Blame the corporations.

[Chef Jim]

No, that's bull. You were trying to offer little while asking a lot, all while dragging the discussion down the rabbit hole. It's easy to ask questions that require long replies

 

What was your criticism??

 

Read the article then read my questions especially the first one. Then you will understand my criticism of birdog's post.

[DC Tom]

No, that's bull. You were trying to offer little while asking a lot, all while dragging the discussion down the rabbit hole. It's easy to ask questions that require long replies

 

What was your criticism??

 

Do you understand the purpose of a rhetorical question?

[3rdnlng]

the irs was initially mentioned in this thread regarding this issue by gg. "someone" might have meant congress but i thought not. no one seemed upset at his mistake, likely because they made the leap from irs to irs at direction of congress. or maybe because he was making a point most agreed with. and guess who made the statement that that the effort was aimed at maintaining the drucker rule? maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. at any rate, i don't think he was talking about the 39.6%individual tax bracket but you'd need to ask him. i was arguing against the opinion that such an effort would be wrong minded because it feel that it wouldn't be.

 

far fetched, isn't it? http://money.cnn.com...ents/index.html

 

This is our "Gotcha Moment". GG didn't say anything about the IRS. I checked, and am not here to defend him. I think he's capable of doing that himself. You're making up schit to defend your position. You should just move along, this has not been one of your better threads.

[Gary M]

the irs was initially mentioned in this thread regarding this issue by gg. "someone" might have meant congress but i thought not. no one seemed upset at his mistake, likely because they made the leap from irs to irs at direction of congress. or maybe because he was making a point most agreed with. and guess who made the statement that that the effort was aimed at maintaining the drucker rule? maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. at any rate, i don't think he was talking about the 39.6%individual tax bracket but you'd need to ask him. i was arguing against the opinion that such an effort would be wrong minded because it feel that it wouldn't be.

 

far fetched, isn't it? http://money.cnn.com...ents/index.html

 

"And that number is likely understated as well, since many families don't realize they fall into this category or don't want to admit to it"

 

How the heck do you not know you are homeless?

[birdog1960]

Wash Post article is not the context of his thesis - which was put forward before the IRS rules changed. Those rules changed over 30 years ago because executive cash compensation started rising and someone thought it was a good idea to invoke Drucker's rule and start taxing companies a greater amount for executives' cash comp than what polite society considered proper.

 

This is our "Gotcha Moment". GG didn't say anything about the IRS. I checked, and am not here to defend him. I think he's capable of doing that himself. You're making up schit to defend your position. You should just move along, this has not been one of your better threads.

you should read better. and your disapproval is irrelevant. perhaps if you looked at the forest and not so much at the trees you'd see things differently.

 

"And that number is likely understated as well, since many families don't realize they fall into this category or don't want to admit to it"

 

How the heck do you not know you are homeless?

week to week rentals spending some weeks in cars etc i suppose. is the exactg definition that important? trees, meet forest. Edited October 25, 2013 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

Please provide me a couple of things.

 

1. What companies were cited in the article?

2. What is the average pay for the CEO's of said companies.

3. What is the average pay for the employees of said companies but not all employees but the ones that have homeless children.

 

I'll wait.

the fast food industry employees a large swath of the country's minimum wage earners. the numbers you seek for many of these companies are contained in the article linked at the beginning of this thread. Edited October 25, 2013 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

you should read better. and your disapproval is irrelevant. perhaps if you looked at the forest and not so much at the trees you'd see things differently.

 

week to week rentals spending some weeks in cars etc i suppose. is the exactg definition that important? trees, meet forest.

 

Yes, you idiot, look at the forest and not the trees. Here is his whole quote, not your perversion of it:

 

 

 

 

Wash Post article is not the context of his thesis - which was put forward before the IRS rules changed. Those rules changed over 30 years ago because executive cash compensation started rising and someone thought it was a good idea to invoke Drucker's rule and start taxing companies a greater amount for executives' cash comp than what polite society considered proper. It was also a time where it seemed to be a good idea to align a CEO's pay with the company's profits, so deferred compensation and stock options became a much larger component of CEO pay. So while cash pay was held in check, the non-cash portion continued to rise. But accounting rules still mandate that the non-cash portion are expensed, and the total figure is what everyone uses.

 

Of course that total comp figure for a CEO is not a true representation of differential between a worker and boss, since polite society likes to use workers' wages vs CEO's total comps. You know, kind of like saying you didn't like your apple, because the orange was too sour.

[Tiberius]

Do you understand the purpose of a rhetorical question?

 

Do you know a rhetorical question when you see one?

[birdog1960]

Yes, you idiot, look at the forest and not the trees. Here is his whole quote, not your perversion of it:

 

 

 

 

Wash Post article is not the context of his thesis - which was put forward before the IRS rules changed. Those rules changed over 30 years ago because executive cash compensation started rising and someone thought it was a good idea to invoke Drucker's rule and start taxing companies a greater amount for executives' cash comp than what polite society considered proper. It was also a time where it seemed to be a good idea to align a CEO's pay with the company's profits, so deferred compensation and stock options became a much larger component of CEO pay. So while cash pay was held in check, the non-cash portion continued to rise. But accounting rules still mandate that the non-cash portion are expensed, and the total figure is what everyone uses.

 

Of course that total comp figure for a CEO is not a true representation of differential between a worker and boss, since polite society likes to use workers' wages vs CEO's total comps. You know, kind of like saying you didn't like your apple, because the orange was too sour.

i did. don't see how adding the rest changes the beginning. i actually wrote my interpretation of this for him to correct and he did not. guess i saw the forest after all.

[GG]

i did. don't see how adding the rest changes the beginning. i actually wrote my interpretation of this for him to correct and he did not. guess i saw the forest after all.

 

Why do I need to correct an interpretation for something you don't comprehend?

[Nanker]

Can you provide some examples of people who are 'working their asses off' for 'almost nothing'?

 

I'm wondering if you've ever met anyone who works their ass off.

Just the illegal immigrants who mow his mother's lawn.

so you are arguing that the entire progressive tax system is illegal? the only legal way to tax is a flat tax? good luck with that. has as much chance of succeeding as the recent gov't shutdown to defund the aca. you can't get blood from a stone. there's too many stones without blood in the us. hence the need for a livable wage.

It might not be illegal thanks to Congress's machinations, but it is incongruent with the equal protection under the law that The Constitution ostensibly provides every American citizen.

[3rdnlng]

i did. don't see how adding the rest changes the beginning. i actually wrote my interpretation of this for him to correct and he did not. guess i saw the forest after all.

 

This from the intellectual who thinks the IRS writes the law and determines tax rates.

[Gary M]

 

It might not be illegal thanks to Congress's machinations, but it is incongruent with the equal protection under the law that The Constitution ostensibly provides every American citizen.

 

So how does anyone get a waiver from Obamacare?

[birdog1960]

This from the intellectual who thinks the IRS writes the law and determines tax rates.

it's like arguing with a concrete statue. do you even comprehend the words "concept" or "abstract"? the level of involvement of the irs in the scenario makes no difference to the discussion on minimum wage or compensation ratios. but carry on, just dion't choke on your own smoke screen.

 

Why do I need to correct an interpretation for something you don't comprehend?

so what exactly was your meaning? perhaps you could diagram the logic?

[GG]

so what exactly was your meaning? perhaps you could diagram the logic?

 

When you understand the difference between compensation and wages, and accrual and tax accounting, and how to apply them in an argument about pay differentials, then you will understand.

[3rdnlng]

it's like arguing with a concrete statue. do you even comprehend the words "concept" or "abstract"? the level of involvement of the irs in the scenario makes no difference to the discussion on minimum wage or compensation ratios. but carry on, just dion't choke on your own smoke screen.

 

 

so what exactly was your meaning? perhaps you could diagram the logic?

 

 

You were the one making a big deal out of the IRS's involvement at the same time you proved that you have no idea how government works.

[Chef Jim]

the fast food industry employees a large swath of the country's minimum wage earners. the numbers you seek for many of these companies are contained in the article linked at the beginning of this thread.

 

Oh so that was not mentioned in the article you linked?

 

 

Once again the fast food industry is not designed to support a family. If you have kids and work minmum wage at a fast food restaurant (or any place that pays minumum wage) you:

 

1. Are too dumb to raise kids. Can't afford them, don't have them. And if you can't afford them and have them anyway you have zero sympathy from me.

2. Should be doing it only temporarily and working two or three jobs to make sure your kids have a roof over your head.

 

 

If you can't provide the necessities for your family like food and shelter and you are not mentally or physically disabled you suck and your kids should be taken away fraom you and given to a family that cares for them.

 

But somehow this is the corporations fault. WTF kind of !@#$ed up thinking is that??

[birdog1960]

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/. check out the myths on this labor dept site. sound familiar? not much of a surprise that you all think you know better than people whose career it is to study and analyze such issues. but it will be discounted because the folks behind this site will be labelled liberals. and gg, one doesn't need to be an accountant to understand the issues here. it's quite simple: a lot of people in the us have little money and a very few have enormous sums. and it becomes more unbalanced every day. and you still haven't pointed out an inaccuracy in my restatement of your position just that you don't like my position.

[IDBillzFan]

So how does anyone get a waiver from Obamacare?

 

Step one: make a donation to OFA.

[Chef Jim]

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/. check out the myths on this labor dept site. sound familiar? not much of a surprise that you all think you know better than people whose career it is to study and analyze such issues. but it will be discounted because the folks behind this site will be labelled liberals. and gg, one doesn't need to be an accountant to understand the issues here. it's quite simple: a lot of people in the us have little money and a very few have enormous sums. and it becomes more unbalanced every day. and you still haven't pointed out an inaccuracy in my restatement of your position just that you don't like my position.

 

I trust the people who live it vs the people who study it.