Thread: U.S. CEO Pay

^ As long as these Thais don't suck off taxpayer money, buy property, or vote in elections, I have no problem with that.

But Thais should not be given equal rights as native born U.S. citizens if they go to the U.S.

As has been stated, No foreigner can draw any SSA benefits from being married to a US citizen unless they have been in the US legally for over 5 years and have reached retirement age, which now is 62 years of age.

So how do you figure they are drawing SSA???
You keep saying that but furnish no proof.

And why should only Thai be restricted?? How about Messicans??

Originally Posted by blackgang

And why should only Thai be restricted?? How about Messicans??

All non-U.S. participants in the plans. Pay in to recieve.

So a Thai born widow who has met all the rules to be eligable should not be allowed to recieve the funds that her husband paid into and she is qualified for under the laws/rules of SSA??

so getting back on topic about CEO pay,
Well Then how do you and SHIRTSAK figure on this salary that are earned by pro athletes. as posted by FOX SPORTS

Pro football is America's most watched and most popular sport. It has been a financial bonanza for everyone from Goodell to backup players to assistant coaches. Stars like Peyton Manning and Brett Favre earn more than many corporate CEOs

Do you guys figure that you should be able to limit their salarys, even tho you hold no stocks in the NFL.

So it is just about the same thing as the pay that a CEO gets from a company that you have no monetary connection with then.



OK I understand that..

Salaries earned by pro athletes are obscene as well. The fact that taxpayers are footing the bill for stadiums AND being charged an arm and a leg to visit the game is even more obscene.

The fact that someone who merely hits or throws a ball earns more than those who save people's lives is a symptom of what's wrong in America today.

Originally Posted by blackgang

So it is just about the same thing as the pay that a CEO gets from a company that you have no monetary connection with then.



OK I understand that..

If I worked at a company that froze my pensions, had an underfunded pension, or if I agreed to a wage cut while the CEO got a multi-million dollar raise (as happened about two years ago), then yes, I'd be unhappy with that.

Also, the CEO pay is just adding more cream on top:

Look at how much the top 1% owns and controls.

Look at how much the top 5% owns and controls.

Look at how much the top 10% own and control.


Wealth means power. It usually manifests itself politically and bureaucratically.

Think as well about how the big companies get massive tax breaks that allow them to avoid paying taxes and/or get land for dirt cheap while the rest of us pay for it...and we get nothing in return. Thousands of workers get canned/laid off and the CEO gets a big bonus because 'money was saved.'

The situation with the sports teams is the same: they get taxpayer funded stadiums, infrastructure, etc. and not only do the taxpayers fund the scheme (while the owners make huge profits) but the taxpayers don't get a break either if they want to enter the stadium to see the team that is the recipient of the welfare.

It's fraud.

BUT SHIRTSAK, You admittedly pay no tax, so what is it any of your business what others do,
You do not live near a stadium so that is none of your concern either.

I have never heard about 7-11 CEO getting an obscene wage or pension plan so that is none of your business either.

And if you had paid $10 mil. for a team wouldn't you expect to make a little money??
Sure you would, and you would figure out a way so that you paid no tax..

MM, If you had a chance to set in a CEO chair, would you say that they were paying you way more than you were worth and make them cut your pay.?? Sure you would,,,,[in a pigs ass]

One time when I was a young feller I was posed to build a mile of 3 strand Barbed wire fence with a post every 10 feet, I asked what he was gonna pay,, "Well I pay ya whatever you are worth" I said "fuck that, I ain't working for that kinda money"

Very true, but it is also about human nature to want to be the highest paid in your trade, I was asked by a dredge owner to come up from Mexico and run a dredge for them, it was a piece of junk built by the guy and years before when I first saw it I said that it would never work.
Well anyway I came up and took the job, Union scale plus the benefits package on the check because it was a Davis-Bacon prevailing wage job on a City contract, $36.00 per hour with union work/pay rules, I worked mostly 7 days a week and on Sunday we got double time, one Sunday got 10 hrs, $720.00 for the day, naturally it was an obscene amount of money for a days work of standing and running a few switches, but I never said that he didn't have to pay it when he started crying about it.

That's quite a long way from being paid $3,000 a day for kicking a ball around a piece of grass once a week for 90 minutes.

Or whining because $3,000 per day isn't enough.

I live in a city where the city is potentially going to take more taxpayer money to spend on another stadium to attract yet another useless professional team. It's BS that we as taxpayers are asked to finance the construction AND fail to get even a discount on a ticket.

Originally Posted by surasak

Or whining because $3,000 per day isn't enough.

I live in a city where the city is potentially going to take more taxpayer money to spend on another stadium to attract yet another useless professional team. It's BS that we as taxpayers are asked to finance the construction AND fail to get even a discount on a ticket.

Well...move!

On the topic of sports teams, here a brief background on Seattle Mariners.

In 1995 there was a Country referendum (vote) for citizens of King county to pay for (fund) their new stadium. (The team owners were threatening to leave.)

The referendum was very close. But "no" won. County citizens didn't want to pay for it.

So....the Washington State Legislature then made all citizens of the entire state of Washington pay for the new stadium.

This isn't fair to someone who lives 6 hours away in Spokane. And it's not really to people that don't follow the Mariners.

(After the stadium was finished over budgey by multi-millions the Mariners owner - Nintendo Corporation - wanted the taxpayers to pay for the additional costs.

The Mariners are a welfare baseball team that cater to the yuppies that go to these games.

Screw 'em.

Please leave town.

They are all welfare teams.

Taxpayers shouldn't finance things for corporations (which are what sports teams are) if the corporation isn't going to give something back to the city/county/state providing the financing (as least discounted tickets....christ, even the games get blacked out locally - thereby forcing the taxpayer to pay to see the game - doubly insulting).

It's a measure of a corrupt and screwed up society when a person who merely kicks, hits, or catches a ball makes more money than 99% of the population. It's really no different than an overpaid CEO who not only fails to bring a company forward but takes hundreds of millions in compensation while at the same time laying off or outsourcing jobs. Just disgusting.

OK so what you are really pissed about is the fact that you do not nor ever will be in the money class of those people and you do not see where anyone should make more money than you do or ever will.

But just look at the upside,, if you were making that kind of money, or even what a regular working stiff makes then you would have to pay income tax and then you would have a right to gripe about what tax payers are stuck for.

Originally Posted by blackgang

OK so what you are really pissed about is the fact that you do not nor ever will be in the money class of those people and you do not see where anyone should make more money than you do or ever will.

I don't know who you're referring to BG, but as for myself, if the market pays a baseball player $100 million, I don't care.

If....taxpayer are forced to pay for the stadium, I do care.


Welfare.

I don't know why people automatically assume that because one opposes high salaries that it's due to jealousy or the fact that one makes less. It has nothing to do with that.

It's just plain wrong, it's immoral, and it's unethical that any one person who contributes so very little to society as a whole would be paid so much money for doing something so worthless.

If we paid people what they were worth in terms of contributing to society then doctors, firefighters, solidiers, paramedics, etc. ought to be the ones making hundreds of millions since saving lives (I think) ranks up near the top of being 'worthy.' Running a company into the ground while laying off thousands or hitting a ball 300-400 yards is less important than cleaning a toilet.

Steve Jobs, for example, isn't worth $1 billion if his morality and ethics are so low that people must work in sweatshop conditions overseas (because it's illegal in the United States) in order to provide the products that allow him to putt around in his Gulf Stream daily.

Capitalism is a good system but when it runs out of control it no longer has great value.

Just a little while ago you were bitching about what medical care costs, now it seems that according to you it should cost more.

I don't think I will listen to or believe what you say anymore, Can't seem to make up your mind.

O well there goes another Hero..

Fair comment, BG, but I don't think Surasak was seriously suggesting that we all pay $200 for a prescription drug so we can pay doctors and nurses a decent wage. It's more about the fact that a free-market economy with capitalist doctrine means that those at the top end up with a much disproportionate share of the profits than those who tend to do most of the work. Of course, there are fewer people at the top to take all that money, it woudn't make much difference if it was split, say, 200,000 ways amongst the work force.

It's not that those higher up the ladder get paid more, it's that they get paid a ridiculous amount, out of proportion to their contribution. That's Surasak's point, and it is very valid.

Originally Posted by Wallace

It's not that those higher up the ladder get paid more, it's that they get paid a ridiculous amount, out of proportion to their contribution. That's Surasak's point, and it is very valid.

Bingo.