As I have demonstrated repeatedly on here, many people in our country don't like the rules. One such rule is taxes. They may say they simply want to pay their fair share and moan about how if our taxes were lower, businesses wouldn't leave to go elsewhere but really that's a crock of shit. Unless there were zero taxes, they would still move offshore. Why? Because they are human and people are pretty greedy.
The best part about being wealthy, though, are the perks. And the priority status, of course.
Banks, credit-card companies, wealth managers, airlines, and hotels all fiercely compete for the business of the super-rich, and the result is perks and deep discounts their other customers never know about.
Recall the Citigroup Plutonomy document.
Further examples of this can be seen in my home state of Minnesota.
Executive perks have not just survived the worst economic downturn in five decades. They are flourishing.
In Minnesota, dozens of top executives continue to get free medical benefits, access to private jets, country club memberships, free financial planning services, generous hiring bonuses and other rewards, in some cases even as they cut costs elsewhere.
Flourishing, you say? In an economic downturn? Of course, making any derisive comments about this automatically means I must be jealous. Or a socialist. Or Hitler. Right? It can't possibly be that I want to warn of the lessons of history regarding societies that were too stratified. It REALLY can't be that I want the middle class to be the engine of the economy again because that is what has been proven to actually work. Nah, none of that pinko shit. I'm jealous/a socialist/Hitler...pick whatever one you want.
Even firms that have dramatically downsized their workforces are keeping perks intact for senior managers. Hutchinson Technology Inc., a disk drive component maker in Hutchinson that has downsized three times since 2008 and just announced plans to shed 30 to 40 percent of its workforce over the next year, last year paid about $430,000 in perks to seven senior executives. CEO Wayne Fortun received an $11,770 car allowance and free financial planning services, on top of his salary and stock.
Hey, that sound great! One simple question, though. Who is going to buy stuff when no one, save a few, has any money?
Executives worried about the tax bite of these corporate goodies can often rest easy. The reason: Corporate boards often reimburse senior managers for taxes owed on fringe benefits -- essentially a "perk on a perk."
But wait, I thought corporate taxes were too high? WTF?!!??
"It's not good for morale when employees see their executives living in a world of their own, while the guy next to them just lost his job," said Eleanor Bloxham, founder and CEO of the Value Alliance, a board advisory firm in Columbus, Ohio.
No shit.
Funny, though, they aren't simply living in a world of their own. They are being supported by some of my readers who are under the (very) mistaken impression that either none of this matters or someday they will be rich too if they just work hard.
At least United Health Care learned their lesson.
Minnetonka-based health insurer UnitedHealth Group got rid of most of its executive perks after revelations emerged in late 2006 that former CEO William McGuire and others at the company had been granted stock options "backdated" to a day when the stock price was at a low price. Prior to the change, McGuire and four other top executives were collecting more than $600,000 a year in freebies, on top of millions of dollars in stock options and other compensation.
In last year's proxy statement, UnitedHealth stated, "We do not believe that providing generous executive perquisites is either necessary to attract and retain executive talent or consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy."
I wonder what it will take for more companies to adopt this attitude. Maybe some new thinking on the part of the Tea Party and its supporters who seem to feel that the wealthy need their welfare. Any chance it will happen soon?
8 comments:
Zero. They are true believers.
Somewhere along the line, the readers that migrated from TSM were brainwashed into thinking that anyone who criticizes the wealthy must be a Marxist. It's a complete overreaction that is not true. In a time of severe economic problems, it's perfectly acceptable to question huge profits for some of these businesses. They are making massive private gains at public loss and they are being enabled by nearly every conservative in this country. It's as if God gave them the money and Satan (aka the liberals) are trying to steal it.
As I have demonstrated repeatedly on here, many people in our country don't like the rules.
Starting with yourself, right? You don't like the New Deal rule about qualified investors.
It can't possibly be that I want to warn of the lessons of history regarding societies that were too stratified.
Which societies? Give us one that crashed and burned and then how we are following that same trajectory. That might actually make for some interesting conversation, instead of your stale moralizing and relentless whining.
But wait, I thought corporate taxes were too high? WTF?!!??
But wait, I thought you were the one arguing for lower corporate tax rates? WTF indeed!!!
Maybe some new thinking on the part of the Tea Party and its supporters who seem to feel that the wealthy need their welfare.
Has anyone commenting here ever advocated welfare for the wealthy? Or are you just listening to the voices in your head?
Funny. I didn't see any refudiation of Mark's facts in the above comment. Just more personal attacks. Weak.
I didn't see any refudiation of Mark's facts in the above comment.
Perhaps if you learned the proper use of the English language you would get more out of what I write. Or are you another of M's former students?
M certainly has complained about the rules himself; fair enough - everyone has at least one rule they don't like. He has also said he believes the corporate income tax rate should be lower (on more than one thread). I haven't seen any "right-wing" person here ever say welfare for the wealthy was a good thing.
I mean damn son, how stupid are you? Here, I'll set you up an easy one - what percent of the total income taxes collected by the feds should the top 10% of income earners pay? What is their fair share?
>Banks, credit-card companies, wealth managers, airlines, and hotels all fiercely compete for the business of the super-rich, and the result is perks and deep discounts their other customers never know about.
Mark continues his assault on common sense. Businesses really want rich customers that can drop a lot of money on them? Holy cow! I can't think of a single reason they might prefer those types of customers.
>In Minnesota, dozens of top executives continue to get free medical benefits, access to private jets, country club memberships, free financial planning services, generous hiring bonuses and other rewards, in some cases even as they cut costs elsewhere.
I'll let you in on a little secret Mark - none of those things is free. The company pays for them. And considers them part of the compensation for the executive. Here's an essay question to show your understanding:
One executive makes 2 million dollars a year in salary with no perks. Another executive makes 1.8 million dollars a year with 200,000 dollars worth of perks. If you sum up the value of the compensation each exec earned, which made more?
This is just painful.
Jurisdiction-you do realize that I was simply using Sarah Palin's invented word. Keep up with the news much?For someone with such a gigantic chip on your shoulder, you really are quite ignorant.
Jurisdiction-you do realize that I was simply using Sarah Palin's invented word.
You've mistaken me for someone that gives a rats dead ass about Palin. But I know how you fan-boys do obsess about her.
Post a Comment