There's More To Real Estate Than Meets The Eye (Advertisement)

Why don't we tax the wealthy?


By The Professor   Follow   Sat, 22 Dec 2012, 6:22am   7,274 views   133 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (4)  

As in Tax their wealth and not their income.

According to Forbes there are 403 billionaires in the US. A recent survey from British analyst WealthInsight reports the U.S. has added 1.1 million millionaires since Obama was elected in 2008.

We all know that most of the wealth is concentrated at the top. Instead of taking working peoples income why don't we take some of the vast accumulations of wealth that the "owner" class has?

How much wealth and power does an individual need? I realize at a certain point it is not about money but power. Unfortunately that power is amassing more and more of the world’s resources.

How about we take 10% a year of everything over $10,000,000 in accrued wealth from the upper class? When their wealth fell below ten million they would still have enough to live fairly comfortably.

I know this is unrealistic. In the utopian world of my mind healthcare, education, and security are readily available and the people of the world live in peace and harmony. Instead of warring for profit we could expand into the infinite space of the universe.

"From each according to their ability. To each according to their need".

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 94-133 of 133     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,611 threads
    6,306 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA

    94   9:33am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

    Dan8267 says

    Enforce Anti-Trust Laws

    Any company that is too big to fail is, by definition, too big to exist. All banks that got the $16 trillion in interest free loans should be nationalized and all profits from them should go back to paying back the tax payer and dollar holder

    I'd like to see that, but it cannot happen while corporations can continue to buy politicians.

    The fundamental problem is our campaign finance system, where our supposed representatives actually represent those who give them the money to get elected.

    And why should any of our elected representatives want to change the system that got them elected? That's the corner we're in.

    Theodore Roosevelt recognized this back in 1912:

    "To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607

    But the problem has never been fixed. How can we really fix it?

  2. The Professor


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    37 threads
    1,902 comments
    Premium

    95   9:39am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Dan8267 says

    There are a number of structural changes that we can make to eliminate financial parasitic behavior.

    Double like! Awesome post!

    Now, how can we get the oligarchy to agree to these changes?

  3. Trifle


    Follow
    Befriend
    1 comments

    96   10:18am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike  

    Why don't we take this one step further? Why stop with the US? Do you realize that as American wage earners most of us make more than 90% of the rest of the world? Is this really fair? Did we really EARN this money? Wouldn't it make more sense to just transfer most of our wages to the rest of the world so we can all live on world average salaries. Most of the world hates us, not because of our rich, but because of our rich wage earners. Think of the goodwill wage redistribution will bring our country. not to mention the peace, freedom, and opportunity across the globe. We've got to stop being selfish and start thinking about other people.

  4. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    97   10:30am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    FortWayne says

    Dan8267 says

    How would you feel about a nationwide 1.5% and 25 cents per transaction sales tax?

    I like that idea, but...

    Would that replace existing taxes in CA?

    No, it would just be a tax to ensure lavish lifestyles for a few people. It would not be used to provide any service.

  5. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    98   10:33am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    I'd like to see that, but it cannot happen while corporations can continue to buy politicians.

    The fundamental problem is our campaign finance system, where our supposed representatives actually represent those who give them the money to get elected.

    All true. And that is why it will take some kind of revolt, violent or not, from the masses to stop this parasitic system.

    The only non-violent solution I can think of is for all the pissed off people to start a new political party, to get that party elected in local government, and work up the chain of power to the senate and house. It's impossible now to change Washington without direct force from the outside. You cannot change the system from within the system because the system is built to be a stable stronghold for parasites.

  6. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    99   10:34am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    The Professor says

    Dan8267 says

    There are a number of structural changes that we can make to eliminate financial parasitic behavior.

    Double like! Awesome post!

    Now, how can we get the oligarchy to agree to these changes?

    From the bottom up, not from the top down.

  7. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    100   10:41am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Trifle says

    Why stop with the US?

    Because that is where our sovereignty stops. I would not favor a world government. Too much power in too few hands.

    Trifle says

    Do you realize that as American wage earners most of us make more than 90% of the rest of the world?

    Yes. Do you realize that this statistic is entirely meaningless? The purchasing power of a dollar bill in China, where most of the laborers are, is far more than the purchasing power of the same dollar bill in your town or city. As such, comparisons of wages between societies is utterly meaningless and misleading.

    Now, comparing the quality of life can be done in a meaningful way, and America's quality of life is better than these developing nations, but it would take far more drastic measures for us to positively affect that quality of life. Here is one way to do so.

    Set the total compensation an executive can receive in one year to the median total compensation received by his employees. Include overseas employees, contractors, etc. as employees for this purpose.

    This completely changes the game. Now the executives cannot exploit the workers because doing so diminishes his own income. The executive still has motivation to maximize per employee production since doing so maximizes his income. But the executive has no motive to use employees for non-productive uses or to reduce the labor force. Economies of scale will ultimately determine how many employees are hired for a particular company.

    Of course, the big question is how could one pass or enforce such a measure when the politicians are already the whore slaves of these very executives?

  8. SoftShell


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 threads
    2,293 comments
    Abilene, TX

    101   10:50am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)  

    As long as I can throw m&m's at the heads of the peasants whilst I dine on bleu cheese encrusted filet mignon ....i'm good to go.

    Dan8267 says

    The Professor says

    Dan8267 says

    There are a number of structural changes that we can make to eliminate financial parasitic behavior.

    Double like! Awesome post!

    Now, how can we get the oligarchy to agree to these changes?

    From the bottom up, not from the top down.

  9. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    102   10:53am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    SoftShell says

    As long as I can throw m&m's at the heads of the peasants whilst I dine on bleu cheese encrusted filet mignon ....i'm good to go.

    The peasants like M&Ms, so I doubt anyone would complain.

  10. Meccos


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    8 threads
    639 comments

    103   11:00am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    Patrick says

    I'd like to see that, but it cannot happen while corporations can continue to buy politicians.

    This is in essence, the root of the problem. As long as politicians can be bought, there will be no solution.
    Although this discussion stated out with the argument for taxing "the rich" I am glad what a few here have eloquently made the distinction between "the rich" and "the parasitic rich or the exploiting rich", as these are completely different.
    As many of you have seen from my previous post, I am a staunch defender of "the rich". If they earned their wealth, in my opinion, they deserve to keep it. However I do not defend people who exploit and practice parasitic lifestyles. I would challenge everyone here to make this distinction as it is important. Stealing is stealing, whether it is the rich stealing from the poor or the poor stealing from the rich...

  11. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    104   11:17am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Meccos says

    So the executives would receive less than half their employees?

    If they executives don't like that, they can always increase their income by mining the ore themselves, or spending 70 hours a week writing code, or manning the french fryer. I'm sure we can find some worker who would gladly take the place of the executive. Pay isn't the only difference between the jobs of executives and their employees.

    But even if we adjusted the executive pay to say 1.5 or 2.0 times the median income, the principle is the same. There is no justification for executive pay being 100+ times the median wealth producer pay. Executives are, at best, overhead. They produce nothing.

  12. Meccos


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    8 threads
    639 comments

    105   11:41am Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    Meccos says

    So the executives would receive less than half their employees?

    If they executives don't like that, they can always increase their income by mining the ore themselves, or spending 70 hours a week writing code, or manning the french fryer. I'm sure we can find some worker who would gladly take the place of the executive. Pay isn't the only difference between the jobs of executives and their employees.

    Dan,

    YOu realize that we can make the same argument about the workers also. If they dont like the pay, they can just go find another job. The problem your argument is that the average worker is much easier to replace than the average executive. You can find millions of people who can fry french fries, but you cant find millions of people who can run multi-million dollar companies. in addition, I bet most executives work more hours than the average worker... most probably do work 60-70 hours.

    Dan8267 says

    Meccos says

    So the executives would receive less than half their employees?

    But even if we adjusted the executive pay to say 1.5 or 2.0 times the median income, the principle is the same. There is no justification for executive pay being 100+ times the median wealth producer pay. Executives are, at best, overhead. They produce nothing.

    I agreed with you and again I agree with you that executive pay is outrageous at times. WIth that said, you have no right to dictate pay in a private company. Secondly, executives do produce. Just because they do not directly produce the products or services themselves, does not mean they are not productive. This is the same as an analogy to football. Just because the coach is not throwing or running the football, it does not mean he is not productive.

  13. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    106   12:12pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Meccos says

    WIth that said, you have no right to dictate pay in a private company.

    It would not be me dictating the pay, it would be the state, obviously. And the state does have the legal right to dictate pay. It does this all the time in the form of the minimum wage and garnishing wages.

    Meccos says

    Just because they do not directly produce the products or services themselves, does not mean they are not productive. This is the same as an analogy to football. Just because the coach is not throwing or running the football, it does not mean he is not productive.

    The analogy between coaching and executive far from perfect. The coach's strategy is clearly part of the product of the game, which is the good produced. The executive financial manipulations are not part of the product produced unless the company is in the financial industry, which produces nothing anyway.

    Executives are at best necessary overhead, but overhead should not get the lion's share of the wealth produced by the non-overhead. At worst, executives wreck companies and cost stockholders everything all while extracting vast wealth from the company they are wrecking. The current system actively encourages this.

    The very idea that executives are some how more important than the people producing the goods or services is complete nonsense that is perpetuated solely because those at the top of the hierarchy are precisely the ones who get to spend the marketing dollars.

    In reality, it is ridiculous that we even use hierarchical structures in our economy. Everywhere in software, hierarchies have been replaced by networks, graphs, and sets. The hierarchical corporation is an archaism in the modern world. Production should be peer-to-peer along a distribution network that itself is managed distributively, much like the Internet.

  14. Meccos


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    8 threads
    639 comments

    107   12:22pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    And the state does have the legal right to dictate pay. It does this all the time in the form of the minimum wage and garnishing wages.

    It dictates minimum pay, but never maximum pay.Dan8267 says

    The analogy between coaching and executive far from perfect. The coach's strategy is clearly part of the product of the game, which is the good produced. The executive financial manipulations are not part of the product produced unless the company is in the financial industry, which produces nothing anyway.

    Executives only financially manipulate their company? It appears that is what you are implying...
    Dan8267 says

    Executives are at best necessary overhead, but overhead should not get the lion's share of the wealth produced by the non-overhead. At worst, executives wreck companies and cost stockholders everything all while extracting vast wealth from the company they are wrecking. The current system actively encourages this.

    I suppose Steve Jobs was necessary overhead, Bill Gates was necessary overhead.

    Dan, you are falling into this trap of generalizing all executives, just like previous posters who generalized all rich people as parasites or exploiters. The fact of the matter is that executives are crucial in the success of any business. Lets not minimize their duties and jobs to make a point.

  15. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    108   12:59pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Meccos says

    It dictates minimum pay, but never maximum pay

    Hence the mention of garnishing wages.

    And yes, government can certainly put pay caps on. There's nothing Unconstitutional about that.

    Of course, what I'm talking about isn't even a pay cap, it's marrying the self-interest of the executive to the self-interest of all others in the company. A rising tide raises all boats only if everyone is in the same boat.

    Meccos says

    Executives only financially manipulate their company?

    Not only their company... Executives manipulate a lot of things, but they rarely do something that isn't a zero-sum game today. I have yet to hear a single reason why society or an economy should reward zero-sum games.

    Meccos says

    Dan, you are falling into this trap of generalizing all executives, just like previous posters who generalized all rich people as parasites or exploiters.

    Without generalization, not a single book could ever be written. There is a difference between extracting a general principle and stating that all executives are worthless. I did not say that. I did say that they are at best necessary overhead. But even necessary overhead should not take the lion's share of wealth production by any rational logic.

    If a goal of economics is to maximize wealth production, then it makes no sense to strangle the economy by channeling that production away from the producers and towards a few individuals rigging the system. To do so is to discourage productivity all together.

    The problem I have with most (not all) executives can be summarized as this... The modern executive is interested in exploiting the producers taking almost everything and leaving only the bare essential for the producer to live on. His greed knows no bounds and his siphoning of wealth harms everyone will providing only a marginal benefit to himself. Even riches have diminishing returns. The executive of today's transnational corporations has become a highly inefficient parasite. Instead of innovating, he stifles innovation with obscene patent laws. Instead of increasing productions, he decreases it to create artificial shortages to drive up prices. Instead of improving efficiency, he exploits and maintains inefficiencies in the system to maximize profits. Instead of working hard, he pits worker against worker to make them work hard for meager scraps. Instead of improving the quality of life, he seeks to make life cheap so he can indulge in extravagances. And then he acts indignant when we do not show adulation for him.

  16. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,611 threads
    6,306 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA

    109   1:27pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

    Consider a wealth tax instead of an income tax or sales taxes or pay caps. By wealth I mean all land, stocks, bonds, and everything else which is owned in the name of a particular person.

    A 2% annual tax on all accumulated wealth, levied monthly as 0.17%, would be sufficient to replace all other taxes and would have these substantial benefits:

    * The tax rate on your income would be zero, so working people could very rapidly accumulate assets.
    * Vast wealth would also mean vast taxes paid every year, slowing down the formation of hereditary aristocracy.
    * It is hard to hide vast wealth, especially land.
    * The tax would never reduce anyone's wealth to zero. It would take about 35 years of sitting on uninvested assets for them to be reduced by half - but if your investment income were greater than 2%, you'd gain and never lose.
    * It would dramatically reduce paperwork, since incomes and sales would not need to be tracked at all anymore, and land and other asset ownership is already tracked.

  17. Peter P


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    117 threads
    17,705 comments

    110   1:31pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    By wealth I mean all land, stocks, bonds, and everything else which is owned in the name of a particular person.

    Let's focus on real properties. Once you start taxing abstract ownerships there will be all kinds of distortions.

  18. The Professor


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    37 threads
    1,902 comments
    Premium

    111   1:45pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    Consider a wealth tax instead of an income tax or sales taxes or pay caps. By wealth I mean all land, stocks, bonds, and everything else which is owned in the name of a particular person.

    A 2% annual tax on all accumulated wealth, levied monthly as 0.17%, would be sufficient to replace all other taxes and would have these substantial benefits:

    Patrick for President!

    Send your donations to http://patrick.net/donate.php

  19. SoftShell


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 threads
    2,293 comments
    Abilene, TX

    112   3:37pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    This statement is completely idiotic.
    The decisions made by the executive branch directly affect the viability of the company.
    The decisions made by the workers may affect the quality of a small subset of product in the vast majority of cases.

    Dan8267 says

    The very idea that executives are some how more important than the people producing the goods or services is complete nonsense that is perpetuated solely because those at the top of the hierarchy are precisely the ones who get to spend the marketing dollars.

  20. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,611 threads
    6,306 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA

    113   5:58pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    SoftShell says

    The decisions made by the executive branch directly affect the viability of the company.

    OK, so why not hire CEOs from India for less than a tenth of what US CEOs are being paid?

    Lots of Indians are damn sharp at commerce and willing to work for less. Or the Persians. Also excellent CEO material. Thousands of years of accumulated cultural experience with commerce. Or the Armenians? Really smart and even worse paid in their home country.

    Why are only the workers outsourced, and never the executives?

  21. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    114   6:36pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    SoftShell says

    This statement is completely idiotic.

    The decisions made by the executive branch directly affect the viability of the company.

    The decisions made by the workers may affect the quality of a small subset of product in the vast majority of cases.

    If executives were truly responsible for the vast majority of wealth production, then they are also responsible for every recession, every downsizing, every diminished of the quality of life of Americans. Somehow, they never accept that end of responsibility.

    Meanwhile, the per worker productivity of American workers has over doubled in the past two generations while the real wages of workers has barely increased over the same time. And those increases in worker productivity have nothing to do with executives. We engineers created that boost in productivity by developing software and hardware which made people able to produce far more.

    You assertion that the executive is the most important person regarding wealth production is wholly false.

    Patrick says

    Why are only the workers outsourced, and never the executives?

    Exactly. Executives are not paid a lot because they are so much smarter or more productive than everyone else. They are paid more because they are closer to the money pot. It's that simple.

    Capitalism rewards bargaining power, not productivity. The more control you have over the distribution of money, the more bargaining power you have.

    A better economic system would reward productivity and thus encourage more wealth generation rather than more wealth control. The pro-capitalist crowd loves to state the assertion that capitalism rewards productivity, but that is mostly a lie. The biggest financial incentives are for doing non-productive and often counter-productive work, destroying the infrastructure for one's own gain.

  22. SoftShell


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 threads
    2,293 comments
    Abilene, TX

    115   7:26pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Good question....so what's different with Indian executives versus WASPS??
    maybe because their cultural values are different? (see women being raped on buses with mass demonstrations ensuing...)

    Patrick says

    SoftShell says

    The decisions made by the executive branch directly affect the viability of the company.

    OK, so why not hire CEOs from India for less than a tenth of what US CEOs are being paid?

    Lots of Indians are damn sharp at commerce and willing to work for less. Or the Persians. Also excellent CEO material. Thousands of years of accumulated cultural experience with commerce. Or the Armenians? Really smart and even worse paid in their home country.

    Why are only the workers outsourced, and never the executives?

  23. SoftShell


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 threads
    2,293 comments
    Abilene, TX

    116   7:28pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    Agreed.
    and that is the flaw in the system. Salaried executive pay should always be linked to company performance.
    If the company performs, the exec gets the big bucks and the worker ants get bonuses...
    If not, everyone should get screwed...

    Dan8267 says

    SoftShell says

    This statement is completely idiotic.


    The decisions made by the executive branch directly affect the viability of the company.


    The decisions made by the workers may affect the quality of a small subset of product in the vast majority of cases.

    If executives were truly responsible for the vast majority of wealth production, then they are also responsible for every recession, every downsizing, every diminished of the quality of life of Americans. Somehow, they never accept that end of responsibility.

  24. SoftShell


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 threads
    2,293 comments
    Abilene, TX

    117   7:31pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    nah....u wrong.
    the top people generate the contracts that sustain the company and the worker ants.
    their decisions and actions have far more reaching effect than the assembly line ant.
    I'm only on my thrid merlot nad i'm already potperforming u....

    Dan8267 says

    You assertion that the executive is the most important person regarding wealth production is wholly false

  25. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    3,658 comments

    118   10:16pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    Why are only the workers outsourced, and never the executives?

    I'm surprised you've never heard of the golden rule. They have the gold, they make the rules.

    Meccos says

    They are responsible. If a company goes under, the executives get blamed, not the common worker.

    They may get blamed but they make damn sure they get all the money possible out for themselves first.

    Meccos says

    Steve Jobs however could not be easily replaced

    For every Steve Jobs or Jack Welsh that truly produce for the shareholders there are a thousand mediocrities running in place taking tons of money out of the company while the shareholders get squat.

    There is no reason whatsoever that CEO's today earn 15 times what they earned in relation to the average worker in the 1970's. The dividends aren't 15 times higher, they aren't even 3 times higher. It's the result of crony capitalism plain and simple. They all sit on each others compensation committees and are frequently from interdependent companies. It's an insider's game.

    CEO pay in other countries is dramatically less, for comparable companies. CEO JP Morgan 4th largest bank in the world 19.3 million, HSBC third largest bank in the world paid 2.8 million although that was 2009. Maybe it's improved.

  26. Meccos


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    8 threads
    639 comments

    119   11:00pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    bob2356 says

    It's the result of crony capitalism plain and simple

    Bob once you own these companies or have any significant skin in the game, then perhaps you can decide how much these guys should get paid. Until then you have no say.

    HOwever if you want to talk about crony capitalism, lets talk about the billions of tax dollars being stolen by corporations like Solyndra and the numerous other companies who have bought our politicians. We could go on further and discuss Freddie and Fannie as well...

  27. American in Japan


    Follow
    Befriend (28)
    149 threads
    1,407 comments

    120   11:46pm Mon 31 Dec 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    The corporation itself requires a government charter.

  28. david1


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    9 threads
    790 comments
    33 male
    Fort Mill, SC

    121   6:52am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    A perfect example of a CEO making decisions based on his own paycheck is Bank of America. Moynihan's bonus is tied to BAC having positive earnings.

    In 2011, BAC sold off many highly performing assets to "raise capital." (China Construction Bank, Blackrock, Balboa, which combined paid annual dividends of over $1.5 billion to BAC) One would think that if raising capital was the primary goal, then non-performing assets would be sold first. But if you sell non-performing or poorly performing assets, there is either a loss or little gain.

    Doing that wouldn't have given BAC positive earnings...no positive earnings...no bonuses for Moynihan and other top BAC executives. Since they all make a salary of $950k but bonuses many times that, the bonus is where the real compensation lies. (Moynihan's 2011 bonus was over $6M in stock awards)

    Oh I suppose they could dilute shares to raise capital as well, but then, they would be hurting themselves too because a major portion of their personal wealth is in company stock. AND I would wager that most of those who sit on their compensation board are also major shareholders....so this is why you rarely see raising capital twith equity. Using debt is much more common...

    http://www.forbes.com/profile/brian-moynihan/
    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/01/19/2938009/bofas-selling-of-assets-has-a.html

    Bottom line, Moynihan is a scumbag. It's just one example, but if they are this brazen with what everyone can clearly see with the companies money, what do you think they are doing with what everyone cannot see?

    I am sure Moynihan's expense reports would shock and anger every shareholder.

    FWIW, I currently own some BAC.

  29. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    122   7:20am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    For every Steve Jobs or Jack Welsh that truly produce for the shareholders there are a thousand mediocrities running in place taking tons of money out of the company while the shareholders get squat.

    True, although I don't give Steve Jobs credit for inventing anything. Steve Wozniak gets my respect, Jobs does not. Jobs stole every idea he had from someone else, and most of what he advocates is polishing turds to make them nice and shiny rather than doing something useful or inventive.

  30. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    3,658 comments

    123   10:58am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Meccos says

    Bob once you own these companies or have any significant skin in the game, then perhaps you can decide how much these guys should get paid. Until then you have no say.

    The stockholders are the owners, I'm surprised you don't know that. The compensation committees set pay, not the stockholders. Most corporations don't give the stockholders any avenue to have a say in executive pay.

    Pretty presumptuous assuming I don't own stock

  31. dublin hillz


    Follow
    Befriend
    32 threads
    1,355 comments
    Dublin, CA

    124   11:00am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Trifle says

    Why don't we take this one step further? Why stop with the US? Do you realize that as American wage earners most of us make more than 90% of the rest of the world? Is this really fair? Did we really EARN this money? Wouldn't it make more sense to just transfer most of our wages to the rest of the world so we can all live on world average salaries. Most of the world hates us, not because of our rich, but because of our rich wage earners. Think of the goodwill wage redistribution will bring our country. not to mention the peace, freedom, and opportunity across the globe. We've got to stop being selfish and start thinking about other people.

    Are you joking or is your naivete really at this level?

  32. dublin hillz


    Follow
    Befriend
    32 threads
    1,355 comments
    Dublin, CA

    125   11:03am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    The only non-violent solution I can think of is for all the pissed off people to
    start a new political party, to get that party elected in local government, and
    work up the chain of power to the senate and house

    We are far away from mass "violence." There are still tons of people at shopping malls and restaurants which indicates that they have the means to ability to borrow to sustain the system and hence likely have incentives to preserve it. And the rest of the masses are likely at home watching reality TV.

  33. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    3,658 comments

    126   11:34am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    True, although I don't give Steve Jobs credit for inventing anything.

    I'm not a Steve Jobs fan, just he was the example given. I think Jobs is one of the most overrated people in the world. His ego and arrogance far exceeded his accomplishments. I prefer people who just get the job done and let their accomplishments speak for themselves.

    Job's first shot as CEO at Apple was terrible for the stockholders, other than ipo buyers and pre ipo vested stockholders. He was fixated on the idea of windows/mac and killed further development of the very profitable apple II. Apple actually did better under Sculley from a stockholder point of view.

    People somehow forget that apple was very much a small niche player until the Ipod and Imac, mostly the Ipod. Macs only had something like 2% market share. Apple talks about the Imac being a smash hit, but it sold less than a million a year the first few years.

    The ipod is the only Jobs product that was a big hit in his entire career. It wasn't that original. It was developed out of a platform called portalplayer that IBM was already selling as a mp3 player. The original part from apple was the interface, which was light years ahead of anything else at the time. The cash from the ipod finally let apple do some large scale engineering work on their computer lines and come up with good selling products to get some decent market share at long last.

  34. Meccos


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    8 threads
    639 comments

    127   6:02pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    The stockholders are the owners, I'm surprised you don't know that. The compensation committees set pay, not the stockholders. Most corporations don't give the stockholders any avenue to have a say in executive pay.

    Pretty presumptuous assuming I don't own stock

    I never assumed you dont own stocks, but I do presume you do not own any significant amount of it, hence I wrote "until you have any significant skin in the game". The bottom line is, if you do not like executive pay in a company do not invest in it. Like I said,
    Meccos says

    Until then you have no say.

  35. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    128   7:09pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    The ipod is the only Jobs product that was a big hit in his entire career. It wasn't that original. It was developed out of a platform called portalplayer that IBM was already selling as a mp3 player.

    Never heard of portalplayer. The first MP3 hardware player was the Diamond Rio which came out around 1999. Before that, IBM had a project codename Madison, official name EMMS that was an open system for purchasing and downloading music. Basically, it was ITunes way before ITunes.

  36. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    3,658 comments

    129   6:14am Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    bob2356 says

    The ipod is the only Jobs product that was a big hit in his entire career. It wasn't that original. It was developed out of a platform called portalplayer that IBM was already selling as a mp3 player.

    Never heard of portalplayer. The first MP3 hardware player was the Diamond Rio which came out around 1999. Before that, IBM had a project codename Madison, official name EMMS that was an open system for purchasing and downloading music. Basically, it was ITunes way before ITunes.

    Apple took an existing, but unreleased, technology and put a very nice and unique interface on it. Here's a pretty interesting article from wired about the process.
    http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2004/07/64286?currentPage=all

    Portalplayer was a chipset manufacturer. Ipods up until 2006 or so were Portalplayer chipsets. Looks like IBM never sold an MP3 player commercially. I just remember reading about some development work they were doing on products in trade magazines at the time. They looking for other uses for their microdrive.

    IBM developed the 1 inch microdrive as a high capacity storage for digital camera's in the late 90's, but they recognized it would be ideal for high capacity mp3 players. I know that as well as doing some work themselves they shopped the product around to use in an MP3 player to several companies, but not Apple. The original Ipod used a 1.8 inch toshiba drive, but the mini's used the IBM (sold to Hitachi by this time) microdrive up until switching over to solid state in 2005. For camera's microdrives were much faster at writing than flash memory of the time.

  37. RealityBites


    Follow
    Befriend
    1 comments

    130   3:37pm Sun 13 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    The status Quo will never change, the rich are psychopathic parasites.
    They have no empathy nor humanity, just empty shells painted to look like humans.

    Change will only come with the adoption of a new universal holiday called Bastille day. If those that steal millions of times their share were separated from their head, the world would go to bed warm and fed.

  38. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    58 threads
    2,601 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    131   6:36pm Sun 13 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    RealityBites says

    just empty shells painted to look like humans.

    As I like saying, this movie was a documentary.

  39. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,131 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    132   7:50pm Sun 13 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    Apple took an existing, but unreleased, technology and put a very nice and unique interface on it.

    The Diamond Rio was released. Even more importantly, the MPEG 2 Layer 3 Standard (MP3) was developed by a lot of really smart people, none of which worked at Apple.

    Apple also didn't the solid state memory that made modern MP3 players, smart phones, and tablets possible. Nor did Apple invent the wireless ad hock network technology or the LCD displays or the rechargeable batteries or any other technology needed for today's devices.

    But hey, you are right that Apple put a nice looking, polished logo on the product and that makes it so much prettier. Where would we be without Apple?

  40. Bellingham Bill


    Follow
    Befriend
    58 threads
    2,601 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    133   10:19pm Sun 13 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    Where would we be without Apple?

    You make it sound like Apple's innovation was easy.

    If it were easy, other companies would have beat Apple to market with the long list of things they got right, first.

    Steve made the first useful personal computer (as opposed to hobbyist computer). A large part of the Apple II's success was actually due to Markkula, who was an avid PC users and pushed the company to create the floppy disk drive at a more affordable price. At any rate the Apple II was the best PC of the 1970s.

    Steve then shipped in 1984 the Mac, and after its rough edges and design mistakes were largely worked out over the next two years the 1986 Mac Plus was arguably the best PC of the 1980s, in terms of utility for the money.

    It worked extremely well with Apple's LaserWriter, which revolutionized how we worked with paper. HP had released its LaserJet earlier in 1984, but it was just a glorified LPR until well after the desktop publishing revolution got going.

    Then Steve got booted out of Apple and then shipped the NeXT machines. The color NeXT computers were beyond state of the art -- about 10 years ahead of the rest of the PC industry. Of course, they were priced well above what PCs cost in the early 1990s, so they were more like personal workstations.

    But NeXT got a lot right with that and thus far Apple's purchase of NeXT can't be considered a mistake.

    The iPod got big because it was the first PMP to be small enough to carry in a pocket but with enough storage to hold most peoples' entire libraries.

    The iPhone was an incremental advance on what other companies were doing, but, again, Apple was first to actually execute on what needed to be done.

    Foremost was lose the stylus. Secondly, Apple actually spent the effort and hard lifting to get a pretty good OS and graphics stack working under the pretty interface, and that pretty interface was so smooth because Apple worked to get it right first. Android only achieved parity with Apple in this area with "Project Butter".

    Nokia actually shipped phones with OMAP (which had PowerVR) before Apple did, but DIDN'T HAVE THE DRIVERS WORKING for the Power VR renderer.

    While Apple not only had OpenGL ES working for developers in 2008, they also had a super-slick image API (called CoreAnimation) that exposed this rendering capability for all app programmers, not just OpenGL-based games.

    Remove the innovations that Apple shipped first from our current tech life, and we'd have pretty limited capabilities.

    One thing Apple missed was the optical mouse. Microsoft got HP's invention here to market well before Apple. 3D accelerators -- SGI, 3Dfx, nVidia -- that too advanced w/o Apple's involvement in the 1980s and 90s.

    But other than that, industry has always been slipstreaming behind Apple, for most of my life now.

« First     « Previous comments    

Premium member The Professor is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 179 milliseconds to create.