“Bentsen: Look Bob. We shouldn’t be social engineering through the tax code.”
Seriously? We do that with text codes all the time.
Deductions for charitable contributions. Exemptions for churches. Different rates for filing as married versus single. Credits for child care. All of which, and thousands of others, are in there to try to encourage certain forms of behavior.
Nearly every tax rule is an attempt at some kind of social engineering.
You haven't mentioned the biggest contributor to 'behaviour modification,' and that's the deductibility of mortgage interest. I'm not saying that's bad public policy, just that it is has a 'social engineering' purpose, ie. to encourage homeownership, considered a positive because it makes people's living situations and social behaviour more stable, helps them to build wealth and to feel a greater attachment to the social fabric of America.
Here in Australia, we don't get to deduct mortgage interest, but as in the US, we don't pay capital gains tax on our primary homes: "Your main residence (your home) is generally exempt from capital gains tax (CGT)." This capital gain relief is uncapped in Australia.
And yet the 2017 tax act placed limits on the mortgage interest deduction. Was that to discourage home ownership and move us towards a "renters" mentality?
no... like everything else it's simply taking stuff away from people. Like chiseling away from so many directions the exemption for taxes on your car in my state (CT) It's so miserly. "Times are tough people ! Shared sacrifice!" my butt
"Fair Tax" is total 1% funded bullshit. Do not support "Fair Tax." Instead of raising taxes on the middle class and poor under the super-bullshit guise of equitable tax system, we need to impose a large ASSET TAX on the super-rich and large corporations. I support completely eliminating federal income tax on anyone earning under $100k. We can easily make up the difference by sufficiently taxing the super-rich and large corporations with a large ASSET TAX.
Look how stupid of an idea the "Fair Tax" really is:
The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate. The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% compared to combining the 15% income tax bracket with the 7.65% of employee payroll taxes under the current system -- both of which will be eliminated!
A fair tax has always smelled like BS. Proportionate to earnings the wealthy spend far less than others. The nation always prospered when our progressive tax had been set above 70% on the top earners.
The current tax code has evolved into something that works for no one at any level except for tax attorneys and IRS staffers. Rather than smell, please take a moment to read and learn more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Monthly payments made to individuals and families equal to the poverty level. Students of the fair tax were not expecting for calculate that the loss of the cost of collecting and policing the income tax (not even including the ravages of the carrot and whip entitlement of Congress) mixed with the "employee pricing" marketing experiences would result in prices dropping commensurate with lower costs (except, of course, pharmaceutical companies that are pets of Congress). Please read with some degree of depth before judging that potential for the biggest bloodless revolution in any country in any time.
The neoliberal paradigm so securely in place as the only lens through which to approach issues. Those folks couldn't see their way out of it. A Republican in-law asked me back then if I was happy to have a liberal, Clinton, in the White House, and I explained that Clinton wasn't at all liberal. The oligarchy empowered by Reagan hasn't budged. At least now there are progressives in Congress to stand for the true principles of the Democratic Party, but can they prevail and make a difference? I'm skeptical.
Neoliberalism stands for free trade, privatization, and deregulation. Remember that Clinton was the first Democrat to occupy the Oval Office in twelve long years, since Reagan left it, and he wasn't even elected by a majority but by a plurality (anyone recall Ross Perot?). So I understand why he felt as constrained as he did. That doesn't justify it, however.
Yes, I voted for Ross Perot: "We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, THERE WILL BE A GIANT SUCKING SOUND going south." Everybody I know laughed at me--but he was dead on.
Yes, and the reason a vote for Perot was a wasted vote is built into a mandatory 2-party system that keeps the power centralized. We should have the abililty to vote for who we want to, not who is chosen for us. How did we end up with Biden as the nominee, when we had several others who more represented our interests?
We ended up with Biden because the consensus was that he was the only guy who could bleed off enough center-right voters to get Trump out of office. Getting Trump out was the imperative due to the damage he was doing to our Constitutional norms every single day he was in office.
We got him because democratic voters voted for him in the primaries. He was chosen for you. If more people participated in primaries there might have been a different outcome. But whether it was Biden or Bernie, the current make up of the senate means no one’s agenda would come to fruition. I’m Canadian and the fiasco of trump and the manipulation of the voting process has made me come to appreciate parliamentary democracy. It’s ludicrous to vote for a democrat for president and then turn around and vote for a Republican senator. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
We got him because multiple states allow voters to pick their party’s ballot in the primaries. Because Trump was already the GOP’s choice, every Republican ran and voted for Biden on the Dem ticket because they are constantly pummeled with “socialism is evil” and were terrified of Bernie. Nearly every state won by Biden in the primary, allows its voters to pick their party ticket instead of being forced to vote on the ticket for which they have registered. It’s how the government maintains the status quo and enforces the grip of the plutocracy.
Given than 81 million voted for Biden in the general and only 19 million voted for him in the primaries (and less than 10 million for Bernie), I find it very hard to believe that it was the Republicans that tipped the scale for him in the primaries. Keep in mind that it was not Republicans who also elected Manchin and Sinema. Unless you have some strong proof for your assertion, I will take it as wild speculation and sour grapes (and I am a Bernie bro, mind you).
Yes, we need a bonafide third-party candidate, just to keep the process honest; Bernie brought Biden a ton of votes--only to have the planks of the platform sold out or severely watered down; that does not represent the true "voice of the people". BOTH sides of the aisle are deep, deep in bed with special interests and lobbyists who [sorry] "trump" the will of the masses of our population.
I'm no expert on this, but we need more than a third party candidate. We need a voting system that does not punish a third, or fourth, party, like they have in other developed countries.
....well, we have to start somewhere with alternatives; a "bonafide" third party candidate will be able to handle all the negative connotations about usurping the "two-party system", socialism, communism, etc., etc. The main problem is that so much of our population is brainwashed by the spin and whiz bang, they cannot see the advantage of a third-party who will speak the hard truths. For example, the Pentagon budgets--a portion of the American population is happy waving the flag, zombified, all the way to the poorhouse while a handful at the top walk with trillions. That is the "American way" for them, and they will accept no arguments. Everytime I viewed the parents/family of a deceased veteran, I was thinking "What a waste--simply due to the perpetual war demanded by our leadership". Tens of thousands of young Americans have died, for no good reason.
Wolf-PAC.com fights for actual free and fair elections by getting money out of them. Lots of solutions, but not enough people with enough will for change.
Never the less, we are hearing 'that vast sucking sound' that Perot talked about even before Citizens United. I wonder if that is why Biden seems constrained similarly.
Biden and Clinton are just same guy-different suit. While Clinton had NAFTA, Biden had crime and bankruptcy bills. They worked together to glad-hand the wealthy into joining the Democratic party.
Now we have a class system, not parties. Both parties' leadership has equal wealth. Manchin and Sinema are both independently wealthy just as McConnell and Trump. (Trump probably has much less than the other three) The "two parties" in Congress use different rhetoric but the goal is the same.You get a Nanny state with Dems or a Daddy state with Reps.
The lower class is invited to die at its earliest convenience.
As long as they keep the lower class anesthetized and ineffective while all levels of government ensure all blocks to the upward transfer of wealth are removed. The stock market no longer needs to even request an infusion of cash. It automatically gets dumped into the system with no approval process necessary.
And they're not really into smaller government. They're all about regulating what uterus owners can do with their bodies, who people sleep with and marry, and what restrooms people use.
Thank you. I always thought the Clintons tried to appeal to self-described liberals while they were off doing nasty stuff like reducing welfare, sending black predators to prison in the crime bill and regime change in Honduras. No one seriously thinks the Clintons are real progressives. They're indeed liberals but in the European sense. And right now we are paying a price for both Clintons. Her inept campaign in 2016 after putting her finger squarely on the scale of the Democratic nomination has produced some heinous things including the overturning of Roe. It was on the ballot in 2016. I guess electing a woman was more important than abortion rights...
In spite of her inept campaign (and remember she still beat Trump by over 3,000,000 votes), if Bernie Sanders had supported her instead of taking his wounded vanity back to Vermont, that would have given her enough extra votes in the close states for her to win in the electoral college. Did you not see the countless interviews on the news with Sanders supporters who said they would never support her but were instead going to vote for Trump? Similarly, if Obama had actively campaigned for her early on instead of sitting back in the White House because he didn't think campaigning would look "presidential", that also would have given her enough votes to win. As you remember, she got only 60% of the black vote that Obama got because he would not campaign and get them to turn out. (And as a result of his miscalculation he allowed Trump to almost overturn everything that would have been his legacy.) If either of these two had put aside their vanity and gone out and supported the duly chosen nominee of the party, then we would never have had Trump in the first place. (And back on Sanders again, if you recall, he is not even a member of the Democratic party for one thing, but was allowed to run as a candidate, and secondly, he only decided to run late in the process when all the rules were set and many of the delegates already chosen, and then he wanted the rules changed!)
More Sanders supporters voted for HRC than Clinton supporters voted for Obama. Clinton also controlled the DNC via her stooge Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Oh yeah, ANYONE can run for the Democratic nomination. Facts can be uncomfortable but seriously try educating yourself.
That is why progressives need to fight back against claims that we desire "wealth redistribution" when it's really "wealth recapture." CEOs didn't just suddenly find this money. And most progressives are not against someone being rich, even really rich. We're against UNEARNED wealth. We're against wealth that is taken from the improved productivity of employees, who were not organized enough to fight for what they deserved. We're against wealth that the rich and corporations have from purchasing favorable tax policies. We're against the wealth that now flows to the very top because the greatest Return On Investment one can gain is from buying an American politician.
Ian, you're right. And here's the real point: there is (and never has been) a "free market." Free markets don't exist in nature. They're constructed, enforced, and altered by government actors -- presidents, agency heads, members of Congress, judges and justices. So the entire framework of "government" versus "free market" makes no sense.
Yup. The easiest way to start an argument in business school was to ask friends to respond to Noam's thoughts on "really existing free markets." Always lovely to think about how many of those free-market-obsessed peers have been bailed out at least twice since that time, all the while complaining about people who rely on government and working for firms that lobby to ensure we don't use tax dollars for anything irresponsible like giving children books or medicine.
And Robert, you're right. I think you might have mentioned something akin to this previously, and I've long averred that semantics, our collective and sometimes sadly, disparate conceptions of words' meanings are like a herd of cats. It's possible for a person to 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 a billion dollars in a day. It is IMpossible for someone to 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 a billion dollars in a day.
And since you're so exquisitely forthcoming here, quick question for texture (and if too personal, apologies). Did you consider in that moment, when Bentsen barrelled through, making an impassioned argument against him (more specifically, his paltry 'analysis;)? You were obviously prescient (and still are)... wondering if your newness to that level of proximity to the prez, or the collective will of such powerful (not in ideas, but politically) opposition, or the inherent timing/structure of the meetings didn't allow it, or you felt it a lost cause, or....?
This isn't meant as within 94 parsecs of a criticism of you; you're one of the most admirable civil servants I've ever seen. In a class with Wellstone, Whitehouse, Kucinich, et al. Thank you so much for your passion, clarity, and commitment to integrity.
The paradigm that actual Wall Streeter's were talking c. 2004/4 was not "free markets" but that we, in the US, cannot fight an asymmetrical war, where US traders are forbidden to compete using the same games that foreign market actors are using. This led to 2008. And the recovery (touted as costing 1.8? Trillion) was actually a perpetual liquidity machine. When first issued, the Fed borrowing of some 2-220 companies went to 100% in the near zero environment. Half the S&P paid off their shareholders in cash and borrowed for operations. By Trump's run in 2015, those companies plus and minus several more had doubled down and owed $20 trillion. In the Summer 2015, the markets were saying "Melt up, Melt up...Jubilee (the Jewish holiday every 50 years to forgive all debts). And that is what the Rs 2017 Billionaires Tax break was!!! It was to save 220+- companies from defaulting. And only a crook like Trump would do.
(I have been harried by repeated demands to fill in my profile. Don't know if I will comment again.) The numbers are $5 Trillion by 2013 and $10 Trillion in 2015 with some very shaky new borrowers. Wall Street was afraid it would go to $20 Trillion in 2016-18 timeframe. And that the falsehood that a country needs to balance its budget if it 1) has a healthy GDP and 2) its own currency would be revealed and Dems might take that as a signal to help the working class!!! OMG!
I prefer to describe it as a healthy "return to balance", due to the massive skew at the top. That may involve "redistribution", but when the slope looks like an Olympic ski jump, on steroids, so be it.
Great story of how on relatively quick decision with very little thought or consideration of the impact of that decision can ripple out and affect us all for decades. And when you add the wealth gap to the unfortunate decision to allow money into politics virtually unchecked by the supreme court, you get greed and Trump. How do some people look themselves in the mirror each morning and not throw up?
Chris, in my experience, this is typical for how decisions are made in Washington. The key players have very limited time to consider all implications of what they're choosing to do. They're usually trying to do the right thing but they often come with somewhat different frameworks and biases. It's less a matter of "not throwing up" than just managing to keep up, somewhat akin to drinking from a firehose. But of course big money in politics is a huge problem, and only getting worse. (I just got off the phone with Bernie Sanders, who said he was extraordinarily frustrated, and that every major industry was pouring money into Washington.)
(IMHO, Thanks to the Federalist Society's ongoing successful efforts to corrupt SCOTUS and all the lower levels of the judiciary, as demonstrated by the fact it takes dark money.)
If WE wouldn't LET them get to Washington, generally through the political latter climbing, WE wouldn't have the bad apples there! More investigating local poli.s before letting them step the latter(muni,regional,district, state,region) to your federal wallet would save yourself and hundreds of thousands, if not 10s of Millions of people, lots more...and end power games losing rights or value of rights.
We have many Corp peeps from Japanese companies here, enjoying OUR civil rights, our Countries benefits and rich people's tax advantage, while also being able to lobby congress/senate, state House, County seats, and City elected b/c "Corp", while constituent/taxpayers lucky to get 1 minute(@CityOfSanDiego) to speak!{after waiting for hours & hours for your item to come up}, while paid lobbiests make more money...??? Then they don't even listen while watching You Tube video!??
I was raised by Dennis Banks'(Main AIM Leader of Wounded Knee) mother,Wilma, in Minneapolis,MN when I was in single digits years old!!! Eric Lange any association to Emily Anne Lange of Martin Lange(father)..founder KOSS(head phones) & electronics manufacturing?? My ex-fiance'??? This Daniel Beeman
Clinton was another grifter, just smarter than trump. We have him to thank for the unholy alliance called The Third Way, which is still pushing Banks/Wall St/corporate agenda and bills to this day, with the misguided idea that there is a center way and that is only possible if you have more than 2 parties. Not to mention The Telecommunications bill of 95 which enabled the likes of Fox News to exist. My theory is that every type of government is eventually overtaken by the greedy and corrupt no matter the original good intentions. We need to cap what one man can earn at a reasonable sum, otherwise they will surely try to own us all. We used to use the Anti Trust laws to protect citizens from these predators, just a joke now.
We were taught, (brainwashed is more accurate) to believe that capitalism in a democracy is morally perfect. Rather than some imaginary moral code (socialism is evil, capatalism is good), governments can accurately be measured by how much they keep the rich from exploiting the poor. Our system has been better than most, but, as Joanne points out "every type of government is eventually overtaken by the greedy". Capitalism will eventually destroy democracy, because democracy depends on all persons having an equal "vote", but capitalism means that, in any transaction, the guy with the money profits more than the guy without the money. This centralizes wealth, creates an imbalance of power, and destroys democracy. We see it now, as our "representatives" constantly do things that most of the people don't favor.
Fear aubstantiates nothing. There is no substance in fear; only hormones and brain-stem-sourced reaction.
Critical thinking is independent of brain-stem-reacting.
I've mentioned brain-science as it illuminates understanding of human behavior, and the society of the U.S.A. and its current govermental system is human behavior.
"Here is a government, if you can keep it," declared Dr. Benjamin Franklin, following thr ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, in 1789. His challenge continues, throughout the changes and balances of power in our so-called nation.
I think, as Janelle Bouie has opined today in the New York Times, that we need a new constitution. May I suggest that you read her opinion and consider and.alternative to the proven, failed status quo?
Before a new constitution, the present tax code can be repealled so as to fairly and necessarily tax capital gains, estates, and incomes that exceed $1 million.
Now might not be the best time to call a Constitutional Convention. We can't even pass a Voting Rights Act in the Senate. And Republicans have been collecting statehouses. They already have the majority needed to call their own Constitutional Convention and they don't plan to put anything in it that most of us will like.
and this^ helped to create the underpaid lower/middle class that knows something is awry but can't put their finger on what...and they end up following demagogues who promise them that they will change it all up for them....we created this...we who voted for Clinton.
Why does this sound like an episode of West Wing? Because it is - in real life. It's too bad we didn't realize the harm Bill Clinton did until it was too late.
Clinton listened to his advisors who gave him poor advice. He was an attorney, not an economist. And don't really see him as the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Bob, apropos of this discussion, did you see Marco Rubio's op-ed in The American Conservative, in which he called America's corporate elite Marxist cultural revolutionaries? Marco Rubio has gone completely off the rails. When he equates U.S. corporations with Marxists, I feel like I am traveling with Alice through Wonderland.
I've watched his transformation over the years, as I've watched other Republican senators. Some of them have held on to reality and sanity. A frightening number of others have let go.
My son in law is in the Navy and he was in boot camp just before the election. He said he was ordered to pledge to serve Donald J Trump, not the office of President. Maybe that is standard. But he posted on a wall by the guest room in his home that we should 'kneel to god' and stand for America! On November 7, his church is hosting a Veteran's Day Celebration, honoring all veterans & active duty. Special Guest: Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston USMC((Ret.), Medal of Honor. Also speaking; Lt. Col. Brian Dea, USSF, 4th Space Force Operations Commander. A Commemorative Challenge Coin, and lunch for every Veteran and Active Duty Military in attendance. We received two of these invitations to go to 100 Montague Plantation in Goose Creek S. C. even though we live in MA. It was at the Trident Baptist Church of that address. It seems like some would like to have lots of people go there and hear real pep talk, and not about Christ!
That was what Trump claimed he would do if elected. He would somehow get the corporations to return to the United States with good paying jobs. The workers in the upper Midwest especially loved it and voted for him. He even lifted some of Bernie Sanders talking points, He was 'gonna make them pay!' for abandoning the workers in America, with some kind of draconian taxes, making it unprofitable to do business elsewhere.
As long as money is considered to be "speech" and not "bribery", we will have politicians who care about us only on election day. The rest of their term will be spent licking the boots of the donor class.
Let Companies give their Execs what they want. But let's tax corporations and high earners, like during Eisenhower's time, at up to 90% at the top brackets. That's how ALL boats will rise with the tide.
High tax rates (90%) don't work. No one in their right mind will pay 9 dollars to the government in order to keep 1 dollar. They will instead shelter income from taxation by using the zillion tax loopholes in the tax code. I recall reading once that the government collected almost zero revenue from the 90% rate in Eisenhower's time. A better way is to keep the tax rate reasonable (below 50%) and eliminate all the loopholes in the tax code to shelter income from taxation.
The 90% was on the top marginal amount, not all income. The rate increased with each succeeding bracket. It worked. Only the yammering by CEOs and corps. kept on crying for "lower taxes, lower taxes" with no end, which got us into today's POS tax system. Tax fairness disappeared too long ago. Now The Bezoses and Gateses and Musks of the world are riding higher than the robber barons of old.
Thank you, mdroy100, for your clarification of my comment! I believe in a progressive tax system, just not up to 90%. I agree that the present tax system is a POS that favors the ultra-wealthy. I think most Americans of all political stripes also agree. Nothing get done because the our representatives in Washington don't want to change a system they take advantage of themselves!
My 'heart' like on last part...they always find way to "loop" out, but a set income tax rate, like sales tax, on all income would be much better than PBS study numbers saying Top 5% earners only paying 4-6% of their income on taxes! Believe me as a former WI Dept of Revenue employee, it is just as bad at State level too!!! Income averaging by millionaires HUGE scam!!! No biz losses $5 Million one year then averages no income tax for multiple years via averaging. Losing $5M in 1980's was bankruptcy for small biz!! But saw quiet a few returns similar to this come in!!! PS I kept a little of each form to be filed for more than 10 years back to do/re-do taxes, so everyone COULD pay back taxes!!! Worked as Mail/Stock clerk, opening mail, delivering inter-office & postal mail, and stocking of forms & supplies. This time of year 1000s of $ in Guilty conscience CA$H comes to Dept of Revenue & IRS, maybe not now w/ all the electronic, debt & credit cards, but back then HUGE WADS of cash, TG to Xmas!
You're so wrong about everything you said in your comment. Where did you read that? The Federalist? A much better idea is to tax ASSETS, not income. btw, there's no need to impose a federal income tax on anyone earning less than $100k. "Balanced budgets" are bullshit tools used by the wealthy to deny gov't funds to the middle class and poor.
What a great story, a window into how policies are manipulated to protect everyone but the masses. Must have been extraordinarily difficult to be Labor Secretary fighting for the American people when everyone else were doing back flips to protect corporations. The fight continues today but now we're seeing workers fight back.
Thank you belatedly for standing up for sensible policy, even if you didn't prevail. The decision you describe seems to be part of our culture of treating large corporations and their CEOs like gods who can do no wrong, and must always be catered to. And that corporations have some "fiduciary duty" to maximize their shareholders' wealth, including that of foreign shareholders, at the expense of every other consideration.
I have seen some evidence that another motivator for outrageously high executive compensation may have been the abolition of the highest marginal tax rates. The thought is that if increased compensation will push the executive into a higher tax bracket, then most of the extra pay would go to taxes, thereby disincentivizing CEOs from negotiating higher pay.
I started as a driver with UPS in 1976. At that time the CEO made about 25 times what a driver made. He was a wealthy man. Today if a driver worked 100 years he or she wouldn't come close to what the current CEO makes in a single year. The compensation of todays top executives is just crazy money. After a certain point it's just becomes numbers in a portfolio and doesn't enhance their living conditions. They already have more money then they could ever spend. It just creates mini dynasty's. Or maybe not so mini. It just takes vast sums of money out of the corporation and tax rolls that maybe their great grandkids might be able to spend. Back when I started at my company everyone made great money. Of course the higher you went the more you made but even low level management could retire multi millionaires with the stock (I knew a few of them) and drivers were the upper middle class. Not so today. This trend was even more apparent in other companies. The pie was still there but larger and larger slices were going to the top executives rather than being distributed down through the ranks. When you mention this there are shouts of socialism, usually from the people at the top, but if that's so were we a socialist nation back when things were divided more evenly? The foxes were guarding the henhouse, greed took over, and we are where we are today.
Good story Robert. The tax codes Are class warfare. The “Budget” IS social engineering. We Are a military warfare country. Endless wars = Endless profits. Today the military budget is more than anytime in US his-story. We are in a perfect storm. How can / do we raise consciousness and create healthier outcomes?
This is very unsettling, that churches are political and they are not taxed. I was unaware of the fact that we have a 'Space Force'! I really think that Donald tRump would love to have a 'Death Star' To play with.
As a person that was downsized right out of a job after 22 years - I agree that Exec pay must not be controlled by stock prices - must be based on performance -not how many employer benefits can be cut or how many jobs can be shifted overseas
Ah, but unless you define “performance,” you have contradicted yourself. To the corporate world, a CEO’s performance is measured by the value of the company, i.e. the performance of the stock. I’m not saying I agree with that; I don’t, because a CEO should be accountable for everything related to the company, not just the stock price. Also, stock prices depend on a lot of factors, can be manipulated, and maximizing for the short term can lead to long term problems.
“Bentsen: Look Bob. We shouldn’t be social engineering through the tax code.”
Seriously? We do that with text codes all the time.
Deductions for charitable contributions. Exemptions for churches. Different rates for filing as married versus single. Credits for child care. All of which, and thousands of others, are in there to try to encourage certain forms of behavior.
Nearly every tax rule is an attempt at some kind of social engineering.
[We do that with TAX codes all the time.]
You haven't mentioned the biggest contributor to 'behaviour modification,' and that's the deductibility of mortgage interest. I'm not saying that's bad public policy, just that it is has a 'social engineering' purpose, ie. to encourage homeownership, considered a positive because it makes people's living situations and social behaviour more stable, helps them to build wealth and to feel a greater attachment to the social fabric of America.
Here in Australia, we don't get to deduct mortgage interest, but as in the US, we don't pay capital gains tax on our primary homes: "Your main residence (your home) is generally exempt from capital gains tax (CGT)." This capital gain relief is uncapped in Australia.
And yet the 2017 tax act placed limits on the mortgage interest deduction. Was that to discourage home ownership and move us towards a "renters" mentality?
no... like everything else it's simply taking stuff away from people. Like chiseling away from so many directions the exemption for taxes on your car in my state (CT) It's so miserly. "Times are tough people ! Shared sacrifice!" my butt
This is why the Fair Tax is needed! https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works
"Fair Tax" is total 1% funded bullshit. Do not support "Fair Tax." Instead of raising taxes on the middle class and poor under the super-bullshit guise of equitable tax system, we need to impose a large ASSET TAX on the super-rich and large corporations. I support completely eliminating federal income tax on anyone earning under $100k. We can easily make up the difference by sufficiently taxing the super-rich and large corporations with a large ASSET TAX.
Look how stupid of an idea the "Fair Tax" really is:
The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate. The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% compared to combining the 15% income tax bracket with the 7.65% of employee payroll taxes under the current system -- both of which will be eliminated!
A fair tax has always smelled like BS. Proportionate to earnings the wealthy spend far less than others. The nation always prospered when our progressive tax had been set above 70% on the top earners.
The current tax code has evolved into something that works for no one at any level except for tax attorneys and IRS staffers. Rather than smell, please take a moment to read and learn more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Monthly payments made to individuals and families equal to the poverty level. Students of the fair tax were not expecting for calculate that the loss of the cost of collecting and policing the income tax (not even including the ravages of the carrot and whip entitlement of Congress) mixed with the "employee pricing" marketing experiences would result in prices dropping commensurate with lower costs (except, of course, pharmaceutical companies that are pets of Congress). Please read with some degree of depth before judging that potential for the biggest bloodless revolution in any country in any time.
The neoliberal paradigm so securely in place as the only lens through which to approach issues. Those folks couldn't see their way out of it. A Republican in-law asked me back then if I was happy to have a liberal, Clinton, in the White House, and I explained that Clinton wasn't at all liberal. The oligarchy empowered by Reagan hasn't budged. At least now there are progressives in Congress to stand for the true principles of the Democratic Party, but can they prevail and make a difference? I'm skeptical.
Neoliberalism stands for free trade, privatization, and deregulation. Remember that Clinton was the first Democrat to occupy the Oval Office in twelve long years, since Reagan left it, and he wasn't even elected by a majority but by a plurality (anyone recall Ross Perot?). So I understand why he felt as constrained as he did. That doesn't justify it, however.
Yes, I voted for Ross Perot: "We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, THERE WILL BE A GIANT SUCKING SOUND going south." Everybody I know laughed at me--but he was dead on.
Yes, and the reason a vote for Perot was a wasted vote is built into a mandatory 2-party system that keeps the power centralized. We should have the abililty to vote for who we want to, not who is chosen for us. How did we end up with Biden as the nominee, when we had several others who more represented our interests?
We ended up with Biden because the consensus was that he was the only guy who could bleed off enough center-right voters to get Trump out of office. Getting Trump out was the imperative due to the damage he was doing to our Constitutional norms every single day he was in office.
And he'll be back doing it again, only next time, he won't be leaving. Because we'll be in a one-party system
If the GOP succeeds in its current efforts to rig all future elections.
We got him because democratic voters voted for him in the primaries. He was chosen for you. If more people participated in primaries there might have been a different outcome. But whether it was Biden or Bernie, the current make up of the senate means no one’s agenda would come to fruition. I’m Canadian and the fiasco of trump and the manipulation of the voting process has made me come to appreciate parliamentary democracy. It’s ludicrous to vote for a democrat for president and then turn around and vote for a Republican senator. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
We got him because multiple states allow voters to pick their party’s ballot in the primaries. Because Trump was already the GOP’s choice, every Republican ran and voted for Biden on the Dem ticket because they are constantly pummeled with “socialism is evil” and were terrified of Bernie. Nearly every state won by Biden in the primary, allows its voters to pick their party ticket instead of being forced to vote on the ticket for which they have registered. It’s how the government maintains the status quo and enforces the grip of the plutocracy.
Given than 81 million voted for Biden in the general and only 19 million voted for him in the primaries (and less than 10 million for Bernie), I find it very hard to believe that it was the Republicans that tipped the scale for him in the primaries. Keep in mind that it was not Republicans who also elected Manchin and Sinema. Unless you have some strong proof for your assertion, I will take it as wild speculation and sour grapes (and I am a Bernie bro, mind you).
Yes, we need a bonafide third-party candidate, just to keep the process honest; Bernie brought Biden a ton of votes--only to have the planks of the platform sold out or severely watered down; that does not represent the true "voice of the people". BOTH sides of the aisle are deep, deep in bed with special interests and lobbyists who [sorry] "trump" the will of the masses of our population.
I'm no expert on this, but we need more than a third party candidate. We need a voting system that does not punish a third, or fourth, party, like they have in other developed countries.
....well, we have to start somewhere with alternatives; a "bonafide" third party candidate will be able to handle all the negative connotations about usurping the "two-party system", socialism, communism, etc., etc. The main problem is that so much of our population is brainwashed by the spin and whiz bang, they cannot see the advantage of a third-party who will speak the hard truths. For example, the Pentagon budgets--a portion of the American population is happy waving the flag, zombified, all the way to the poorhouse while a handful at the top walk with trillions. That is the "American way" for them, and they will accept no arguments. Everytime I viewed the parents/family of a deceased veteran, I was thinking "What a waste--simply due to the perpetual war demanded by our leadership". Tens of thousands of young Americans have died, for no good reason.
Wolf-PAC.com fights for actual free and fair elections by getting money out of them. Lots of solutions, but not enough people with enough will for change.
Obama literally made the phone calls for the rest to drop out.
Never the less, we are hearing 'that vast sucking sound' that Perot talked about even before Citizens United. I wonder if that is why Biden seems constrained similarly.
Biden and Clinton are just same guy-different suit. While Clinton had NAFTA, Biden had crime and bankruptcy bills. They worked together to glad-hand the wealthy into joining the Democratic party.
Now we have a class system, not parties. Both parties' leadership has equal wealth. Manchin and Sinema are both independently wealthy just as McConnell and Trump. (Trump probably has much less than the other three) The "two parties" in Congress use different rhetoric but the goal is the same.You get a Nanny state with Dems or a Daddy state with Reps.
The lower class is invited to die at its earliest convenience.
As long as they keep the lower class anesthetized and ineffective while all levels of government ensure all blocks to the upward transfer of wealth are removed. The stock market no longer needs to even request an infusion of cash. It automatically gets dumped into the system with no approval process necessary.
I still don't understand why Republicans hated Clinton. He was a fiscal (balanced budget) and social conservative with the morality of an alley cat.
That was before they decided the deficits don't matter and morals don't matter as long as we get tax cuts, fewer regulations and smaller government.
And they're not really into smaller government. They're all about regulating what uterus owners can do with their bodies, who people sleep with and marry, and what restrooms people use.
Not until Reagan era Democrats (Schumer, Manchin Clyburn) are gone
You might enjoy "The Rise & Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism" by David Kotz, an excellent book.
Thank you. I always thought the Clintons tried to appeal to self-described liberals while they were off doing nasty stuff like reducing welfare, sending black predators to prison in the crime bill and regime change in Honduras. No one seriously thinks the Clintons are real progressives. They're indeed liberals but in the European sense. And right now we are paying a price for both Clintons. Her inept campaign in 2016 after putting her finger squarely on the scale of the Democratic nomination has produced some heinous things including the overturning of Roe. It was on the ballot in 2016. I guess electing a woman was more important than abortion rights...
In spite of her inept campaign (and remember she still beat Trump by over 3,000,000 votes), if Bernie Sanders had supported her instead of taking his wounded vanity back to Vermont, that would have given her enough extra votes in the close states for her to win in the electoral college. Did you not see the countless interviews on the news with Sanders supporters who said they would never support her but were instead going to vote for Trump? Similarly, if Obama had actively campaigned for her early on instead of sitting back in the White House because he didn't think campaigning would look "presidential", that also would have given her enough votes to win. As you remember, she got only 60% of the black vote that Obama got because he would not campaign and get them to turn out. (And as a result of his miscalculation he allowed Trump to almost overturn everything that would have been his legacy.) If either of these two had put aside their vanity and gone out and supported the duly chosen nominee of the party, then we would never have had Trump in the first place. (And back on Sanders again, if you recall, he is not even a member of the Democratic party for one thing, but was allowed to run as a candidate, and secondly, he only decided to run late in the process when all the rules were set and many of the delegates already chosen, and then he wanted the rules changed!)
More Sanders supporters voted for HRC than Clinton supporters voted for Obama. Clinton also controlled the DNC via her stooge Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Oh yeah, ANYONE can run for the Democratic nomination. Facts can be uncomfortable but seriously try educating yourself.
Rank Choice Voting could go a long way toward making a multi party system possible in USA.
That is why progressives need to fight back against claims that we desire "wealth redistribution" when it's really "wealth recapture." CEOs didn't just suddenly find this money. And most progressives are not against someone being rich, even really rich. We're against UNEARNED wealth. We're against wealth that is taken from the improved productivity of employees, who were not organized enough to fight for what they deserved. We're against wealth that the rich and corporations have from purchasing favorable tax policies. We're against the wealth that now flows to the very top because the greatest Return On Investment one can gain is from buying an American politician.
Ian, you're right. And here's the real point: there is (and never has been) a "free market." Free markets don't exist in nature. They're constructed, enforced, and altered by government actors -- presidents, agency heads, members of Congress, judges and justices. So the entire framework of "government" versus "free market" makes no sense.
Yup. The easiest way to start an argument in business school was to ask friends to respond to Noam's thoughts on "really existing free markets." Always lovely to think about how many of those free-market-obsessed peers have been bailed out at least twice since that time, all the while complaining about people who rely on government and working for firms that lobby to ensure we don't use tax dollars for anything irresponsible like giving children books or medicine.
https://chomsky.info/19960413/
And Robert, you're right. I think you might have mentioned something akin to this previously, and I've long averred that semantics, our collective and sometimes sadly, disparate conceptions of words' meanings are like a herd of cats. It's possible for a person to 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 a billion dollars in a day. It is IMpossible for someone to 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 a billion dollars in a day.
And since you're so exquisitely forthcoming here, quick question for texture (and if too personal, apologies). Did you consider in that moment, when Bentsen barrelled through, making an impassioned argument against him (more specifically, his paltry 'analysis;)? You were obviously prescient (and still are)... wondering if your newness to that level of proximity to the prez, or the collective will of such powerful (not in ideas, but politically) opposition, or the inherent timing/structure of the meetings didn't allow it, or you felt it a lost cause, or....?
This isn't meant as within 94 parsecs of a criticism of you; you're one of the most admirable civil servants I've ever seen. In a class with Wellstone, Whitehouse, Kucinich, et al. Thank you so much for your passion, clarity, and commitment to integrity.
Please elaborate.
The paradigm that actual Wall Streeter's were talking c. 2004/4 was not "free markets" but that we, in the US, cannot fight an asymmetrical war, where US traders are forbidden to compete using the same games that foreign market actors are using. This led to 2008. And the recovery (touted as costing 1.8? Trillion) was actually a perpetual liquidity machine. When first issued, the Fed borrowing of some 2-220 companies went to 100% in the near zero environment. Half the S&P paid off their shareholders in cash and borrowed for operations. By Trump's run in 2015, those companies plus and minus several more had doubled down and owed $20 trillion. In the Summer 2015, the markets were saying "Melt up, Melt up...Jubilee (the Jewish holiday every 50 years to forgive all debts). And that is what the Rs 2017 Billionaires Tax break was!!! It was to save 220+- companies from defaulting. And only a crook like Trump would do.
What do you think the plan is NOW?
(I have been harried by repeated demands to fill in my profile. Don't know if I will comment again.) The numbers are $5 Trillion by 2013 and $10 Trillion in 2015 with some very shaky new borrowers. Wall Street was afraid it would go to $20 Trillion in 2016-18 timeframe. And that the falsehood that a country needs to balance its budget if it 1) has a healthy GDP and 2) its own currency would be revealed and Dems might take that as a signal to help the working class!!! OMG!
I prefer to describe it as a healthy "return to balance", due to the massive skew at the top. That may involve "redistribution", but when the slope looks like an Olympic ski jump, on steroids, so be it.
Great story of how on relatively quick decision with very little thought or consideration of the impact of that decision can ripple out and affect us all for decades. And when you add the wealth gap to the unfortunate decision to allow money into politics virtually unchecked by the supreme court, you get greed and Trump. How do some people look themselves in the mirror each morning and not throw up?
Chris, in my experience, this is typical for how decisions are made in Washington. The key players have very limited time to consider all implications of what they're choosing to do. They're usually trying to do the right thing but they often come with somewhat different frameworks and biases. It's less a matter of "not throwing up" than just managing to keep up, somewhat akin to drinking from a firehose. But of course big money in politics is a huge problem, and only getting worse. (I just got off the phone with Bernie Sanders, who said he was extraordinarily frustrated, and that every major industry was pouring money into Washington.)
Therein lies the problem. It was always a serious issue, but Citizens United opened the floodgates.
(IMHO, Thanks to the Federalist Society's ongoing successful efforts to corrupt SCOTUS and all the lower levels of the judiciary, as demonstrated by the fact it takes dark money.)
If WE wouldn't LET them get to Washington, generally through the political latter climbing, WE wouldn't have the bad apples there! More investigating local poli.s before letting them step the latter(muni,regional,district, state,region) to your federal wallet would save yourself and hundreds of thousands, if not 10s of Millions of people, lots more...and end power games losing rights or value of rights.
We have many Corp peeps from Japanese companies here, enjoying OUR civil rights, our Countries benefits and rich people's tax advantage, while also being able to lobby congress/senate, state House, County seats, and City elected b/c "Corp", while constituent/taxpayers lucky to get 1 minute(@CityOfSanDiego) to speak!{after waiting for hours & hours for your item to come up}, while paid lobbiests make more money...??? Then they don't even listen while watching You Tube video!??
I was raised by Dennis Banks'(Main AIM Leader of Wounded Knee) mother,Wilma, in Minneapolis,MN when I was in single digits years old!!! Eric Lange any association to Emily Anne Lange of Martin Lange(father)..founder KOSS(head phones) & electronics manufacturing?? My ex-fiance'??? This Daniel Beeman
Clinton was another grifter, just smarter than trump. We have him to thank for the unholy alliance called The Third Way, which is still pushing Banks/Wall St/corporate agenda and bills to this day, with the misguided idea that there is a center way and that is only possible if you have more than 2 parties. Not to mention The Telecommunications bill of 95 which enabled the likes of Fox News to exist. My theory is that every type of government is eventually overtaken by the greedy and corrupt no matter the original good intentions. We need to cap what one man can earn at a reasonable sum, otherwise they will surely try to own us all. We used to use the Anti Trust laws to protect citizens from these predators, just a joke now.
We were taught, (brainwashed is more accurate) to believe that capitalism in a democracy is morally perfect. Rather than some imaginary moral code (socialism is evil, capatalism is good), governments can accurately be measured by how much they keep the rich from exploiting the poor. Our system has been better than most, but, as Joanne points out "every type of government is eventually overtaken by the greedy". Capitalism will eventually destroy democracy, because democracy depends on all persons having an equal "vote", but capitalism means that, in any transaction, the guy with the money profits more than the guy without the money. This centralizes wealth, creates an imbalance of power, and destroys democracy. We see it now, as our "representatives" constantly do things that most of the people don't favor.
Fear substantiated the so-called "Cold War."
Fear aubstantiates nothing. There is no substance in fear; only hormones and brain-stem-sourced reaction.
Critical thinking is independent of brain-stem-reacting.
I've mentioned brain-science as it illuminates understanding of human behavior, and the society of the U.S.A. and its current govermental system is human behavior.
"Here is a government, if you can keep it," declared Dr. Benjamin Franklin, following thr ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, in 1789. His challenge continues, throughout the changes and balances of power in our so-called nation.
I think, as Janelle Bouie has opined today in the New York Times, that we need a new constitution. May I suggest that you read her opinion and consider and.alternative to the proven, failed status quo?
Before a new constitution, the present tax code can be repealled so as to fairly and necessarily tax capital gains, estates, and incomes that exceed $1 million.
Now might not be the best time to call a Constitutional Convention. We can't even pass a Voting Rights Act in the Senate. And Republicans have been collecting statehouses. They already have the majority needed to call their own Constitutional Convention and they don't plan to put anything in it that most of us will like.
and this^ helped to create the underpaid lower/middle class that knows something is awry but can't put their finger on what...and they end up following demagogues who promise them that they will change it all up for them....we created this...we who voted for Clinton.
Why does this sound like an episode of West Wing? Because it is - in real life. It's too bad we didn't realize the harm Bill Clinton did until it was too late.
Clinton listened to his advisors who gave him poor advice. He was an attorney, not an economist. And don't really see him as the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Bob, apropos of this discussion, did you see Marco Rubio's op-ed in The American Conservative, in which he called America's corporate elite Marxist cultural revolutionaries? Marco Rubio has gone completely off the rails. When he equates U.S. corporations with Marxists, I feel like I am traveling with Alice through Wonderland.
I've watched his transformation over the years, as I've watched other Republican senators. Some of them have held on to reality and sanity. A frightening number of others have let go.
I agree, Rubio lacks the wisdom to be Senator. I think his Democratic opponent should capitalize on this op-ed.
So what does he support? The idea if a Republican not supporting corporations is upside down. He wants the military to govern, is that it? Yeesh.
My son in law is in the Navy and he was in boot camp just before the election. He said he was ordered to pledge to serve Donald J Trump, not the office of President. Maybe that is standard. But he posted on a wall by the guest room in his home that we should 'kneel to god' and stand for America! On November 7, his church is hosting a Veteran's Day Celebration, honoring all veterans & active duty. Special Guest: Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston USMC((Ret.), Medal of Honor. Also speaking; Lt. Col. Brian Dea, USSF, 4th Space Force Operations Commander. A Commemorative Challenge Coin, and lunch for every Veteran and Active Duty Military in attendance. We received two of these invitations to go to 100 Montague Plantation in Goose Creek S. C. even though we live in MA. It was at the Trident Baptist Church of that address. It seems like some would like to have lots of people go there and hear real pep talk, and not about Christ!
I think there is a piece about this in The Washington Post today. He wants to force corporations to come back to America.
That was what Trump claimed he would do if elected. He would somehow get the corporations to return to the United States with good paying jobs. The workers in the upper Midwest especially loved it and voted for him. He even lifted some of Bernie Sanders talking points, He was 'gonna make them pay!' for abandoning the workers in America, with some kind of draconian taxes, making it unprofitable to do business elsewhere.
As long as money is considered to be "speech" and not "bribery", we will have politicians who care about us only on election day. The rest of their term will be spent licking the boots of the donor class.
Let Companies give their Execs what they want. But let's tax corporations and high earners, like during Eisenhower's time, at up to 90% at the top brackets. That's how ALL boats will rise with the tide.
High tax rates (90%) don't work. No one in their right mind will pay 9 dollars to the government in order to keep 1 dollar. They will instead shelter income from taxation by using the zillion tax loopholes in the tax code. I recall reading once that the government collected almost zero revenue from the 90% rate in Eisenhower's time. A better way is to keep the tax rate reasonable (below 50%) and eliminate all the loopholes in the tax code to shelter income from taxation.
The 90% was on the top marginal amount, not all income. The rate increased with each succeeding bracket. It worked. Only the yammering by CEOs and corps. kept on crying for "lower taxes, lower taxes" with no end, which got us into today's POS tax system. Tax fairness disappeared too long ago. Now The Bezoses and Gateses and Musks of the world are riding higher than the robber barons of old.
Thank you, mdroy100, for your clarification of my comment! I believe in a progressive tax system, just not up to 90%. I agree that the present tax system is a POS that favors the ultra-wealthy. I think most Americans of all political stripes also agree. Nothing get done because the our representatives in Washington don't want to change a system they take advantage of themselves!
My 'heart' like on last part...they always find way to "loop" out, but a set income tax rate, like sales tax, on all income would be much better than PBS study numbers saying Top 5% earners only paying 4-6% of their income on taxes! Believe me as a former WI Dept of Revenue employee, it is just as bad at State level too!!! Income averaging by millionaires HUGE scam!!! No biz losses $5 Million one year then averages no income tax for multiple years via averaging. Losing $5M in 1980's was bankruptcy for small biz!! But saw quiet a few returns similar to this come in!!! PS I kept a little of each form to be filed for more than 10 years back to do/re-do taxes, so everyone COULD pay back taxes!!! Worked as Mail/Stock clerk, opening mail, delivering inter-office & postal mail, and stocking of forms & supplies. This time of year 1000s of $ in Guilty conscience CA$H comes to Dept of Revenue & IRS, maybe not now w/ all the electronic, debt & credit cards, but back then HUGE WADS of cash, TG to Xmas!
You're so wrong about everything you said in your comment. Where did you read that? The Federalist? A much better idea is to tax ASSETS, not income. btw, there's no need to impose a federal income tax on anyone earning less than $100k. "Balanced budgets" are bullshit tools used by the wealthy to deny gov't funds to the middle class and poor.
Inflation my ass.
What a great story, a window into how policies are manipulated to protect everyone but the masses. Must have been extraordinarily difficult to be Labor Secretary fighting for the American people when everyone else were doing back flips to protect corporations. The fight continues today but now we're seeing workers fight back.
Thank you belatedly for standing up for sensible policy, even if you didn't prevail. The decision you describe seems to be part of our culture of treating large corporations and their CEOs like gods who can do no wrong, and must always be catered to. And that corporations have some "fiduciary duty" to maximize their shareholders' wealth, including that of foreign shareholders, at the expense of every other consideration.
I have seen some evidence that another motivator for outrageously high executive compensation may have been the abolition of the highest marginal tax rates. The thought is that if increased compensation will push the executive into a higher tax bracket, then most of the extra pay would go to taxes, thereby disincentivizing CEOs from negotiating higher pay.
I started as a driver with UPS in 1976. At that time the CEO made about 25 times what a driver made. He was a wealthy man. Today if a driver worked 100 years he or she wouldn't come close to what the current CEO makes in a single year. The compensation of todays top executives is just crazy money. After a certain point it's just becomes numbers in a portfolio and doesn't enhance their living conditions. They already have more money then they could ever spend. It just creates mini dynasty's. Or maybe not so mini. It just takes vast sums of money out of the corporation and tax rolls that maybe their great grandkids might be able to spend. Back when I started at my company everyone made great money. Of course the higher you went the more you made but even low level management could retire multi millionaires with the stock (I knew a few of them) and drivers were the upper middle class. Not so today. This trend was even more apparent in other companies. The pie was still there but larger and larger slices were going to the top executives rather than being distributed down through the ranks. When you mention this there are shouts of socialism, usually from the people at the top, but if that's so were we a socialist nation back when things were divided more evenly? The foxes were guarding the henhouse, greed took over, and we are where we are today.
The gap between workers and owners is unreasonable and not even close to being fair
It is unsustainable even if all the workers are slaves. The environment itself pushes back.
Good story Robert. The tax codes Are class warfare. The “Budget” IS social engineering. We Are a military warfare country. Endless wars = Endless profits. Today the military budget is more than anytime in US his-story. We are in a perfect storm. How can / do we raise consciousness and create healthier outcomes?
This is very unsettling, that churches are political and they are not taxed. I was unaware of the fact that we have a 'Space Force'! I really think that Donald tRump would love to have a 'Death Star' To play with.
As a person that was downsized right out of a job after 22 years - I agree that Exec pay must not be controlled by stock prices - must be based on performance -not how many employer benefits can be cut or how many jobs can be shifted overseas
Ah, but unless you define “performance,” you have contradicted yourself. To the corporate world, a CEO’s performance is measured by the value of the company, i.e. the performance of the stock. I’m not saying I agree with that; I don’t, because a CEO should be accountable for everything related to the company, not just the stock price. Also, stock prices depend on a lot of factors, can be manipulated, and maximizing for the short term can lead to long term problems.
So that’s how a shitty plan goes into affect!