Purpose of any Company is Profits - screw the workers - Page 6

classicman · 04-22-2009, 10:19 PM

:faints:

sugarpop · 04-22-2009, 10:29 PM

See? I can admit when I'm wrong. I hope you didn't hit your head on the way down.

Spexxvet · 04-23-2009, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Oh and the number of execs making 10 or 20 million is not as large as you appear to think.

Really? What number of execs make 10 or 20 million, and how many does she think?

Shawnee123 · 04-23-2009, 08:10 AM

It's a great site.

You can delve further and see where the money comes from, for each one. A large portion of Obama's cash comes from book sales.

That's IT. No more book writing for you fuckers.

TheMercenary · 04-23-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

yes, I do. I say it over and over, the top 2 %. But people here still seem to think I am talking about them.

People in the top 2% earn above 200k. That is not uber rich. It is not people who make millions. It is barely upper middle class in many parts of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

According to this link the top 5% make $153,542 and above, the top !% make $388,806.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 03:22 PM

The New York Times reported Thursday on an analysis of income tax data carried out by Prof. Emmanuel Saez of University of California-Berkeley and Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, well known for their work on income inequality.

Their research indicates that in 2005 the top 1 percent of all Americans, some 3 million people, received their largest share of the national income since 1928: 21.8 percent, up from 19.8 percent only the year before—a 10 increase percent in one year. The incomes of this group, those making more than $348,000 a year, rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of over $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The top 10 percent of the population carried away some 48.5 percent of all reported income in the US in 2005—also the highest percentage since 1928, on the eve of the Depression—an increase of 2 percent from 2004, and up from 33 percent of the reported total in the late 1970s.

The top tenth of 1 percent (300,000 people) and top one-hundredth of 1 percent (30,000 people) enjoyed the greatest increases of all. “The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6 million, up $908,000, while the top one-hundredth of a percent had an average income of $25.7 million, up nearly $4.4 million in one year,” according to David Cay Johnston’s article.

The top one-tenth of 1 percent of the US population had nearly as much income in 2005 as the bottom 150 million Americans. Each of those 300,000 individuals received 440 times as much income as the average person on the bottom half of the economic ladder, “nearly doubling the gap from 1980.”

While total reported income rose almost 9 percent in the US during the course of 2005, average incomes for the bottom 90 percent of the population actually dropped, by $172 compared with the year before, or 0.6 percent.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/ma...inco-m30.shtml

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 03:30 PM

A chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid, on average, $10.4 million in total compensation in 2008, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library.

Excessive executive compensation has taken center stage since the government bailout of banks that began in September 2008. Americans have expressed outrage as CEOs and other executives responsible for the financial crisis have pocketed millions of dollars from bonuses and golden parachutes. CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248—or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker. Meanwhile, the economy tanked for working people while many companies were bailed out with more than $700 billion in taxpayer money, as well as low-interest loans and guarantees.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/

In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 - 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik. Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says.
http://blogs.payscale.com/content/20...laries--1.html

TheMercenary · 04-23-2009, 03:46 PM

None of that really supports your complaint that the top 1% are the problem. The top 10% also pay most of the taxes. The percents you are talking about are more likely the 0.1%.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 03:53 PM

WHATEVER dude. IF the bottom was paid more fairly, NO ONE would need to pay as much in taxes because we would need LESS government programs to support the ones at the bottom. If they were paid enough to actually support themselves, then why would we NEED foodstamps or welfare programs?

You really don't get where I am coming from, at all. And that bothers me, a LOT, because you know me.

Undertoad · 04-23-2009, 04:56 PM

Here's how it works, sug: income inequality increases during good times, decreases during bad times. The rich take profits when there are profits, and when there are no profits, they don't, you follow?

These studies end in 2005? Take it to 2008 and the numbers will be completely different.

And the rich people you hate so well all have 401ks and other retirement investments... all cut in half when the bubble popped. The poor, meanwhile did not have so many such things. So don't worry your li'l haid off about this issue. The bust solved it for you.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 05:10 PM

One was 2004, the other one was from 2008. But thanks UT, for trying.

Undertoad · 04-23-2009, 05:15 PM

The bust solved it for you, and you didn't notice it because you didn't know what to look for.

sugarpop · 04-23-2009, 05:22 PM

The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face?

Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.

classicman · 04-23-2009, 05:35 PM

Whatcha think their income/net worth changed % wise over say, the last 6 months?

classicman · 04-23-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I'm not holding my breath.

Please do it may solve a whole host of other issues.

04-22-2009, 10:19 PM	#76
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	:faints: __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

04-23-2009, 08:10 AM	#79
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	It's a great site. You can delve further and see where the money comes from, for each one. A large portion of Obama's cash comes from book sales. That's IT. No more book writing for you fuckers. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

04-23-2009, 03:46 PM	#83
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	None of that really supports your complaint that the top 1% are the problem. The top 10% also pay most of the taxes. The percents you are talking about are more likely the 0.1%. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

04-23-2009, 05:35 PM	#89
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Whatcha think their income/net worth changed % wise over say, the last 6 months? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-22-2009, 10:29 PM	#77
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	See? I can admit when I'm wrong. I hope you didn't hit your head on the way down.

04-23-2009, 03:22 PM	#81
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	The New York Times reported Thursday on an analysis of income tax data carried out by Prof. Emmanuel Saez of University of California-Berkeley and Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, well known for their work on income inequality. Their research indicates that in 2005 the top 1 percent of all Americans, some 3 million people, received their largest share of the national income since 1928: 21.8 percent, up from 19.8 percent only the year before—a 10 increase percent in one year. The incomes of this group, those making more than $348,000 a year, rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of over $139,000, or about 14 percent. The top 10 percent of the population carried away some 48.5 percent of all reported income in the US in 2005—also the highest percentage since 1928, on the eve of the Depression—an increase of 2 percent from 2004, and up from 33 percent of the reported total in the late 1970s. The top tenth of 1 percent (300,000 people) and top one-hundredth of 1 percent (30,000 people) enjoyed the greatest increases of all. “The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6 million, up $908,000, while the top one-hundredth of a percent had an average income of $25.7 million, up nearly $4.4 million in one year,” according to David Cay Johnston’s article. The top one-tenth of 1 percent of the US population had nearly as much income in 2005 as the bottom 150 million Americans. Each of those 300,000 individuals received 440 times as much income as the average person on the bottom half of the economic ladder, “nearly doubling the gap from 1980.” While total reported income rose almost 9 percent in the US during the course of 2005, average incomes for the bottom 90 percent of the population actually dropped, by $172 compared with the year before, or 0.6 percent. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/ma...inco-m30.shtml

04-23-2009, 03:30 PM	#82
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	A chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid, on average, $10.4 million in total compensation in 2008, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library. Excessive executive compensation has taken center stage since the government bailout of banks that began in September 2008. Americans have expressed outrage as CEOs and other executives responsible for the financial crisis have pocketed millions of dollars from bonuses and golden parachutes. CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248—or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker. Meanwhile, the economy tanked for working people while many companies were bailed out with more than $700 billion in taxpayer money, as well as low-interest loans and guarantees. http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 - 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik. Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says. http://blogs.payscale.com/content/20...laries--1.html

04-23-2009, 03:53 PM	#84
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	WHATEVER dude. IF the bottom was paid more fairly, NO ONE would need to pay as much in taxes because we would need LESS government programs to support the ones at the bottom. If they were paid enough to actually support themselves, then why would we NEED foodstamps or welfare programs? You really don't get where I am coming from, at all. And that bothers me, a LOT, because you know me.

04-23-2009, 04:56 PM	#85
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Here's how it works, sug: income inequality increases during good times, decreases during bad times. The rich take profits when there are profits, and when there are no profits, they don't, you follow? These studies end in 2005? Take it to 2008 and the numbers will be completely different. And the rich people you hate so well all have 401ks and other retirement investments... all cut in half when the bubble popped. The poor, meanwhile did not have so many such things. So don't worry your li'l haid off about this issue. The bust solved it for you.

04-23-2009, 05:10 PM	#86
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	One was 2004, the other one was from 2008. But thanks UT, for trying.

04-23-2009, 05:15 PM	#87
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The bust solved it for you, and you didn't notice it because you didn't know what to look for.

04-23-2009, 05:22 PM	#88
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face? Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)