Since we are still in full Outrage Mode over those evil executives at American companies who make too much money, it is instructive to note that top Obama economics aide Lawrence Summers made more last year than the average American CEO: $8.4 million (Summers' compensation) vs. $8.3 million (average CEO compensation).
Not only that, but several million of the $8.4 million he made last year came from giving lectures at the companies that are now being accused of being too lavish in spending their companies' money. If executive bonuses were a problem, then why is it a problem that Summers was paid as much as $225,000 per speaking engagement from these companies?
And why shouldn't he have to pay a 90 percent tax rate on those fees?
Monday, April 06, 2009
1 comment:
You are welcome to post at this blog. You are asked, however, to refrain from the following:
1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.
The host will attempt to abide by the same rules and only asks that you not provide him with the temptation to do so in return by violating them.
Failure to comply with these rules can result (depending solely on the arbitrary and inscrutable will of the host) in the deletion of offending posts and suspension of posting privileges. Such measures are more likely if you post anonymously.
No one should ever pay more than 50% of its income in taxes. The 'total tax burden' appropriately aggregates all taxes from all taxing authorities, except sales taxes. It is the fairest way to apply an aggressively progressive burden on rich and wealthy people.
ReplyDeleteThe money in one's pocket says 'United States of America'; it doesn't have your name or mine on it. The fiduciary system has enriched you and the extent it has enriched you is the proportional debt you must repay.
To call the fire hot because the kettle is black is a disengenuous application of inductive reasoning. Your way of thinking applied elsewhere would argue that because the ground is wet, the lake has receeded. That's only one outcome. It may have rained; one may have sprayed water either descriminately or indescriminately. All of which are inaccurate. It's low tide.
All of them are paid too much. I can even make an argument that you are paid too much, knowing that I have no idea what you earn using, faulty, inductive reasoning. So let's discuss the real problem: management & capital receiving illicit and userous returns on their passive contributions.