without exposing me to culpability or sudden, unforeseen loss in value.
Do I want to be a stockholder in a company that legally pads their executives' pockets? Probably not -- unless, of course, that padding has little or no detriment on the value of my stocks. At the point I think a company is working against my interests, as a stockholder, I divest. It's that simple.
These CEO's don't live secret lives (for the most part). Maybe stockholders should educate themselves about companies in which they invest. If a company doesn't appear to be straightforward in it's prospectus or required filings, don't invest.
Quit being victims.
The annual meeting notices include the number of shares of unexercised stock options the ceo's hold.
It's also important to note that not all stock options get taxed at capital gains tax rates. Short term / long term rules still apply. So when a CEO exercises his options and sells the stock immediately, that's short term capital gains which get taxed as ordinary income. Exercising stock options also has AMT implications.
All that being said, I agree with you about capital gains tax rates and don't have a problem with changing them to make them either match or more closely mirror traditional income tax rates.
it isn't? really ?
way to miss the sarcasm that neither ambition nor nobility can be measured by wealth.
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Posting Permissions
