For those of you who gnash your teeth, and stomp your feet when unemployment benefits are extended or when you read the story of people abusing food stamps, well this is the way they do it for the rich. The procedure might be different but the result is not.
And for those who claim that this debt will be a tremendous burden to our children and our grandchildren, maybe it is time that we step up and accept responsibility and pay our fair share. Politicians who claim that Tax cuts are the answer are trying to get reelected. Tax cuts are not the panacea politicians would have us believe' look where it has gotten us. If they were so great why not cut them to zero....................... damn then we would all be happy. This is a two headed monster that needs to be addressed on both sides Tax hikes, Spending cuts.
I will say though most economists agree(and I trust there opinion more than a politicians) raising taxes now might not be the best thing we could do. But eventually when the economy gets strong we are going to eventually have to pay the piper
GM CEO Whitacre receives $9M pay package
General Motors CEO Whitacre to get $9M pay package; ex-CEO Henderson rehired as a consultant
"NEW YORK (AP) -- General Motors Co. CEO Ed Whitacre will receive a salary of $1.7 million this year, plus stock awards that will bring his total pay package to $9 million at a later date, the automaker said Friday.
In a surprise announcement, GM also said former CEO Fritz Henderson has been rehired as a consultant. Henderson, who was forced out of the job in December, will work 20 hours a month and will be paid $59,090 a month, the company said.
Whitacre's total compensation is larger than Henderson's when he was CEO. Henderson received a total pay package worth nearly $5.5 million.
Whitacre's pay package includes a cash salary of $1.7 million that took effect Jan. 1. It also includes $5.3 million in stock awarded in increments starting in 2012, plus another stock award worth $2 million. The details, including the timing, of the $2 million stock award still need to be worked out, a GM spokeswoman said.
GM is 60 percent owned by the federal government and has received $52 billion in federal aid. The company plans to repay as much of the money as possible by issuing stock to the public, possibly as early as this year."
02-20-2010, 07:25 PM
I busted out laughing today when I was listening to John Gibson on Fox Radio. It was a replay from last week. They were talking about how the stimulus plan hasn't created a single job. A caller phoned in and shared his plan with the John and his listeners. The guy felt that they should have called say the top 250 companies in the country to Washington, and just given them the stimulus money, and told them to do out and create jobs with the money. I couldn't believe that Gibson went along with him.
I imagine a lot of companies would have told them, no thanks. We don't want the inevitable audits and other intrusions into our business that would undoubtedly come along with the money.
I don't know how this is any better than the government getting involved in bailing out the banks and auto companies.
02-20-2010, 07:40 PM
earning money is a crime
02-21-2010, 06:40 AM
earning money is a crime
Never said that. My point in all of this is that the Bush Tax cuts have favored the rich . (I suggest you read the articles) A second I think more important thing to consider is, until we realize that Tax cut are not the solution, but only a sound bite to get politicians reelected. and that there need to be major cuts in spending, this deficit is just going to get worse.
02-21-2010, 08:10 AM
Interestingly, analyses of tax burden usually exclude payroll taxes -- principally social security and medicare -- since these are "benefit" programs (Ignoring the fact that all taxes support "benefits" for someone.). They then use the fact that income taxes are "progressive" (i.e. people with higher incomes pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes) as justification for the fact that tax cuts predominantly help the richest among us. By contrast, social security is a "regressive" tax -- that is, lower income people pay a larger percentage of their incomes then higher income people -- and Medicare is now a "proportional" or "flat" tax tax where everyone pays the same percentage of earned income in taxes. All of that is academic. What people forget is that social security and Medicare taxes have been growing as a percentage of all tax revenues. As of 2007, for example, income taxes represented about 43% of total Federal revenues while social security and Medicare represented about 35%. As a result, total tax burden has become less and less "progressive" over time and is now curvilinear. Those at the bottom and those at the top pay the smallest percentages of their total incomes in taxes, while those in between pay the largest percentage. This was true even before the Bush tax cuts, and is even more true today. By the way, the only reason that lower income groups pay a smaller percentage of their incomes in taxes is because of tax credit programs (e.g., child care tax credit) that give some people income tax "refunds" that exceed the total amount paid.