Poor CEOs cannot live on $500,000 a year

[G.I.R.]

They can bitch about it all they want. But no one's going to listen to them or comfort them. They don't deserve that.

I'm sorry... 10-15,000 for a DRESS? And at least 5 a year... that's insane! I have trouble buying a new knife set for my house because its 50.00 when I could be spending that on my bills instead. One of those dresses could pay off the remainder of my car and still leave me money to live on for quite some time! 3 of those "dresses" that Mrs Rich-ass buys add up to more than what I make in a year. That's not right at all. Go shop at JC Penny or something for a change.

It's just not right.

[Bells]

No pity for the fools i see...

Just wait a bit longer, you'll see some of those guys coming out with "now that our paychecks are cut back, we can no longer keep with our donations to aaaaaaaall those charities!"

[stefan]

Originally Posted by Bellsouth Minion

No pity for the fools i see...

Just wait a bit longer, you'll see some of those guys coming out with "now that our paychecks are cut back, we can no longer keep with our donations to aaaaaaaall those charities!"

oh, that reminds me! the article makes a big deal about how much they pay in taxes. most of these people don't pay taxes, they donate so much money to themselves that they can deduct their taxes away.

[Kaneda]

They do have a minor point in that shit is more expensive in NYC than it is elsewhere. But really, the fact that the city has so many good public schools pretty much counters that.

[Bells]

Originally Posted by stefan

oh, that reminds me! the article makes a big deal about how much they pay in taxes. most of these people don't pay taxes, they donate so much money to themselves that they can deduct their taxes away.

Now, ok, im totally into cutting back their salary and all that jazz... but i'm never ok with taking a entire group and affirming a certain behavior. Sure as hell most super-rich people do stuff of that sort, some of them BECAME super-rich because of those loopholes that exist in all man-made systems ( justice and economy ) the just had the opportunity and tools to exploit them when the time was right...

but that's not to say that every single person with money is a corrupt money-laundry S.o.B. , right?

Well, it's fair to say that a minority of the people have the majority of the money... so aside from what the article says or points to, i'm more interested on seeing where the rest of this money will go once this cut-back starts

[Magus]

They shouldn't have bought anything that cost more than they make in one or two years. This is a good rule for anyone, including multi-millionaires. Then again I'm talking from the perspective of someone who if faced with buying a new car that cost 20,000 dollars would have to think about that in terms of "will I make 20,000 dollars this year, free and clear?" The answer for a lot of people is no. They have to include all the other payments in that. Which is why I said 2 years because otherwise most people would never get a new car that cost 20,000 (to be fair, I wouldn't get a new car that cost over 15-16,000 because I am cheap).

These people can live on 500,000 a year, they may not be able to maintain the lifestyle they are used to, but the idea that they are going to starve is absurd. A fire sale on their houses would bring in enough to buy a 10 houses of the average person, so maybe they can just buy one that's the equivalent of 5 houses of the average person? Maybe? Just maybe?

EDIT: "By the way, the frozen hot chocolate costs $8.50." Now THAT is just decadent. And oxymoronic.

I think we poor folks just call that a milkshake, but who am I to say?

[Donomni]

You know that Japanese executive I posted about in the video thread?

Laughing his ass off.

[Wigmund]

This just brings tears to my poor eyes.

I'd love it if they just go all the way with this - don't just limit it to those receiving government aid. Make it for all corporations and large businesses doing business in the US. Seems justifiable to say that the President should be the top money-earner in the country.

Better yet, salary cap all execs into making no more than 10 times the pay at 40 hours a week of the lowest paid person that works for (regardless of full-time, part-time, or temp) or is contracted for work by the company (includes their janitorial crews, better start paying those migrants a decent wage guys). I'd love to see the CEO of Wal-Mart only make about 150 grand a year*.

* I figured a minimum wage employee at $6.25 an hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year - that's a little over $14,000 a year. While part-timers and many others work less than 40 hours a week, I'll be somewhat nice to their bosses

[Aanaren]

I'm sorry, but $500,000 is an awful lot of money to me. That's more than I've made pre-tax in my years working, and I've worked decently paying jobs for the areas I've lived in. $265,000 is still a pretty nice chunk of change when you're an lower-middle class person.

When the rest of us have to take a new job at a lower salary/take a pay cut we adjust to live within our means. Looks to me like it's time for them to do the same. There are times we struggle to pay the bills, more so now than ever, so it's a bit hard for me to have sympathy for them. Seriously oh no! How will they afford their vacations? I haven't been away on a vacation in over five years. I drive my own (paid for) car.

Seriously, does anyone else think there's something blatantly wrong when your HOA fees are the same amount per month as your mortgage?

[Grand Master Kickface]

I admit that I hardly know anything about economics, but how does putting a cap on how much money certain people can make solve anything? It's not like the money automatically just goes to the poor, does it? And if it does, should we really be rewarding people on the virtue of being poor and punishing people for being successful? (Not that I'm standing up for the economic status quo; I'm just throwing this out here.)

Going on a tangent here, I went to a private high school but a publicly funded college, and the quality of education I got in high school was light years ahead of what I got in college. In high school, I had teachers that were competent and knowledgeable in their subjects, made their material clear and easy to understand, and made their expectations of you equally clear. And even if that wasn't enough, they'd always be willing to meet with you and give you help personally. It was enough to make me *gasp* enjoy some of my classes. You know what I got in college? Idiot teachers. Half of them were reading from a manual the whole time, and all of them had a lot to say about the popular political matters at the time... except that it didn't have anything to do with the class they were supposed to be teaching. The college had a lot of programs designed to help students that were falling behind, but these programs didn't do anything: they only served to make the students temporarily feel better about themselves and to give the school a good image. So, to me, being forced to go to a public school just because your dad is too successful doesn't really ring to the ears.

Look, I'm not sticking up for our current system of deciding who gets to be rich and who gets to be poor. Frankly, I think we have to recreate the entire system from the ground up. And thusly, I don't think imposing a bunch of limits and convoluted rules within a fundamentally broken system will accomplish anything. But I'm still willing to hear you guys out if you honestly have a good reason to support this bill.

Edit: I'm not siding with the article either. The frozen hot chocolate line is ridiculous. >_>