Print This Post
U.S. Pay Gap Grows: A Problem or Just a Fact?
This has nothing to with energy but I was amazed to read a recent WSJ report stating that “Executives and other highly compensated employees now [2007] receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S.” And that doesn’t even include equity-based compensation like stock options which is often a huge percentage of total executive compensation! The complete WSJ piece is reproduced below.
It seems to me that American society is being increasingly polarized both politically and financially, and that the two are related. Not that the rich are in one political camp and the just-getting-by in another. Rather, it seems to me, the difference is more how you feel about the financial polarization than what pole you are in that determines your political outlook. People who think this trend is just fine (and some who feel that way don’t make the big bucks) tend to be Republicans and some who feel that it’s a problem and that taxation aught to be more of an equalizing force tend to be Democrats.
You can put me in the latter camp for a number of reasons. First, I think it’s socially unhealthy for the great mass of Americans to be increasingly on the edge of their financial seats while a huge number of business leaders (along with “public personalities” in sports and entertainment) are compensated so generously that they have little basis for sympathizing with the every day problems of so many others. Some overcompensated executives sometimes sound like Calvanists (especially in private conversations), having come to believe they are a superior being to most “workers” and are fully entitled to a life of financial plenty while others live in poverty. Such thinking contributes to social discord and disunity. If it becomes sufficiently extreme, it can lead to - and has lead to - social revolutions such as the French Revolution.
Secondly, I think executive compensation is a corrupt system in which buddies on different boards all stick up for each other’s pay checks. Hardly any directors of public companies have the guts to challenge CEO and other top executive compensation. To do so would be to acquire an “odor” among the business elite. It would paint the renegade director as someone who’s “socialist beliefs” are suspect and unreliable - not necessarily aligned with those of the business elite, but rather with the “stockholder.” Who would have ever thought that being pro-stockholder could get someone blackballed from the U.S. corporate club? But that seems to be the case today, and I think such a mind-set itself is very unhealthy for American corporations.
Thirdly, I think the huge levels of corporate compensation contribute to the domination of Congress by an increasing multitude of businesses. A good part of executive compensation - along with corporate lobbying funds - increasingly finds its way to politicians. Anyone who thinks that money buys only “access” and not results when applied to Congress is very naive, I think. A corrupt political system is inherently less stable and I think the U.S. system is becoming more and more corrupt every year as corporate lobbying grows inexorably stronger.
In my view, American business has become sick and the symptom is run-away compensation. It’s no wonder that in such an environment there are opportunities for leveraged buyout firms (and the occasional benevolent controlling stockholder such as Warren Buffet) to operate very successful enterprises. Such businesses are operated for the benefit of shareholders. Meanwhile, a lot of the competitors to such businesses have the equivalent of one arm tied behind their back - an arm that manipulates a bloated salary structure.
Here is the full article from The Wall Street Journal of 7/21/09:
Pay of Top Earners Erodes Social Security
Fund Expected to Be Exhausted in 2037
By ELLEN E. SCHULTZ
The nation’s wealth gap is widening amid an uproar about lofty pay packages in the financial world.
Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S., according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data — without counting billions of dollars more in pay that remains off federal radar screens that measure wages and salaries.
![[a growing share]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-AX856_SOCSEC_NS_20090720191330.gif)
Highly paid employees received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total U.S. pay in 2007, the latest figures available. The compensation numbers don’t include incentive stock options, unexercised stock options, unvested restricted stock units and certain benefits.
The pay of employees who receive more than the Social Security wage base — now $106,800 — increased by 78%, or nearly $1 trillion, over the past decade, exceeding the 61% increase for other workers, according to the analysis. In the five years ending in 2007, earnings for American workers rose 24%, half the 48% gain for the top-paid. The result: The top-paid represent 33% of the total, up from 28% in 2002.
The growing portion of pay that exceeds the maximum amount subject to payroll taxes has contributed to the weakening of the Social Security trust fund. In May, the government said the Social Security fund would be exhausted in 2037, four years earlier than was predicted in 2008.
The data suggest that the payroll tax ceiling hasn’t kept up with the growth in executive pay. As executive pay has increased, the percentage of wages subject to payroll taxes has shrunk, to 83% from 90% in 1982. Compensation that isn’t subject to the portion of payroll tax that funds old-age benefits now represents foregone revenue of $115 billion a year.
The magnitude of executive pay has been difficult to measure, even as policy makers grapple with ways to rein in compensation at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts. Companies aggregate the salaries of all employees in their filings to the Internal Revenue Service and to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and disclose details only for top officers.
But payroll taxes provide an indirect way to calculate amounts executives receive. Only earnings up to a certain ceiling are subject to a U.S. payroll tax of 12.4%, split between employer and employee, which finances Social Security retirement benefits.
The ceiling, which is indexed to the average growth in wages, is $106,800 in 2009, up from $102,000 in 2008 and $97,500 in 2007. (Employers and employees also each pay 1.45% on an individual’s total income, with no salary ceiling, to fund Medicare.)
Social Security data show that 6% of wage earners have pay that exceeds the taxable earnings base, and that their “covered earnings” above the taxable maximum totaled $1.1 trillion in 2007. Adding the portion of their pay below the taxable wage base, $991 billion, totals $2.1 trillion.
Interactive Guide
An explanation of how to read proxy statements
The $2.1 trillion figure understates executive pay, however, because it includes just salary and vested deferred compensation, including bonuses. It doesn’t include unvested employer contributions and unvested interest credited to deferred-pay accounts. Nor does it include unexercised stock options (options aren’t subject to payroll tax until exercised), and unvested restricted stock (which isn’t subject to payroll tax until vested; the subsequent appreciation is taxed as a capital gain).
Also not included in the total compensation figures is executive pay never subject to payroll tax. This category includes incentive stock options (which are generally taxed as capital gains), “carried interest” income received by hedge-fund and private-equity fund partners (also taxed as capital gains), and compensation characterized as a benefit (benefits generally aren’t subject to any taxes).
Benefits, a category that includes employer-provided health care and contributions employers make to rank-and-file pension plans, totaled nearly $1 trillion in 2007; it isn’t possible to tell what portion represents benefits for executives, such as life insurance.
The ability to delay paying payroll taxes on compensation, something that generally is available only to highly paid employees, is in itself an economic benefit that ultimately boosts paychecks.
Lawmakers over the years have introduced bills to raise the taxable wage ceiling, or eliminate it, as was done for the Medicare portion in 1993. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama proposed extending payroll taxes on households with incomes above $250,000, but the administration isn’t pursuing any change as it focuses on proposals for tax increases on wealthy households to help finance a health-care program.
Lifting the earnings ceiling could result in higher Social Security benefits payments to higher-income individuals, since benefits are based on a worker’s highest 35 years of earnings. But the additional tax revenue would have decades to earn a return, thus offsetting the cost of the additional payments.
Social Security Administration actuaries estimate removing the earnings ceiling could eliminate the trust fund’s deficit altogether for the next 75 years, or nearly eliminate it if credit toward benefits was provided for the additional taxable earnings.
Employers oppose changes that would increase their share of payroll tax. In addition, eliminating the ceiling would prevent employers from using a controversial but common technique, based on payroll taxes, to award additional benefits to executives who participate in rank-and-file pension and 401(k) plans.
For example, health insurer Humana Inc. contributes 4% of pay to employees’ retirement accounts on salary up to the taxable-earnings wage base — and 8% above it. Thanks to the richer contribution, Humana Chief Executive Michael B. McCallister received a total contribution of $22,370 under the plan in 2008. (He also received $314,790 in company contributions to his supplemental executive retirement and savings plan.)
Typically, employers can’t discriminate in favor of high-paid employees who participate in taxpayer-subsidized retirement plans. But a “permitted disparity” exception enables them to provide additional benefits on the portion of pay that isn’t subject to payroll taxes, ostensibly to replace the Social Security benefits executives won’t receive on the portion of their pay that is exempt from payroll taxes.
Humana declined to comment.
Print This Post
27 responses so far ↓
1 robert essian // Jul 23, 2009 at 4:10 am
Professor, every citizen in the U.S understands who’s screwing who believe me. Most politicians who opens their mouth makes that perfectly clear. However, if the working class have a job all is good. With the jobs gone they buy weapons at a record pace. Very troubling…
Bankruptcy, credit card debt and high interest rates, high fuel costs, rising food costs, loss of jobs, loss of a 40 hour work week effect the working class most. Many in the middle class are the ones our country depend on to fight the wars, pay the taxes, help the less fortunate and tow the line. Take their dreams away, take my dream away and I’m gonna be pissed at those responsible, percieved or otherwise. At this very moment many more workers are waking up stressed, over burdened and anxious. Honestly I’m very surprised that things are as calms as they are.
The talking heads claim that we got ourselves into this, that’s BS. “the fundamentals of our economy are sound”, this from the President of the United States!, and Senator McCain just before the market crashed and we entered this soft depression. Averting a deep depression (maybe). If my president tells me things are cool I’m gonna believe him until I know otherwise. So I go about my business and affairs. I plan my budget as a middle class citizen thinking things are good. We got screwed again and it’s our fault but lets bail out the irresponsible ones, let them get solvent, pay huge bonuses then get screwed again. Do we notice…You bet.
Unemployment is reported to be 9.5% but probably closer to 15% with the use of fuzzy numbers. It is expected to move higher adding more stresses. Does anyone think we don’t know the numbers are bogus.
To finish, I have absolute faith that President Obama speaks my language. Some think he’s too colorful, etc…I think he’s a brilliant young man that has the ability to speak to all of us in terms we all understand. Frankly I think the President is the only reason that a lid has been placed over the anger that is brewing out there.
I hope that President Obama pays for all programs that are passed in congress and the senate on the backs of the rich who glutantly stole from the working class for the last 8 plus years. These same people who have moved our jobs (or threaten to) overseas, have sold our technology to our competitors, and have put many working class workers on the street. All in the name of capitalism. I think it’s treasonous, dangerous, and un-american to be blunt.
We notice, that’s for sure.
Thank you Jim
2 KV // Jul 24, 2009 at 8:51 am
Jim,
For the last two decades, the increase pay gap ratio was driven by loss of manufacturing jobs (moving to China, Mexico and even the Eastern Europe), leaving people unemployed or moving into low paying jobs. The rest were in knowledge-driven service economy, where both the pay and the pay growth were high.
The problem we face now is that these high paying service jobs – IT, sciences, engineering, research, accounting, financial and even legal – are also moving overseas suppressing key contributing factor in high pay and pay growth.
This leaves the senior professionals and executives of mostly global/international companies in high paying jobs. You can see that once current recession numbers are factored in, the picture would be much worse.
Much of the world, including Europe, has been divided in two classes and much of the world population falls under have-nots. How does one get to “haves” class? For most of the time, it has been with those who controlled the edge of sword and those who were in the know, or connected. Only in our short recent history, the have-nots were able to migrate to haves, mostly due to education.
It is in “haves” interest to cap payroll deductions to the minimum of their compensation. The “haves” control the political process, the modern edge of the sword, so change is not likely.
Here is the reality of have-nots of the world: a bowl of rice with a some veggies and a few morsels of meat is good life.
You have opened the Pandora’s box.
3 Larry // Jul 24, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Consider also the possibility that a big driver of the pay gap increase was the 10-20 million illegal aliens, mostly without skills or more than a high school education, that have come to the U.S. and driven down wage rates at the lower income, manual labor level.
4 KV // Jul 25, 2009 at 1:04 am
Larry - The stats in the article likely not include illegal aliens. You are looking inside the Pandora’s box!
RE - I agree with your heartfelt feelings, but “have-nots” do not control the political sword, Obama not withstanding. If I had the control of the sword, I would remove the payroll tax cap completely and I would include all deferred compensation as well. Why? it is a targeted increase in tax, the tax revenue stream is immediate, and, solves the nation’s long term debt issue. Most important, the “haves” will get something in return if they live long enough!
5 robert essian // Jul 25, 2009 at 4:29 am
The fundamentals of business is to make as much money as you can. Pay your core people for what they add to the fundamentals of that business. I have no problems with this business model. No resentments. However, if you kill the consumer (middle class) their is no business.
6 Larry // Jul 25, 2009 at 4:58 am
KV,
Great points, and don’t get me wrong, I have no clue why some of these jerks should get paid millions to do what they do. Isn’t, say, a million dollars a year enough? (In fact, while we are at it, wouldn’t it be nice to cap lawyer’s earnings at a million dollars a year?)
As far as them not paying their fair share of taxes, I guess that depends on which taxes and what one considers their “fair share”. If you are talking about income taxes, the top 5% already pays 60% of all federal income taxes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html
Is that enough? I guess we all get to be the judge of that.
Of course, the share of social security taxes they pay is much lower, but in theory they will benefit much less from social security also. I say “in theory” because the political class has screwed all of us on the social security front. I think none of us will be getting as much from social security as we thought we would. We have already spent that money:
http://seniorliving.about.com/od/retirement/a/ssbenefitsfaq.htm
http://www.examiner.com/x-9596-Alachua-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m7d7-The-future-of-Social-Security-is-very-very-grim
7 robertessian // Jul 25, 2009 at 6:38 am
PS: If you have everything, you own nothing. At some point you will have to spend it, give it up or someone else will take it. Supply and demand will find its balance again. Peacefully or not. Pick your poison…
8 KV // Jul 25, 2009 at 10:35 am
Larry – In general, numbers and percentages do not mix. You can not cap salaries to a $ level and then make observation that 5% pay 60% of the income tax.
I was advocating no cap on social security taxable income. Frankly, if I were to make $1M a year, I could care less about paying 7.5% in additional social security that will pay me some benefit in future, and more importantly, it will keep my fellow citizens provided with basic needs so they do not have to resort to illegal means to make a living. And, I do not have to go through less than honest unauditable charitable organiztions to help a few of their choosing.
I do not like any cap on an individual’s earnings, even for a lawyer! If a society values the product/service that much, so be it. All I care about that they pay their share of taxes and don’t complain that top 5% of their kinds are paying 60% of the taxes. Instead, be thankful that they live in a society where they can be in the top five percent of the earners and without any limit to the absolute number on what they can make. The tax they pay is for this privilege to sell their products and services legally and honestly.
Since the pseudo invention of a new economic theory (so called Laffer curve), the haves are much more inclined to dismantle the social fabric of our country by redefining our democracy to a “republic without a king” but claiming presidential powers to be equal to be that of a king.
9 KV // Jul 25, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice if this Citi guy forked over $7.5 M in social security from his $100 M pay deal?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Report-Citi-energy-exec-wants-apf-2267915680.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
10 Isaac // Jul 25, 2009 at 12:38 pm
If there is going to be any sort of surtax on the wealthy to make “extra money”, it ought to be based on net worth and not income. I say this because there are many wealthy who don’t have a high earned income, and their assets are thus undertaxed- like Warren Buffet getting a 15% rate. Conversely, many young business owners, doctors, etc may have a high income but don’t have much accumulated net worth (its quite a bit of time). They are already taxed at pretty high rates when you through on the state taxes.
11 Larry // Jul 25, 2009 at 2:14 pm
KV,
The top federal tax rate is now 35%. Add on state taxes and in many places you are talking about a marginal rate of 43-45%. Adding on additional social security taxes of 7.65% gets you to about 50-53%. Add the employer’s share of social security (which they would theoretically pay to the employee if they didn’t pay it to the government) and you are up to 60%. Add in the myriad phase-outs, and you are probably up to 65%.
My only point is that these executives generally already pay a lot of taxes, no matter what anyone thinks. Maybe they don’t pay their fair share - that is a judgment call. However, to me it is not a clear-cut case.
I wasn’t suggesting that we cap salaries (although I would vote for it for lawyers!), I was only saying that maybe the market is not effecient at some of these levels - I just am not sure these executives are worth these high salaries (above one million dollars/year).
By the way, I understand that illegals probably weren’t included in the survey, but their existence in the labor pool here in the U.S. drives down the salaries of U.S. citizens who were in the survey at the lower income levels, it seems to me.
12 KV // Jul 26, 2009 at 5:50 am
Larry - Yes, top 35% tax rate applies on income over $349,700, or after over a THIRD of million. Social security cap is $118,000. Again, haves are not willing to contribute fully, as they control the politicians and laws. You choose which state to live and pay taxes. Many localities have taxes too! Again, you choose to live there. It is a free country, is it not wonderful?
Now here is a short article on:
The rich have never had it so good
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/07/25/sirota/
Now look at a fellow making over $77,000 nearly five times less than the top dog making over $349,700. His tax rate is 25% not five times less.
If you linearly interpolate for equality our brave warior making about $77,000 should be paying no more that 8% in the marginal rate. By the way, local grocery store charges the same for an apple or chicken whether you make $77K or $349K.
Illegals may or may not have impact on the salary on the jobs most Americans do not want to do, but, the bigger impact is moving jobs overseas reducing the cost of labor permanently, and putting good middle class worker either in low paying job, or on govt. assistance.
13 robertessian // Jul 26, 2009 at 8:52 am
KV, that short little article speaks volumes to what our problems are throughout our economy. Thank you
14 Larry // Jul 26, 2009 at 10:48 am
KV and Robert,
Thanks for the great points. On the article, one of the points it makes is that much of the TARP money will go to higher earners in financial firms. I totally agree, and think we are making a mistake propping up some of these firms.
Also, I have no particular love for those making all these millions, and I also wonder what we can do to keep jobs here and not ship them overseas. However, the Great Depression was caused, in part, by raising taxes and protectionist legislation. It seems to me that we should be very careful how we approach these issues if we don’t want to make a bad situation much, much worse.
I don’t really think most Americans have any idea how bad the budget situation is going to be for the next decade at least, and raising taxes, whatever your opinion of those who pay them, will hurt the economy. There are very respectable studies that show the tax multiplier is 3 and the spending multiplier is much less than that (1.4).
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/outside-the-box2/2009-07-14.html
Anyway, my opinion is that in about a year it will be clear that we can’t afford many of the things we have gotten used to. Right now non-withheld tax receipts (income and self-employment tax receipts from self-employment income) are down 30% from a year ago, and withheld taxes are down about 12%. Since the part of the economy that depended on the real estate bubble is going away fast, not to come back anytime soon, most commentators I’ve seen don’t expect the economy to come back any time soon. Adding more spending, such as on health care, doesn’t seem like a smart thing to do. Raising taxes in this weak economy also seems dangerous, although we might have to do it.
15 KV // Jul 26, 2009 at 11:42 am
Larry – You continue to tell us we make great points, making us think you care for our opinions, but on the next breath, you go back to your talking points, which are basically mantras for ultra conservatives.
You are mistaken on great depression, but your phrase of “in part” absolves you! Most people do not read “in part” and believe your claims about the great depression.
As I recall, the depression was caused by tight monetary policies after UNREGULATED excesses in the Wall Street, followed up by the neglect of social needs until the new deal. Today’s financial crisis is also due to unregulated excesses in the Wall Street and unfortunately there is no measure of the excess. Some claim that it could be more that 100 TRILLIONS of dollars. The govt. (Feds and Treasury) has already pumped more that 20 TRILLIONS of dollars in to the Wall Street. And this all for saving the skin of the haves!
I have pointed out to you before that we are paying for the healthcare of the uninsured through emergency rooms and in our premiums. The real problem is that cheap preventive medicine is not reaching these people until crisis develops. I have also pointed out to you that your health insurance is subsidized by the govt. and the subsidy may be as high as 35%. You also neglect that healthcare inflation is nearly three times, over 10% a year. Calculate how many years before your healthcare expenses will be greater than 50% of your gross salary and include your employer’s contributions in it.
You also conveniently do not care to address that the financial crisis has been created in the last eight years, and possibly going back to Regan era thinking (which was implemented under the fear of terror). It was a financial terror that we are only coming to the grip with. You also do not address that in FY2000 we had surplus. The crisis is not going to go away for eight or more years and frankly don’t care which political party controls the country. Joe Biden wrote a guest editorial in the Sunday’s NYT. Read it for a realistic assessment of the situation.
Jim, as I said before you have opened the Pandora’s box.
16 robertessian // Jul 26, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Larry, I so agree with you that the next ten years (or more) will not look like the last ten years. Life will be more tolerable if the rich help ease what I suspect will be a painful period in our nations history. After all they will still be rich. To save this great country will require all to sacrifice. The rich can afford to help more and should. After all they have benefited the most from the previous administration, and our tax code.
I’m not trying to steal from the rich, I’m not, but this country is on life support, and they can help. Once again they can pick their poison.
17 Larry // Jul 27, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Robert,
I think what you are saying is that in today’s economy, as bad as it is, what is “fair” for the rich might not be as much as it was, and it also might not be as important as it was. I tend to agree. However, I am just worried that taking more from the rich will just hurt the economy. It will reduce incentives for them to invest and work, and reduce incentives for them to hire workers.
18 KV // Jul 27, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Larry & Robert - Do you recall “trickle down theory” where it was advocated that we should cut taxes for the rich so that they can invest and create jobs? They did invest, in overseas, and exporting jobs from the US. Under Bush admin rich have been endowed with many tax cut including no estate tax for a year. I hope there is not a big patricide among rich to benefit from no estate tax.
19 Larry // Jul 27, 2009 at 4:37 pm
KV,
I imagine the one-year repeal of the estate tax next year will soon itself be repealed, as it should be.
20 KV // Jul 28, 2009 at 3:34 am
Larry – I will wait until the estate tax is repealed, but I agree, most rich do not want to end their life next year! This was cooked up by Bush administration. The real problem is 2012, when the estate tax goes back to the original. So, for last six years, we had lawyers and financial planners spinning their wheels producing nothing of value except new wills and estate plans that all go in smoke in about six months so we begin the whole thing again.
On healthcare: I have a proposition for you. Do a spreadsheet for a life of an individual, from eighteen years old to 100 years and estimate the medical cost for each year. Try to include these factors in the spreadsheet: since, we are all mortals, the risk of death with a serious illness increases. It accelerates after 65, and this is when the insurance companies dump them on Medicare. The insurance companies are cherry-picking. Yet, this is where major drug companies make their monies through most expensive medicines, the biologic compounds, paid through Medicare.
Also consider variable medical insurance products based on deductibles, copay, and non-coverage of illnesses, employee contributions. Now try to factor refusal of a coverage by the insurance company to anybody on anything at any age on a real medical condition. Enter the lawyer! It is only money! Pay to the doctors, lawyers, and even the insurance company that refused the coverage, otherwise, be without insurance to buy free antibiotics for viral infections, called common cold.
While you are at it, plan for about six months of unemployment at every five years, without medical coverage, and assign higher probability for major health problems when one is unemployed. Stress does that. No income, major medical expenses, kid ready to go to college, now add the drinking problem. The better-half is really getting pissed, and want to start all over again with someone else. Just as one begins a new job, he/she finds that medical coverage is not going to be the way it was: there are now pre-existing conditions…
What would ideal? A basic major medical coverage that is at a fixed cost irrespective of what age one is, or whether one is employed, and a basic coverage for preventive medicines.
21 wynn // Jul 29, 2009 at 9:50 am
was anyone as shocked as i was to read in WSJ today that the CFTC will pin the surge in oil prices on the specs ?
the spike last summer was due to the specs and commercials unwillingness to short the market. putting any new restraints on trading will only distort the oil markets more than they were distorted last summer.
some one please comment !!
jim we miss your wisdom on this developement.
wynn
22 KV // Jul 29, 2009 at 11:20 am
wynn - Truth hurts! Yes, the oil price run up to $150+ was speculation. Actually, those who were investing oil going to $250+ were long term speculators. Even today’s oil price is high due to speculation. NG at ~4, oil could be as low as $24, but it is in $60.
23 robertessian // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01 am
Just got back from a short but great vacation. Every breakfast sit down (nearby) chatter about events all off us are concerned about on this sight. I felt as though I was listening to all of you. Seems as though all are engaged…Encouraging.
Larry, trickle down ended up do you hear that sound its your job being moved overseas (or some such thing). I think Ross Perot said that when NAFTA passed. Point being is the only way to keep score after you have all that you could ever want is to accumulate more money, and hoard it. Lets just go get some of that extra cash the rich are just keeping score with.
24 Jim Kingsdale // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:13 pm
wynn, for what it’s worth my sense is that the basic direction of oil price is determined by fundamentals but the extent of the move can be highly influenced by the financial players, in fact more and more so of late. So I happen to agree that the CFTC should take action to limit speculation. Not to eliminate it, but to put size restraints on. Let’s see what that does to the market. If it creates serious problems, it can alway be undone. But I suspect it will take a lot of volatility out of the market, which would be good for the real economy.
25 DuffBeer // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:31 pm
It is so easy to spend other people’s $$$. All of you say take it from him and not one of you are willing to give 1 cent of your $ up !!! there will always be a bigger boat in the harbor. Get over it and do something to improve your own financial picture. I did just that after being down to our last 100 bucks now I have lazy ass family members who smoked,gambled and #%^& their money away . You pay for them I am sick of paying for dead beats !
If I can do it anybody could do it .Now for you that think you have something coming to you maybe Mr & Mrs Teleprompterman will make you rich !!!
Cheers, DuffBeer
26 Larry // Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 am
KV and Robert,
Here is a little more info on the progressiveness of our tax system:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html
27 robert essian // Aug 2, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Duffbear, I just want the rich to pay their fare share. The richest man in the world, Mr.Buffet agrees. Besides we need their help as a whole. Just help human kind more. Finally, the wealth of the rich during the Bush years was , is a rip off to all us middle class, hard working, non stoners (most of the time). I’m not interested so much in “I” but “we”…Sorry to hear about your lazy ass family member, I don’t consider him the norm though…Peace
Leave a Comment