Another Liberal Myth Exploded

[SAYIT]

IDIOT!!! How is he "cheating" IRS if he doesn't get $248 million in his hand? You still don't understand! He didn't get $248 million in cash...you dummy!
He received RSUs... meaning he can't sell until certain things happen and when he does it will be at market value which could be ZERO!

I'm fully aware he is getting gross amounts of money and paying less in taxes than if it was salary.

HE IS NOT getting gross amounts of money!
He is getting RSUs... that he can't sell until things happen... so where is the "gross amount of money"???

284 million is a pretty gross amount in my book.

If you are not a stock holder its none of your business, sorry to burst your bubble.

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Again, unless you are management or a shareholder it's none of your biz.

 

[Marxist]

As I have revealed you to be an immature, uneducated, dunce....
...it seems the 'warning' was appropriate.

You haven't revealed anything at all, and you're trying to call me uneducated and immature?

It's pretty obvious.

​

 

[SAYIT]

Boo hoo the average worker isn't getting paid the same as the CEO who founded the company and grew it to a valuation of $6 billion dollars. I'm sure the public employee pension plans who bought the stock are just fine with the workers getting paid what they are getting paid vs giving up their profits. OH SNAP!

You're making two points one is valid, one is not.

1) The CEO or founder is solely responsible for the success of the company that his annual pay and bonus plan are justified. Many CEO/Founders are paid to get out of the way and let real businessmen run their successful company.

Also, numerous studies have proven that over three decades a culture of overpaying and overcompensating CEO's (the reasons are complicated but a big part of this culture is due to Boards of Directors being stacked with current and former CEO's) has grown in incomprehensible and illogical ways - CEO's failing miserably and still receiving massive compensation. CEO's doing very little for a very short time and getting bonuses based on short term gains that end up tanking a year after they leave.

This culture is similar to that of professional athletes. A quarterback without an outstanding O-line is going to get sacked and never being able to throw long passes. Yet the QB is the star, the draw, the reason people buy tickets - same with pitchers.


2) Public employee pension plans or any fund like that workers get paid less so that dividends go up. You made one valid point.

Both my points are valid, what part of none of your business is hard for you libs to understand? CEO compensation is none of your business, its between the board and the stock holders, period.

Huge amounts of inequality slows the economy. That's a problem for everyone. Also these deals cheat taxes.

Go ahead prove your claim they somehow cheat the government out of taxes owed you can't because that's a lie.

They are gettng paid in a way that cheats the tax man.

Whiny sniveling loony leftist. Smart peeps get paid in a way that minimizes their tax hit and it's perfectly legal. Tax cheating is what you do when you claim 14 dependents.

 

[Brain357]

I'm fully aware he is getting gross amounts of money and paying less in taxes than if it was salary.

HE IS NOT getting gross amounts of money!
He is getting RSUs... that he can't sell until things happen... so where is the "gross amount of money"???

284 million is a pretty gross amount in my book.

If you are not a stock holder its none of your business, sorry to burst your bubble.

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Again, unless you are management or a shareholder it's none of your biz.

Really? So a slow economy is good for the country?

 

[Brain357]

You're making two points one is valid, one is not.

1) The CEO or founder is solely responsible for the success of the company that his annual pay and bonus plan are justified. Many CEO/Founders are paid to get out of the way and let real businessmen run their successful company.

Also, numerous studies have proven that over three decades a culture of overpaying and overcompensating CEO's (the reasons are complicated but a big part of this culture is due to Boards of Directors being stacked with current and former CEO's) has grown in incomprehensible and illogical ways - CEO's failing miserably and still receiving massive compensation. CEO's doing very little for a very short time and getting bonuses based on short term gains that end up tanking a year after they leave.

This culture is similar to that of professional athletes. A quarterback without an outstanding O-line is going to get sacked and never being able to throw long passes. Yet the QB is the star, the draw, the reason people buy tickets - same with pitchers.


2) Public employee pension plans or any fund like that workers get paid less so that dividends go up. You made one valid point.

Both my points are valid, what part of none of your business is hard for you libs to understand? CEO compensation is none of your business, its between the board and the stock holders, period.

Huge amounts of inequality slows the economy. That's a problem for everyone. Also these deals cheat taxes.

Go ahead prove your claim they somehow cheat the government out of taxes owed you can't because that's a lie.

They are gettng paid in a way that cheats the tax man.

Whiny sniveling loony leftist. Smart peeps get paid in a way that minimizes their tax hit and it's perfectly legal. Tax cheating is what you do when you claim 14 dependents.

No most the tax cheating $$$$ are with the rich for sure. Just look at this one ceo.

 

[Brain357]

Your links don't go to the data you claim.

So, who is the liar now?

Nice trie superchick.

There are two links.

Both work exactly as I posted.

"So, who is the liar now?"

Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know.

Please quote my 'claim.'

It's in the OP.

Did you really start this rant not even knowing how many employees those 350 ceos have?

Please quote my 'claim.'


You've been asked nicely, twice now.

Again it's in the OP. Do you not even know what you posted? Wow.

 

[healthmyths]

IDIOT!!! How is he "cheating" IRS if he doesn't get $248 million in his hand? You still don't understand! He didn't get $248 million in cash...you dummy!
He received RSUs... meaning he can't sell until certain things happen and when he does it will be at market value which could be ZERO!

I'm fully aware he is getting gross amounts of money and paying less in taxes than if it was salary.

HE IS NOT getting gross amounts of money!
He is getting RSUs... that he can't sell until things happen... so where is the "gross amount of money"???

284 million is a pretty gross amount in my book.

284 million pennies is a lot. 284 million in RSUs means nothing until he CAN sell them which is WHY they are called RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS!

I will gladly take his RSUs if they are so valueless. Think he will give them to me? With the tax rate he will eventually pay its really more than 284 million compared to salary.

You couldn't do anything with them you idiot! They are specifically assigned to him.
You make NO sense regarding your "tax rate" comment.
Please explain your nonsensical statement!

 

[SAYIT]

HE IS NOT getting gross amounts of money!
He is getting RSUs... that he can't sell until things happen... so where is the "gross amount of money"???

284 million is a pretty gross amount in my book.

If you are not a stock holder its none of your business, sorry to burst your bubble.

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Again, unless you are management or a shareholder it's none of your biz.

Really? So a slow economy is good for the country?

Paying people for their labor does not slow the economy.
What is good for the country is a noble cause.
What is best for an individual company is for ownership and management to determine and still none of your biz.
Get your mind off my wallet and your hand out of my pocket.

 

[Marxist]

284 million is a pretty gross amount in my book.

If you are not a stock holder its none of your business, sorry to burst your bubble.

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Again, unless you are management or a shareholder it's none of your biz.

Really? So a slow economy is good for the country?

Paying people for their labor does not slow the economy.
What is good for the country is a noble cause.
What is best for an individual company is for ownership and management to determine and still none of your biz.
Get your mind off my wallet and your hand out of my pocket.

Exploiting people's labor for your own profit isn't noble.

 

[SAYIT]

Both my points are valid, what part of none of your business is hard for you libs to understand? CEO compensation is none of your business, its between the board and the stock holders, period.

Huge amounts of inequality slows the economy. That's a problem for everyone. Also these deals cheat taxes.

Go ahead prove your claim they somehow cheat the government out of taxes owed you can't because that's a lie.

They are gettng paid in a way that cheats the tax man.

Whiny sniveling loony leftist. Smart peeps get paid in a way that minimizes their tax hit and it's perfectly legal. Tax cheating is what you do when you claim 14 dependents.

No most the tax cheating $$$$ are with the rich for sure...

I'm sure you have some socialist link to that "fact." Could you post it?

 

[SAYIT]

Exploiting people's labor for your own profit isn't noble.

And at the end of the day that is why Marxist economies are doomed to fail. The "Worker's Paradise" is a fool's dream in which paying one's employees what the market dictates is "exploiting people's labor."
Frankly, too many of those who once worked for me were exploiting my capital.

 

[Marxist]

Exploiting people's labor for your own profit isn't noble.

And at the end of the day that is why Marxist economies are doomed to fail. The "Worker's Paradise" is a fool's dream in which paying one's employees what the market dictates is "exploiting people's labor."
Frankly, too many of those who once worked for me were exploiting my capital.

Which ones are you referring to? A "marxist" economy wouldn't exist if communism was achieved, unless you count efficient use of surplus, guaranteed work, collective ownership of production. Workers paradise isn't a fools dream, it's something to strive for. Labor is exploited, constantly, although you don't follow the labor theory of value, so I wouldn't expect a capitalist to understand. They were exploiting your capital? Oh please. If a sweatshop worker produces $50 in products for the capitalist in an hour, leaving out where the base materials came from, and all of the labor used, the exploitation is real.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are two links.

Both work exactly as I posted.

"So, who is the liar now?"

Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know.

Please quote my 'claim.'

It's in the OP.

Did you really start this rant not even knowing how many employees those 350 ceos have?

Please quote my 'claim.'


You've been asked nicely, twice now.

Again it's in the OP. Do you not even know what you posted? Wow.

You don't get a third strike.

I simply required clarification as to whether you are a liar or an imbecile.
Your fear of providing the 'proof' of your fabrication shows that you know you were lying.

Here is the quote that caused you so much anxiety:

"The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs,...."


And from that quote, you've pretended that I "must know" how many were employed.
Said statement can only be compared to 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'


You provided this eminently absurd statement:
"Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know."

'Must know'?

Really?

The phrase 'small sample' is related to this calculation: 350 out of 248,760, which is .0014069 percent.

Coincidentally, that happens to be exactly the same percent of brain you have as compared to a normal person.




Obviously, the phrase 'small sample' has absolutely nothing to do with the number of employees those CEOs have.


So...you are both a liar and an possessor of an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
True?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As I have revealed you to be an immature, uneducated, dunce....
...it seems the 'warning' was appropriate.

You haven't revealed anything at all, and you're trying to call me uneducated and immature?

It's pretty obvious.

​

You're right...I should come with a warning label

 

[Marxist]

Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know.

Please quote my 'claim.'

It's in the OP.

Did you really start this rant not even knowing how many employees those 350 ceos have?

Please quote my 'claim.'


You've been asked nicely, twice now.

Again it's in the OP. Do you not even know what you posted? Wow.

You don't get a third strike.

I simply required clarification as to whether you are a liar or an imbecile.
Your fear of providing the 'proof' of your fabrication shows that you know you were lying.

Here is the quote that caused you so much anxiety:

"The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs,...."


And from that quote, you've pretended that I "must know" how many were employed.
Said statement can only be compared to 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'


You provided this eminently absurd statement:
"Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know."

'Must know'?

Really?

The phrase 'small sample' is related to this calculation: 350 out of 248,760, which is .0014069 percent.

Coincidentally, that happens to be exactly the same percent of brain you have as compared to a normal person.




Obviously, the phrase 'small sample' has absolutely nothing to do with the number of employees those CEOs have.


So...you are both a liar and an possessor of an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
True?

Jesus christ, you will never let anyone disagree with you without calling them immediately wrong. Those 350 CEO'S more then likely employ a massive amount of the work force, and this seems to be including small business owners aswell, etc.. Absurd statement? You post uneducated bullshit, try to put "strikes" on others, and try to appear superior.

 

[Marxist]

As I have revealed you to be an immature, uneducated, dunce....
...it seems the 'warning' was appropriate.

You haven't revealed anything at all, and you're trying to call me uneducated and immature?

It's pretty obvious.

​

You're right...I should come with a warning label

Warning: The above person loves to

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please quote my 'claim.'

It's in the OP.

Did you really start this rant not even knowing how many employees those 350 ceos have?

Please quote my 'claim.'


You've been asked nicely, twice now.

Again it's in the OP. Do you not even know what you posted? Wow.

You don't get a third strike.

I simply required clarification as to whether you are a liar or an imbecile.
Your fear of providing the 'proof' of your fabrication shows that you know you were lying.

Here is the quote that caused you so much anxiety:

"The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs,...."


And from that quote, you've pretended that I "must know" how many were employed.
Said statement can only be compared to 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'


You provided this eminently absurd statement:
"Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know."

'Must know'?

Really?

The phrase 'small sample' is related to this calculation: 350 out of 248,760, which is .0014069 percent.

Coincidentally, that happens to be exactly the same percent of brain you have as compared to a normal person.




Obviously, the phrase 'small sample' has absolutely nothing to do with the number of employees those CEOs have.


So...you are both a liar and an possessor of an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
True?

Jesus christ, you will never let anyone disagree with you without calling them immediately wrong. Those 350 CEO'S more then likely employ a massive amount of the work force, and this seems to be including small business owners aswell, etc.. Absurd statement? You post uneducated bullshit, try to put "strikes" on others, and try to appear superior.

Appear??????

 

[Marxist]

It's in the OP.

Did you really start this rant not even knowing how many employees those 350 ceos have?

Please quote my 'claim.'


You've been asked nicely, twice now.

Again it's in the OP. Do you not even know what you posted? Wow.

You don't get a third strike.

I simply required clarification as to whether you are a liar or an imbecile.
Your fear of providing the 'proof' of your fabrication shows that you know you were lying.

Here is the quote that caused you so much anxiety:

"The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs,...."


And from that quote, you've pretended that I "must know" how many were employed.
Said statement can only be compared to 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'


You provided this eminently absurd statement:
"Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know."

'Must know'?

Really?

The phrase 'small sample' is related to this calculation: 350 out of 248,760, which is .0014069 percent.

Coincidentally, that happens to be exactly the same percent of brain you have as compared to a normal person.




Obviously, the phrase 'small sample' has absolutely nothing to do with the number of employees those CEOs have.


So...you are both a liar and an possessor of an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
True?

Jesus christ, you will never let anyone disagree with you without calling them immediately wrong. Those 350 CEO'S more then likely employ a massive amount of the work force, and this seems to be including small business owners aswell, etc.. Absurd statement? You post uneducated bullshit, try to put "strikes" on others, and try to appear superior.

Appear??????

And now you're actually assuming you're superior.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As I have revealed you to be an immature, uneducated, dunce....
...it seems the 'warning' was appropriate.

You haven't revealed anything at all, and you're trying to call me uneducated and immature?

It's pretty obvious.

​

You're right...I should come with a warning label

Warning: The above person loves to

When you've had enough, press esc

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please quote my 'claim.'


You've been asked nicely, twice now.

Again it's in the OP. Do you not even know what you posted? Wow.

You don't get a third strike.

I simply required clarification as to whether you are a liar or an imbecile.
Your fear of providing the 'proof' of your fabrication shows that you know you were lying.

Here is the quote that caused you so much anxiety:

"The AFL-CIO is comparing: a) the average salary of a small sample (350) of the highest paid US CEOs, out of a total CEO population in 2013 of 248,760 CEOs,...."


And from that quote, you've pretended that I "must know" how many were employed.
Said statement can only be compared to 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'


You provided this eminently absurd statement:
"Still waiting to hear how many people are employed by the 350. You claim its a small sample so you must know."

'Must know'?

Really?

The phrase 'small sample' is related to this calculation: 350 out of 248,760, which is .0014069 percent.

Coincidentally, that happens to be exactly the same percent of brain you have as compared to a normal person.




Obviously, the phrase 'small sample' has absolutely nothing to do with the number of employees those CEOs have.


So...you are both a liar and an possessor of an intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
True?

Jesus christ, you will never let anyone disagree with you without calling them immediately wrong. Those 350 CEO'S more then likely employ a massive amount of the work force, and this seems to be including small business owners aswell, etc.. Absurd statement? You post uneducated bullshit, try to put "strikes" on others, and try to appear superior.

Appear??????

And now you're actually assuming you're superior.

I know I'm not perfect....but so close it's scary.