Ten of the top 20 financial bailout firms have revealed the details of stock options pocketed in early 2009. Based on rising stock prices, the top five executives at each of these banks have enjoyed a combined increase in the value of their stock options of nearly $90 million…

The Bounty for Bailout Barons: From 2006 through 2008, the top five executives at the 20 banks that have accepted the most federal bailout dollars since the meltdown averaged $32 million each in personal compensation. One hundred average U.S. workers would have to labor over 1,000 years to make as much as these 100 executives made in three.

My heart applauds the thinking behind such a restriction but I really don't want the *government* to be making this decision. If you look at compensation in Europe versus the U.S., for instance, the “wage gap” is much MUCH smaller. Why? Is it the ta code? Is it the culture? I don't know (and I haven't done a search in a long time to see if any researcher has tried to tease this apart).

One problem imposing such a restriction here: the myth that anyone — even if they start dirt poor — born in the U.S. can grow up to be filthy rich. Another is that we over-emphasize money as the measurement of “success.”

Sigh. Here's data released last month:

In 2007, the average ratio between salaries for a chief executive and American worker was 344 to one. That figure dipped to 319 in 2008, but is likely to rise this year, which is “really worrisome,” says John Cavanagh, the Institute's director.

“If nothing is done — if the federal government does nothing this fall in terms of CEO pay, the ratio will likely go up this year and there will be huge stock option gains by the CEOs of some of the worst-run companies,” he says.

[...]

“If you go back a generation in this country, on average it was about 30-to-1.”

A few leftists have advocated the “maximum wage” for quite some time (Pizzigati is well-known now).

The maximum-wage idea (even more than a high-to-low ratio) is at least as old as the New Deal.

If we're subjected to slavery, I have to retreat to another philosophical position: approx. 61.8 per cent (a natural or true super-majority threshold). There's no question whatsoever that above this amount is not only slavery, but truly is oppressive and possessing every other negative connotation possible!

Thanks. That's what makes me a moderate, Kathy. There are many true moderates here. Others here, will never change their mind – be they ultra liberal or ultra conservative. We are all “supposed” to be here to learn from one another – not simply repeat ideological sound bite. That's what NBC/MSNBC and Talk Radio are for.

So far, Huckabee's “fair tax” is the best idea going. Not perfect, mind you, but it's a good start.

A regulated pay structure where the top person in a corporation cannot make “x” amount times the rate the lowest person makes. This would include bonuses. That way, success is not punished, but the workers benefit from the company's success as well.

The “X” could be 100 times or whatever would be deemed as fair. If a CEO makes $10,000,000 in that example, then the lowest paid worker would have to make $100,000. It would spread wealth among the citizens without “redistributing” it in a socialist framework. It would also not punish sucess, but would reward everyone in the company's success.

Just a thought. What do you think?

A per capita or “head” tax is ideal where everyone benefits equally (as before the law in the USA, etc.), but it is impractical under our current system. (An ideal constitutional federal arrangement would have no programs that directly affect or benefit individuals, and a per capita tax could therefore be justified to pay for the federal government, and the ideal system would have this per capita tax collected from the states, leaving it to the states to design their tax systems to provide the revenue as each saw fit to do.)

An income tax should have a single rate (the “flat tax”), of course; progressive taxation is envy-based and is inherently unjust. (Ironically, proponents often engage in dishonesty about it and consider it an example of “fairness” [sic].) A net progressive tax (with decreasing marginal rates, which is ideal) is achieved by providing for an exemption for basic needs (the poverty level is appropriate for this purpose) and subjecting all other income to the single tax rate. One then merely decides to make the trade-off between the exemption amount and the tax rate (a higher exemption will require a higher tax rate on everything else to yield the same revenue, assuming a static condition with no incentive effects). The maximum tax rate should obviously be limited to fifty per cent, for moral reasons; above 50% is slavery.

my vote goes to (c) willingly complicit in perpetuating the fraud … MSM is such a farce. we have right-wingers who are supposed to hate left-wingers and we have left-wingers who are supposed to hate right-wingers. why? because the powers-that-be don't want us noticing that there is a curtain, much less to give any thought as to what is going on behind it. fox's detractor's are correct, fox isn't a news network. they're a network that sometimes reports 'news'. but how are they different in that respect from any of the others?

i was under the impression that dec'08 was crammed into the previous quarter after it had been filed as part of their transition to the new reporting schedule so the bad stuff wouldn't show up on the then current 10-q. my bad. this is worse. really, any defense of GS is unconscionable. its like voting against an amendment that would preclude the gov't issuing contracts to businesses that condone gang-rape.

thank you for the clarification and the 'orphan month' search. i knew there was more out there. the sad thing is that for every GS scandal [of course, its not just GS, is it?] we manage to remember there are a half dozen others we're forgetting to list. we truly are sipping information from a fire hose.

cheers.

Look at how many of the super-wealthy in the U.S. are related to the robber barons of the late 19th / early 20th century. Look at how many of the super-wealthy in the U.S. can trace their wealth to WAR (either government action or tit). See anything by Kevin Phillips.

Parenthetically, the “reply” function is working properly today (in-line). Yeah!