patrick.net

Hey troll surfer-x I'll give you my home address if you would like to come by and discuss real estate. No? Ok, why don't you give my your address and I'll stop by and discuss real estate? No? Ok, well enjoy your trolling. Me? I'm off to dog beach, stop by if you want, we'll talk about real estate. No? Ahhh come on, what's the worst that could happen? Still no?

Shmend Rick Says:
sure they may have been, but just look at the numbers… who do you think they are likely to help? the lower income, who comprise the bulk of the country, or middle upper middle middle upper upper upper class of people who comprise this list? the government will never help social opportunists.

there is a growing realisation of the plight of the posters on this group, although prices in the market may cool by themselves once Gen X, Y and Z are simply unable to borrow the amounts being asked. that's what politicians have always counted on -- a housing market that reaches equilibrium and doesn't therefore need any price regulation or intervention (although they cheerfully regulate every other aspect of building design, construction quality, land zoning, density, height, etc etc). However, this model also allows and expects the creation of a huge pool of exploited renters in the lower echelons -- it's just that this pool is growing as housing prices soar.

creating low income housing will just make the situation of you folks even worse.

that's very debatable. i don't see why.

really, all you need to examine is what is it that you are really after? youre complaining that you didn’t get your fair shot at the ‘big time’? please, if you expect sympathy from the public you have to be kidding. some of the people who post here are outright sickening.

there is some confusion in the minds of some posters here as to what social justice initiatives should look like, and patrick.net is a broad and catholic church to boot. forgive them, father, they know not what they do...

basically, civilization is an agreement to cooperate.

that's a 'functionalist' model of society. however 'conflict theory' such as marxism suggests that it's not quite that simple, and that there is a lot of tension and disagreement in society.

for as long as you are doing less work, living longer, etc. then the majority of people( which is exactly what you are doing ), then you are exploiting that agreement. and you are expecting the general public to feel sorry for you that you are unable to do that as much as the guy next door?

there has grown up a reasonable expectation of home ownership in many western countries, where ownership rates traditionally have been as high as 80% post-WWII. that is now being undermined.

Marx was right, it is a relationship between property( capital ) and labor. He explained the situation of people like yourself quite lucidly( he called them the bourgeois ). I highly recommend reading Das Capital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital

the bourgeois as defined by marx are actually employers, the owners of the means of production, 'the ruling class'. small employers such as shopkeepers were labelled the 'petit bourgeoisie' in his class schema. the lower classes were the proletariat, or 'landless labor', and the bottom stratum was the 'lumpenproletariat' who were either dangerous or pretty useless. marx saw revolution coming from the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, in his polarised view of class conflict and 'dialectic materialism' after socrates. marx didn't foresee the rise of an affluent middle class of workers. i highly recommend reading or studying at least parts of 'das kapital' also, rick, although it's a long read. there'll be a test on monday, will you be ready?

justme Says:

> The flat tax proposal is a despicable and cynical
> attempt at exploiting people’s aversion to the
> complex tax code.

1. The flat tax will never happen (one of the many reasons is that the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction will lower the value of all residential property in America and bankrupt at least a million people (and a huge number of banks).

2. Even if we did get a flat tax the code would be complex since it takes a lot of detail to define “income” (if a corner store sells a candy bar for $1 are they taxed on the $1 of “income”, or can they deduct the cost of the candy bar? Can they deduct the salary of the guy that sold the candy bar? How about depreciating the candy rack or the building?)…

> Of course, the complexity of the tax code is all a result
> of lots of “rich people like myself and my friends” getting
> the special tax breaks of the type that applies only to
> “Sacramento Valley gentleman shrimp farmers in zip
> code 9xxxx with at least one windmill, and a blind
> brother-in-law that resides in Bermuda”. Ok, I’m
> exaggerating just a little bit here.

You are not exaggerating very much… I won’t name any of the people I know with hunting land in the Delta Area with special tax deals that make the example above look tame. I remember that Bernie Cantor (the Guy who founded Cantor Fitzgerald) took advantage of a special tax deduction when donating a piece of art before he died and it turns out that the way the law was worded only a single piece of art (the one he donated) would have been covered by the tax law…

> What the US needs is a good solid PROGRESSIVE
> taxation system with no deductive loopholes. End
> of story.

If the US want’s to say it is the land of equal opportunity everyone should have to pay the same tax “rate” and get the same SAT score to get in to public colleges

> Thanks, Astrid, for pointing out that the paper shuffle tax
> (capital gains tax) should NOT NOT NOT be lower than the
> real work sweat tax (regular income tax).

I’m all for this so if an actor makes $10mm on a movie he pays 20% and a guy at McDonalds makes $16K a year he pays 20% and If Grandma sells her Microsoft stock she pays 20% on the gain…

> And spare me the argument about all the rich people
> who are “creating jobs” with their capital and need extra-
> super-special rewards for it. Give me a freaking break.
> It is mostly OPM, and what else would they with it anyway.

The “rich” do “create” a lot more jobs than poor people and if the government takes away the upside of taking risks and hiring people the rich will just stick their cash in tax free munis or overseas…

Look at it this way, if this was 100% financial decision

Nice another ESL maggot. Hey fuckwad, learn some fuckin enrish why don't you. Afer all parent pay for correge why not rearn enrish?

To be considered as part of the community and not to be frowned upon.

Hmm, nice ESL. I rike your enrish, rots of ruck on your fitting in. Just be sure not to talk, otherwise risk retting peopre know not enrish speaker.

Just another trash talking piece of shit immigrant. Nice work!

FormerAptBroker Says:
We already have great systems in the US to get people out of the “trap” of paying too much rent to save a deposit.
The first “system” is great for lazy people since they don’t need to work harder or get a new job.

yes, that's right, FAB, the market takes care of everyone, and anyone who falls through the gaps is just 'lazy'. the answer is always just to get a better job or go to college. thus is the US welfare state defined...

that is why wal-mart workers are earning $6 ph -- why don't they just go to college and become corporate attorneys? or, of course, they can just work 2 $6 ph jobs for 80 hours per week, because that's all the quality of life they deserve. very soon there will be no wal-mart workers in the country at all, nor any other sort of store clerk, and corporate attorneys will have to select goods from online catalogues. and just how many hours per week does the $10M a year CEO work? or the inheritance brat?

astrid Says:
Renting offers certain advantages over owning, such as flexibility and cheapness, that may in fact be a positive for working class or lower income but upwardly mobile people. Those people often needs flexibility of payment, flexibility to move, and comparative cheapness much more than whatever equity they might be able to accumulate in the first 10 or 15 years of “ownership.”

Furthermore, debt servicing on any concept of short term “ownership” will largely wipe out the advantage any actual equity.

'rent to own' schemes are just about giving people a break. they have traditionally revolved around public housing ownership. the idea is that rental amounts go to a credit system which is actually buying equity rather than being 'dead money'. there are a lot of concessions made to these people, i.e. it is effectively offering an interest free loan. they are not in the loop of the usual mainstream usurious practices.

you can still remain mobile, you keep your equity balance and transfer it to another place. hence the idea of a lifelong 'housing credit' scheme. so you still get flexibility and cheapness.

it requires a fairly radical shift in thinking. but i have to ask you, if you could pay all your rental amounts into an equity account instead of landlords pockets, and still have the option of relocating, isn't that a better deal? perhaps the banks, the REI and the 'capitalists' have just set things up to suit themselves?

FormerAptBroker says:

> And spare me the argument about all the rich people
> who are “creating jobs” with their capital and need extra-
> super-special rewards for it. Give me a freaking break.
> It is mostly OPM, and what else would they with it anyway.

The “rich” do “create” a lot more jobs than poor people and if the government takes away the upside of taking risks and hiring people the rich will just stick their cash in tax free munis or overseas…

yeah, but the rich have been taking away an increasingly large share of corporate earnings in the last decade or two. they are increasingly looking like self-serving robber barons. the 'creation of jobs' argument seems to be just a side-effect of the rich needing a network of people to gather money for them, to be paid at the lowest hourly wage possible, and screwed down at every possible opportunity. alternatives to this system are co-ops, for instance, which empower and motivate workers and give them a fairer share of profits (aka share options in the current zeitgeist, I suppose). workers unite!

Bruce Says:

> justme, Like you, I’ve never lived under anything but
> a progressive tax system. But I’m willing to consider
> that placing progressivity in the realm of taxes removes
> it from life. Under the present conditions, if you work
> to build financial independence you keep less of what
> you’ve accomplished.

While the US “technically” has a “progressive” tax system in reality is does not. Over the years I’ve seen hundreds of tax returns of real estate owners who make a ton of money but pay a lower tax rate than all but the super poor who pay almost nothing…

It is not just real estate owners who take advantage of depreciation it is almost every richer than average person who pays a lower rate.

Example #1 Truck Driving Bob makes $29K is in the 15% tax bracket, rents a crappy apartment and is making payment on the used ’98 Camaro he just bought and pays a full 15% of the $29K he makes to Uncle Sam (plus Social Security and other taxes)

Example #2 Tom the CPA makes $155K a year and is in the 33% tax bracket, owns a $2mm condo with a $1.25mm 5% IO loan, maxes out his 401K and since he is well over the standard deduction with his CA taxes he also writes off donations at church and the charity golf tournaments he goes to every few months. Tom’s “Taxable Income” will be just over $50K so his “tax rate” will be about 11% of what he makes (and less than half of the 25% rate that Truck Driving Bob’s supervisor who makes $35K is paying)…

Flat tax for everything would take away a lot of the tax characterization business (both temporal and types). Taking away loopholes AKA deductions would take away a lot more. While a flat tax won't lead to starving tax attorneys, at least some of them could be channeled into bankruptcy work...or something.

Different Sean Says:

> yeah, but the rich have been taking away an increasingly
> large share of corporate earnings in the last decade or two.

Actually the opposite is true in big US companies with unionized workforces since it is the huge increases in salaries and benefits over the last decade or two that have taken the largest share of corporate earnings (the rich auto industry stockholders have not had a happy decade).

> they are increasingly looking like self-serving robber barons.
> the ‘creation of jobs’ argument seems to be just a side-effect
> of the rich needing a network of people to gather money for
> them, to be paid at the lowest hourly wage possible, and
> screwed down at every possible opportunity.

The people that move items in front of a scanner and wait for the “beep” before they “gather money” are lucky to have jobs since it is only a matter of time before automated checkouts force many of them to look for a new line of work.

> alternatives to this system are co-ops, for instance, which
> empower and motivate workers and give them a fairer
> share of profits (aka share options in the current zeitgeist,
> I suppose). workers unite!

Comrade Sean, better advice than “workers unite” would be “workers get educated” or “workers learn how to create value”. Co-Ops generally don’t work (with the exception of places like Berkeley and Davis where smelly hippies will pay extra to shop at a store staffed by fellow smelly hippies) and “workers” would do a lot better if they figured out how to make the boss more money so he would pay them more rather than “uniting” with a bunch of lazy stupid losers who barely have a IQ high enough to point the box in the right direction so the scanner “beeps”…

FormerAptBroker Says:
Actually the opposite is true in big US companies with unionized workforces since it is the huge increases in salaries and benefits over the last decade or two that have taken the largest share of corporate earnings (the rich auto industry stockholders have not had a happy decade).

that's simply untrue. 5 minutes research will demonstrate the lie. I would check the salaries of the execs in the big 3 before I spoke, FAB, apart from the fact that you've conveniently selected just one industry that happens to be in trouble (and the execs will still have their hands in the cookie jar there, i assure you). more FAB instant statistics and anecdotes on the fly, I thought you'd grown out of that habit.

Sean, since it would only take five minutes of research to support your conclusion, why don't you post some research that supports your conclusion? Otherwise it seems hypocritical to accuse FAB of fabricating his facts.

Different Sean Says:

> yes, that’s right, FAB, the market takes care of everyone,
> and anyone who falls through the gaps is just ‘lazy’.

Actually most people that “fall through the gaps” are not “just lazy” they are usually both stupid “and” lazy (with many smoking a lot of pot making them even stupider and lazier)…

> that is why wal-mart workers are earning $6 ph — why
> don’t they just go to college and become corporate attorneys?
> or, of course, they can just work 2 $6 ph jobs for 80 hours
> per week, because that’s all the quality of life they deserve.

The average Wal Mart employee makes well over $6/hr and the average “full time” Wal Mart employee makes over $9.50 an hour. In most of America you can rent a room for $100 a month and get free tuition at a Junior College to learn how to do something that pays more than $10/hr. If you are smarter than average you can transfer to a real College or if you are dumber than average you can still make great money out of a JC if you learn to weld, fight fires or even cut hair…

P.S. One of my mechanics told me that he is having hard time finding a Junior mechanic in SF that will work for “only” $55K…

FAB is working extra hard to claim the honor of being the first of the petit bourgeoisie rentiers against the wall come the glorious revolution (only after the robber barons). here's an article and a website. it even has a little picture.

Trends in CEO Pay

In 2005, the average CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 company received $13.51 million in total compensation, according to an analysis by The Corporate Library. This represents a 16.14 percent increase in CEO pay over 2004.[1]

A reasonable and fair compensation system for executives and workers is fundamental to the creation of long-term corporate value. However, the past two decades have seen an unprecedented growth in compensation only for top executives and a dramatic increase in the ratio between the compensation of executives and their employees.

Boards of directors are responsible for setting CEO pay. Too often, directors have awarded compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and retain executives and have rewarded even poorly performing CEOs. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders as well as the company and its employees.

Excessive CEO pay takes dollars out of the pockets of shareholders—including the retirement savings of America’s working families. Moreover, a poorly designed executive compensation package can reward decisions that are not in the long-term interests of a company, its shareholders and employees.

For example, recent scholarly studies have linked CEO stock options to accounting fraud and other financial restatements.[2] Stock option grants promise executives all the benefit of share price increases with none of the risk of share price declines. For this reason, stock options can serve as powerful incentive for executives to cook the books.

Some CEOs may have far greater control over their pay than anybody previously suspected. According to new research, certain CEOs may be backdating their own stock option grants to maximize their value. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Year after year, some companies’ top executives received options on unusually propitious dates.”[3]

Excessive CEO pay is fundamentally a corporate governance problem. When CEOs have too much power in the boardroom, they are able to extract what economists’ call “economic rents” from shareholders—the equivalent of monopoly profits. These rents are known as “agency costs,” and arise from the separation of ownership and control.

The board of directors is supposed to protect shareholder interests and minimize these agency costs. However, at approximately two-thirds of companies, the CEO is the board’s chair. When one single person serves as both chair and CEO, it is impossible to objectively monitor and evaluate his or her own performance.

CEOs also dominate the election of directors. The vast majority of directors are hand-picked by incumbent management. Because of the proxy rules, it is cost prohibitive for shareholders to run their own director candidates. Moreover, even if a majority of shareholders withhold support from directors, they are still elected to the board at most companies.

Ultimately, shareholders have to be able to trust their boards of directors to set responsible CEO pay packages. For this reason, CEO pay will be reformed only when corporate boards are made more accountable. Until then, CEOs will continue to influence the size and form of their own compensation, and CEO pay will continue to rise.

Sean, while that was typical fare in the debate of CEO pay, you did not demonstrate that they are taking more of a corporation's profits than they were just a few years ago. Many large companies have become more profitable in the last couple years.

Additionally, with so much of CEO pay based on stock options (backdated though they be), if a stock surges and makes the CEO a lot of money, it also creates considerable wealth for shareholders. I have done quite well in recent years holding stocks like Procter & Gamble. A.G. Lafley may have taken home a lot more in options, but he has also doubled the stock and made brilliant acquisitions in the last five years.

I am still curious to see if further digging will yield better proof that CEOs are taking more of a company's profits compared to 5-10 years ago. I have seen anecdotal evidence that FAB is correct; union employees that I know have been getting better pensions and benefits, plus a rise in pay in recent years (sectors like automotive excepted).

Actually most people that “fall through the gaps” are not “just lazy” they are usually both stupid “and” lazy (with many smoking a lot of pot making them even stupider and lazier)…

oh right, you've done a nationwide scientific study on the prevalence of stupidity and laziness and its moral hazards, have you?

The average Wal Mart employee makes well over $6/hr and the average “full time” Wal Mart employee makes over $9.50 an hour.

sorry, where do you get that from? the MSM article I've read points out a basic wage of $6.25 an hour. is 25c 'well over'?

In most of America you can rent a room for $100 a month and get free tuition at a Junior College to learn how to do something that pays more than $10/hr. If you are smarter than average you can transfer to a real College or if you are dumber than average you can still make great money out of a JC if you learn to weld, fight fires or even cut hair…

participation rates at american colleges are actually quite high by world standards. however, many graduates find that their degrees are irrelevant or unused in their jobs, and that their jobs are far more mundane than they expected. and they may have amassed a massive student debt in the process.

it's good *if* you can find a room for $100 per month and gain free tuition in JC, though, perhaps that should be a more widely adopted model in the RE industry in general. $25 a week rental!

once again, you want to disallow the existence of a large spectrum of the population, some of whom you contradictorily exploit for unearned rent profits, in order to satisfy an elitist theory that 'those that got, have got' and the rest don't really deserve anything if they're not smart enough to take advantage of others or throw capital around in huge chunks...

I am still curious to see if further digging will yield better proof that CEOs are taking more of a company’s profits compared to 5-10 years ago.

Look at the little picture if you follow the link. I don't think I'm able to embed an image here unless I author the thread.

Or, do the 5 minutes research I recommended.

Different Sean Says:

> yeah, but the rich have been taking away an increasingly
> large share of corporate earnings in the last decade or two.

Then I wrote: (Capitals added the second time)

Actually the opposite is true in big US companies with unionized workforces since it is the huge increases in salaries and benefits over the last decade or two that have taken the largest share of CORPORATE EARNINGS (the rich auto industry stockholders have not had a happy decade).

Different Sean Says:

> that’s simply untrue. 5 minutes research will demonstrate the
> lie. I would check the salaries of the execs in the big 3 before
> I spoke.

We were talking about the “largest share of CORPORATE EARNINGS”. While the increase in executive salaries have been large (and Different Sean may be surprised that I find most of them excessive and unjustified) even the huge nutty excessive executive compensation has not taken a bigger bite out of CORPORATE EARNINGS as the salaries and benefits paid to current and retired union workers (GM has many people who have been getting retirement pensions and benefits from the company for more years than they actually worked at the company).

Then Brand Says:

> Sean, since it would only take five minutes of research to
> support your conclusion, why don’t you post some research that
> supports your conclusion? Otherwise it seems hypocritical to
> accuse FAB of fabricating his facts.

Left wingers never let “facts” get in the way a a good rant…

Then Different Sean Says:

> FAB is working extra hard to claim the honor of being the first of
> the petit bourgeoisie rentiers against the wall come the glorious
> revolution (only after the robber barons). here’s an article and a
> website. it even has a little picture.

We agree that CEO pay is excessive, but I’m waiting for a link to a site that shows a single industry with Union Workers that is paying a higher percentage of CORPORATE EARNINGS to executives or shareholders today than they paid in the past or a link to a single company (forget the auto industry) that is paying a lower percentage of CORPORATE EARNINGS in payroll and benefits…

P.S. Look at US executive remuneration increases over the last 20 years and compare with increases in CPI or even total GDP in the same period. I don't think you'll find that they're tracking together. You can point anecdotally to the success of *one* particular company, etc, and how well earned and richly deserving the CEO is, but there has been a universal trend to re-appraising exec salaries upwards, regardless of the relative success of the particular company. Further, stock price increases are simply smoke and mirrors, that do not necessarily reflect the true worth of a company or measure its productive or social usefulness. Stock prices rise and fall depending on the mood of the market. Bio-techs and dotcoms were heavily overvalued in 2000, for instance.

Different Sean Says:

> Look at US executive remuneration increases over
> the last 20 years and compare with increases in CPI
> or even total GDP in the same period. I don’t think
> you’ll find that they’re tracking together.

We all know that most executives are overpaid since the system is rigged with guys (who are often in the same Camp at the Grove) voting on each others pay.

The problem is that as crazy as it is executive pay is still taking a relatively small percentage of corporate profits compared to employee and benefits. General motors has well over a MILLION current and retired workers (throw in spouses who also eligible for benefits and it is way over a million).

If the top guys with a “C” in front of their titles get an extra million next year it will take less of the overall corporate earnings as a $1 per month increase to the workers and former workers.

I wrote:

> Actually most people that “fall through the gaps” are
> not “just lazy” they are usually both stupid “and” lazy
> (with many smoking a lot of pot making them even
> stupider and lazier)…

Different Sean Says:

> oh right, you’ve done a nationwide scientific study on the
> prevalence of stupidity and laziness and its moral hazards,
> have you?

I did write “most” to cover the super smart hard working guy who may have once ended up on welfare at one time. I’m wondering if in Different Sean’s world he would describe all the people who fell through the gaps and ended up at the welfare office or on skid row as “smart hard working”?

(I could say something about time and postmodernism here...but I'd better not)

There's another 5 minutes work. I don't know about addressing FAB's increasingly tortuous exceptions to exceptions to make a point which he disagrees with himself anyway. I've gotta run some errands. 'Unionised' workers pay does NOT go up 16% a year... and you begrudge a few pension funds for workers (the ones who actually built the cars) but don't worry about massive golden hellos and golden parachutes...

US executive pay goes off the scale

David Teather in New York
Thursday August 4, 2005
The Guardian

Hewlett Packard has had a costly few months. Chief executive Carly Fiorina took $42m with her when she was forced out of the computer and printer maker after failing to deliver on profits. Her replacement, Mark Hurd, was then given a $20m golden hello. That, of course, was in addition to his annual salary, which could reach $22m a year.

Whatever the hand wringing about pay scales in Britain, they are dwarfed by the cash and perks lavished on executives in corporate America.

Examples are easy to find. Richard Grasso, the former head of the New York Stock Exchange was ousted after it emerged he had accrued $190m in deferred compensation; Philip Purcell, the boss of Morgan Stanley, the underperforming Wall Street bank, was forced out and pocketed $113m; the top three executives of Viacom shared a total of $160m last year. Stan O'Neal, of Merrill Lynch, earned $32m in 2004; Richard Fauld, at Lehman Brothers, got $26.3m, and James Cayne, at Bear Stearns, got almost $25m.

A journalist worked out that it would take someone on the US minimum wage around 11,000 years to earn the $109m banked last year by Yahoo chief Terry Semel.

After a couple of years of moderate falls in compensation, following the end of the technology boom and a slew of corporate scandals, executive pay in the US was back on the rise again last year.

A survey of the top 179 companies by the consultancy Pearl Meyer found that the average payout for chief executives rose 13% in 2004 to $10.5m. The average bonus was up 24% to $2.3m.

Chief executive pay in the US has risen dramatically over the past 25 years, going into overdrive during the 1990s boom.

Figures published by the labour federation, the AFL-CIO, show how far the gap has grown. In 1980, a chief executive made $42 for every dollar earned by a blue-collar worker. By 1990, that gap was $85. But the real gains in the boardroom were made in the decade that followed as firms ramped up share options. By 2000, chief executives were earning $531 for every dollar taken home by a typical worker.

Another way of looking at the growth is that the compensation given to the top five executives in a company accounted for about 10% of that firm's earnings in 2003, compared to 5% in 1995, according to a Harvard study.

Paul Hodgson, a compensation expert at the consultancy Corporate Library, said the increases have two points of origin; stock options riding the bull market, and what he calls the "ratchet" effect. "A chief executive will look around at peers and say 'I want what he is getting'," he says. He believes the increases can only continue.

When executive salaries hit the political radar in the US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, in a rare pithy moment, described the "infectious greed" that had taken hold of corporate America during the late 1990s that led to fraud at the likes of Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing.

In the years that followed the boom salaries did fall, chiefly due to the drop in the value of stock options. According to the Harvard study, which stretches back to 1993, chief executive pay fell from an average of $17.4m in 2000 among the broad S&P 500 index of companies, to $9.1m in 2003. But the recovery of the markets means chief executive compensation is again edging higher. Mr Hodgson says that a key problem is that American investors are not as vocal as they are in Britain.

If there is no concerted effort to curb excessive executive pay in the US, there is at least growing concern about rewards for failure.

Shareholders in Morgan Stanley are rolling up their sleeves for a fight over Mr Purcell's riches. More perverse was the deal offered to co-president Stephen Crawford: $32m over the next two years or the entire sum upfront if he quit. Not surprisingly, he quit.

Salaries and bonuses are not the only way that executives are getting rich - there are also retirement plans, golden hellos and windfalls when a firm is bought.

Gillette chief executive James Kilts, for instance, will get around $95m from selling the firm to Procter & Gamble due to a clause in his contract. Hank McKinnell, the chairman and chief executive of Pfizer, will be paid $6.5m a year in pension benefits after he retires while Lee Raymond at Exxon Mobil will get $5.9m a year, at a time when many companies are paring back the pensions they pay to ordinary workers.

Other perks have previously gone almost unnoticed but pressure from investors and regulators is forcing better disclosure. Bank of America recently disclosed it paid $36,000 for security at chief executive Kenneth Lewis's home, in addition to his $22m salary.

It is not uncommon for shareholders to foot the bill for a chairman's club membership. In April, Viacom disclosed that it was reimbursing co-presidents Leslie Moonves and Thomas Freston for sleeping in their own homes on business, on top of their $20m salaries.

Note executive remuneration has jumped from 5% to 10% of corporate earnings in the preceding article over 20 years. I'm not sure what it is you're even arguing against, to be honest. You took exception to 'robber baron' and now agree with it. hmmm

Gah! The folds upon folds resemble the theoretical physics of a black hole. DS attacks FAB for hypocritical "high point" selection, and then mounts his attack with anecdotal high points himself. Resorting to quoting journalists about something dramatic is like asking Satan to elaborate on the usefulness of selling him your eternal soul--the brochure looks fantastic, but the eventual facts are somewhat vapid and searingly painful.

Somebody get Randy H or DInOR back on this thread before the hypocrisy about hypocrisy begins to distort the space-time continuum. Otherwise we're approaching the asymptote where Peter P's commentary on spirituality exceeds simple economics. astrid, save us by mentioning something yummy! I have no answer to my acidic and carbonated red wine question from last thread...

Or to agree with FAB: Left wingers never let “facts” get in the way a a good rant…

... but they often let a good rant get in the way of wealth and facts. After all, for the philosopher it is far worthier to be destitute but full of inspiration than full of good food and with a dearth of things to rebel against.

FAB, I am seeing some apartment buildings go up for sale in my city. 4x and 10x, I am curious on your views of how to make these units profitable, maintenance costs, etc. A few buildings are almost the same as a single family home, and since my housing needs are next to nothing and my cashflow excellent, I am curious how to work the equation.

Brand,

I'm working on a new thread "The Internal Revenue Code Made Me Do It!"

Meanwhile, feel free to argue about the virtues of thick crust pizzas versus thin crust pizzas. (Double points for anyone who can convincing add Erlend Oye into a discussion about pizza crusts).

-convincing
+convincingly

FAB,

My previous post about GS bonuses was a paraphrase of something I read. I am quite willing to stand corrected about the meaning of structured finance, but I don't see how a CDO team leader could be considered worthy of a bonus in the tens of millions.

But then, I don't work in IB.

asking Satan to elaborate on the usefulness of selling him your eternal soul–the brochure looks fantastic, but the eventual facts are somewhat vapid and searingly painful.

sounds like our ERP provider...

DS attacks FAB for hypocritical “high point” selection, and then mounts his attack with anecdotal high points himself.

yeah, right. high points like the average of dozens of companies... maybe GDP is just an anecdotal figure too... gets republicans off the hook tho -- "OK, so the average has gone up 100% for all the Fortune 500 cos, but that's just anecdotal! - it's cherry-picking! now leave me alone to redeem my stock options..."

Oh, I do love it. For once, I'm not the one arguing with either of them. I will say that while FAB seems to like to stylize his examples to prove his arguments, DS refused to agree with me that Pi = Pi everywhere in the universe; claiming it was all some grand subjective narrative.

Personally, I like thick crust pizza.

pi only equals pi in non-Euclidean space... in fact, pi doesn't even exist except in our hearts and minds, it's a man-made convention to describe a ratio :P

I had blueberry pi for my birthday earlier this month. :)

- non

FAB,

I'll grant you that calling our domestic tax structure progressive is something of a misnomer. I think it may have progressive elements, but overall the code has become barnacled over in the process of making, say, unique objects of art deductible and in the granting of other favors both worthy and not.

I'm not one of those who believe a flat tax based code would necessarily be simple; for me it's a question of equality before the law, and not a bid for simplicity.

As to the stupid or lazy, I've noticed references in early 20th century English works to the 'deserving poor' - used in the sense of 'deserving assistance' - which seems to me a useful distinction. As it implies an alternate category of the undeserving, I presume that dog won't hunt in the here and now.

Wrong FAB:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa/pen/74?bedrooms=3

Only one of those are under $2k and it is an apartment.

There nothing wrong with being wrong, but you should not be too stubborn to admit it.

Shoot, missed the flat tax discussion, when I was at my brother's "tamale party weekend."

Next time, I guess.

Different Sean Says:
Different Sean

No he didn't, is this some kind of attempt at an AI spambot?