This is incedible.Call it highway robbery.CEO and co-founder Stephan Schwarzman of Blackstone,took his company public last year and made 5.13B at the expense of investors,including me,and his companies downward negative
reporting.I know.I got in at about 30.00 per share,I'm long de-invested,but the stock is around 16.62.

This is outrageous!

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080312/blackstone_executive_compensation.html

Well, he made that money off the IPO. I'd never invest in one of these companies going public, the reason being that they take advantage of vastly lower SEC reporting requirements for private companies to inflate their value and hide debts before going public and screwing everyone who then buys the stock; when the reporting requirements are triggered, all the hidden problems come out.

This is what's most wrong with the American economy today: a great amount of the alleged value created is entirely on paper, and much of that is in borderline fraudulent schemes cooked up by greedy accountants and MBAs who don't take the fall when it falls apart. The already rich basically hoodwink people with schemes that they just sit there and dream up, the overworked regulators have too little time to review (and they're outmatched anyway, as the disparity in salaries between the government and private sector inevitably sends the most clever ones to the private companies), and the public doesn't understand.

It's truly an absurd amount of money considering Blackstone produces no tangible product. All they and companies like them do is take other companies private, fire some people, create some savings on paper, and then go public again with a company with vastly inflated value due to the stuff you can hide when you're private. At the end, little if any added value is created, and whatever is created gets eaten up by people like this dude.

He didn't sell very much of his own stock. So his fortune has declined alone with Blackstone stock.

You are picking on the wrong guy. He didn't really rob anyone. Instead, he created a company that is worth a lot of money. This actually helps Americans. We should have more people like Schwartzman.

He made his money the old fashioned way, by using his brain, creating new ideas and inspiring loads of imitators. These "financial innovations" are a big reason why America is still a good place to live. And why Harvard and Yale are able to offer free tuition to the middle class. Among other things.

This guy Schwartzman also just gave the NY Public Library $100m. And he will probably give all his money away in time. He wants to be known as an honorable man. Maybe he is.

My 2c.

And people say airline CEOs make too much. :P

This story has been changed by AP.Blackstone CEO,Stephen Schwarzman, DID NOT make the first reported amount.Recommended to moderators that this thread be deleted with apologies,as informed by AP,for the inaccuracies.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080312/black..._executive_compensation.html?.v=10

He sounds like a type of Robbin Hood

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. He broke what law?

Quoting Queso (Reply 6): He broke what law?

A law of mankind. You know I'm a liberal and I'm not going to get into another useless cyclical argument. What the hell does he personally need all that money for? Like $1 billion or even $100 million isn't enough? He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): A law of mankind. You know I'm a liberal and I'm not going to get into another useless cyclical argument. What the hell does he personally need all that money for? Like $1 billion or even $100 million isn't enough? He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

And what law of mankind would that be?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 8): And what law of mankind would that be?

Greed and gluteny.

$5 billion, huh? I picture that Bugs Bunny cartoon where Daffy Duck is swimming in gold and jewels.

Quoting PSA53 (Thread starter): made 5.13B at the expense of investors,including me,and his companies downward negative reporting.

Did you read the S-1 registration statement before you invested? If so, this shouldn't have been a surprise to you as it was all fully disclosed in the prospectus. Now, if you jumped into the stock because of the hype or without doing your homework, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): What the hell does he personally need all that money for?

He CREATED that company along with 1 other guy.

He created that money. Without him, that money would not exist.

Like Google. Are those guys evil for having lots of money? They created Google. That is new wealth.

Why is it their duty to surrender their creation?
Should we make it illegal to make a billion dollars? What if those people all left the USA? I am glad they're here.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

Or he could buy a bomb and blow the hell out of a lot of people. Your option is a bit better.

As long as no laws are broken, I don't care how much money you have. I'm a poor college student, but I don't want someone who has worked for their money to be forced to give it to me.

I can understand the bias against "old money," though. But if it was acquired honestly through brains or brawn, it has no place being redistributed without the consent of the person who made it.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

So can Bill Gates and Sheldon Adelson. In fact they do donate quite a bit. Still their wealth isn't an obligation to start helping everyone out. I am sure Obama has his eye on him since CEOs aren't allowed to make a lot of money. Besides he needs money for that health care system he is preaching.

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 12): Your option is a bit better.

  

Goes along with the hatred toward anyone that has wealth on this forum. Which goes hand in hand with the socialist views of a lot of Obama supporters here as well.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 13): I am sure Obama has his eye on him since CEOs aren't allowed to make a lot of money.

Which is blatently false. Give it up, Nicholas.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 13): Which goes hand in hand with the socialist views of a lot of Obama supporters here as well.

   How utterly predictable. Please, Nicholas, show me examples of these socialist views you claim exist. Do you even know what socialism is? Do you, honestly?

Dave

[Edited 2008-03-12 20:05:07]

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): Quoting Queso (Reply 6): He broke what law? A law of mankind. You know I'm a liberal and I'm not going to get into another useless cyclical argument. What the hell does he personally need all that money for? Like $1 billion or even $100 million isn't enough? He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

I guess you don't remember/realize that many of today's charitable foundations were originally established by the "robber barons" of the past.

Look at what Bill Gates is doing with his wealth.

They are helping other people. But the important difference with your stance is that THEY are deciding how to use their own wealth to benefit society.

It isn't the government's place to make those calls.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): A law of mankind. You know I'm a liberal and I'm not going to get into another useless cyclical argument. What the hell does he personally need all that money for? Like $1 billion or even $100 million isn't enough? He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

And in all likelihood the money will eventually go to help hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. But he'll be able to direct where it goes. If the government takes it from him, they pick where his money goes. Your insistence on the notion that charity is not a conservative ideal couldn't be further from the truth. Studies show that conservatives are more charitable than liberals.

I know for me personally, I'd be glad to compare my personal giving to Ted Kennedy's on a percentage of income basis and see where it falls out.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): Quoting Queso (Reply 6): He broke what law? A law of mankind. You know I'm a liberal and I'm not going to get into another useless cyclical argument. What the hell does he personally need all that money for? Like $1 billion or even $100 million isn't enough? He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

And, meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and those who are the least well-off grows by leaps and bounds. The American way, eh?  

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 14): Which is blatently false. Give it up, Nicholas.

Actually your right, I keep forgetting when he told his supporters at that rally he was going to go after CEOs that it was basically a talking point just to get them all riled up.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 14): Do you even know what socialism is? Do you, honestly?

Come on, do we have to dance around this? Whenever Government tries to control means of production your spitting in the face of Capitalism. If it walks like a duck, well it most likely is.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15): They are helping other people. But the important difference with your stance is that THEY are deciding how to use their own wealth to benefit society. It isn't the government's place to make those calls.

Yep, exactly. Unfortunately this is only way for Obama to even come close to keeping any of his empty promises.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): And, meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and those who are the least well-off grows by leaps and bounds. The American way, eh?

The gap hasn't been growing, it's just being exploited more by Billary and Obama. Sure the lower class needs help in the way of jobs, health care and education but robbing from the rich to give to the poor is not the way.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 18): Actually your right, I keep forgetting when he told his supporters at that rally he was going to go after CEOs that it was basically a talking point just to get them all riled up.

I find it curious that about every speech Sen. Obama has given is on YouTube, yet I cannot find this magical quote you keep digging up. Now, it's possible Sen. Obama said something like that, but I'd like to hear it for myself first. You still have failed to provide a source that he said what you claim he did.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 18): The gap hasn't been growing, it's just being exploited more by Billary and Obama

Wrong. See the link below:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/29/business/income.4.php

"Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows."

"The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 19): "The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."

Why is it bad that the rich got richer?

Should they have less income?

If they had less income, how could we maintain the federal budget? By taxing the poor?


The top income group also pays more taxes than ever. The bottom 50% of the USA essentially pay zero taxes. The stereotypical "family of 4 or 5" making 45k / year pays zero federal taxes.

The spike in rich people is what is keeping our country going. Without that, we are just a middle class country with a broken budget.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): A law of mankind.

I can't find that section in the penal code. Can you point me to it?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): What the hell does he personally need all that money for?

If you had it, you wouldn't be saying that.

He worked hard, he grew the company, then did the work and took it public. He earned the money fair and square. If we took away the financial incentive to work hard why would anyone want to excel in any field?

If doctors did not make what they make why would anyone put themselves through the torture of medical school?

If working hard in business did not stand to pay off big who would endure the stress of starting a new business?

If investing millions into a new invention did not pay off big why would anyone live through a decade of school and thousands of sleepless nights in a lab or in front of a computer for science and engineering?

If you want to see a stagnant economy and the downfall of a nation start putting caps on what people can earn through their hard work. Look at the former Soviet Union. Getting your name in the paper and a building named after you doesn't pay the bills and its a pretty lousy reward for busting your ass for several years.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): Quoting Queso (Reply 6): He broke what law? A law of mankind. You know I'm a liberal and I'm not going to get into another useless cyclical argument. What the hell does he personally need all that money for? Like $1 billion or even $100 million isn't enough? He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money. And, meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and those who are the least well-off grows by leaps and bounds. The American way, eh?

Well, it's far better than the government confiscating someone's hard earned wealth and giving to other who just sit on their asses.

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 21): If you want to see a stagnant economy and the downfall of a nation start putting caps on what people can earn through their hard work. Look at the former Soviet Union. Getting your name in the paper and a building named after you doesn't pay the bills and its a pretty lousy reward for busting your ass for several years.

  

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

Well, he did just donate $100 million to the New York Public Library, and it was "the largest among the largest to any cultural institution in the city’s history." according to the New York Times.

He was quoted as saying: “As you have more resources in life, it’s your obligation to deploy those for the benefit of others,” he told The Times.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...hwarzmans-very-own-public-library/

Please give credit where it's due.

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 21): If you had it, you wouldn't be saying that.

Wrong. My income is very limited at the moment. For example, I still seem to find a few dollars to buy food items for the food shelf program in my neighborhood. It's the humanistic thing to do. Care for and help others in need.

If I had all that money, I'd probably end up giving away the vast majority of it. There are lots of high schools and community centers that still need public-access defibrilators. There are thousands of volunteer fire and EMS departments (not government-funded) that need to replace worn out equipment and vehicles. Get the picture?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 9): Quoting MD-90 (Reply 8): And what law of mankind would that be? Greed and gluteny. $5 billion, huh?

???? where do you get that number as money he has???

He didn't make 5 billion. His total compensation is 350 million - which is definitely a lot of money, but minor league as rich guys go on this planet.

His salary was $350,000 and he received $179,482 in other compensation - such as a car and driver. Money which passed through his bank account on the way to paying working level people. Except Schwarzman had to pay about $70,000 in taxes on that other compensation.

He also did not receive any bonus for 2007 - presumably because CEO bonuses almost always include a stock price performance requirement - and after the initial fools rushed to buy the stock - the price went down as they tried to make a quick profit. Falling stock price - no bonus - is quite common.

Schwarzman received $40.6 as income from his investments in the fund. The same amount/ proportion as other fund investors.

He also received $309.6 million as a performance incentive for fund performance BEFORE the IPO.

What does he do with the money? Among other things - a $100 million dollar donation to charity - the New York Public Library.

His stock in the company is not worth almost 5 billion.

His vested stock is only worth 1.2 billion dollars @ $31 per share.

He can receive additional stock worth about 3.57 billion @ $31 per share if he, and or the fund, meets performance targets over a period of time.

So of the total 5.13 billion in the title - the guy actually MADE about $350 million - $140 million in taxes, $100 million to charity - that leaves him about $110 million for living expenses and pocket money in 2007. A heck of a lot of money - but not outrageous.

Of the $1.2 billion in stock he is supposed to be worth - that really is only worth $619 million today. No, he cannot take that as a loss on his taxes. He could only take it as a loss if he paid $1.2 billion in cash for the stock and sold it for $619 million.

When you read the story and do the math - his total potential after tax net worth is about $1.5 billion - IF he can sell all that stock at an average of $16 per share - which is very doubltful.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 24): If I had all that money, I'd probably end up giving away the vast majority of it.

Only after giving $140 million of last year's $350 million to the IRS. The way the money was paid it's pretty much impossible to avoid paying full income taxes. Of the remaining money - he gave about 1/2 to charity.

[Edited 2008-03-13 06:29:50]

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 19): I find it curious that about every speech Sen. Obama has given is on YouTube, yet I cannot find this magical quote you keep digging up. Now, it's possible Sen. Obama said something like that, but I'd like to hear it for myself first. You still have failed to provide a source that he said what you claim he did.

He said it buddy, believe or don't. Your in denial anyway.

Here I wasted a few minutes of my time since you won't accept reality. Here is where Obama makes a really foolish statement that some CEOs are making more in 10 minutes than some make in a year. What crap.

http://www.kotv.com/news/national/story/?id=139051

He is going to give all these tax breaks but who is going to pay for all this free health care?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 19): "The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."

Yes but the top earners are also paying a huge chunk of taxes. You have to keep that into consideration.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 20): If they had less income, how could we maintain the federal budget? By taxing the poor? The top income group also pays more taxes than ever. The bottom 50% of the USA essentially pay zero taxes. The stereotypical "family of 4 or 5" making 45k / year pays zero federal taxes. The spike in rich people is what is keeping our country going. Without that, we are just a middle class country with a broken budget.

Shhhssh!    Your not supposed to say that!

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 21): If you want to see a stagnant economy and the downfall of a nation start putting caps on what people can earn through their hard work. Look at the former Soviet Union. Getting your name in the paper and a building named after you doesn't pay the bills and its a pretty lousy reward for busting your ass for several years.

Quote: Well, it's far better than the government confiscating someone's hard earned wealth and giving to other who just sit on their asses.

Well said.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 25): Of the remaining money - he gave about 1/2 to charity.

Damn those Corporate raiders. We need to have the government step in!   

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

I don't know, sounds like he is now.
Schwarzman -- who earlier this week announced a $100 million personal donation to the New York Public Library -- made $350,000 in salary but took no bonus in 2007, according to the filing. The Blackstone chairman and chief executive received $179,482 in other compensation, which includes use of a car and driver.

I don't see that as out of line.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): And, meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and those who are the least well-off grows by leaps and bounds. The American way, eh?

Stop whining and start investing, then you too can say your well off instead of complaining about those that are. You're starting to sound like a communist.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 19): I find it curious that about every speech Sen. Obama has given is on YouTube, yet I cannot find this magical quote you keep digging up.

You mean this one?

"where the average CEO now earns more in one day than an average worker earns in an entire year;

Find it here:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/2...arks_of_senator_barack_obam_17.php
The video is also there.

Quoting Pope (Reply 10): Did you read the S-1 registration statement before you invested? If so, this shouldn't have been a surprise to you as it was all fully disclosed in the prospectus. Now, if you jumped into the stock because of the hype or without doing your homework, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

If everyone only takes one thing away from this thread, it should be this. People on airliners.net whine and bitch about NIMBYs who bought land near an airport and then complain about noise levels. They should have known better, right?

This is the same thing.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 7): What the hell does he personally need all that money for? Like $1 billion or even $100 million isn't enough? He could sure help a lot of people with the extra money.

This is why the vast majority of hedge funds and private equity firms are private. The top managers pull in close to $500 mil to $1 billion a year.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 24): If I had all that money, I'd probably end up giving away the vast majority of it. There are lots of high schools and community centers that still need public-access defibrilators. There are thousands of volunteer fire and EMS departments (not government-funded) that need to replace worn out equipment and vehicles. Get the picture?

Yes, I do. But wouldn't YOU rather be the one making the decision who gets the benefit of your gifts?

[Edited 2008-03-13 08:37:15]

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31): But wouldn't YOU rather be the one making the decision who gets the benefit of your gifts?

That's the difference with liberals, they know better than you do.  

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 31): But wouldn't YOU rather be the one making the decision who gets the benefit of your gifts?

Ah, yes. But the government can always decide to take more of it. Taxes. Aren't they just wonderful?  

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): And, meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and those who are the least well-off grows by leaps and bounds. The American way, eh?

Maybe we should try the socialist/liberal/commie way then, everybody poor, nothing to buy, but the 'leaders' have those nice bank accounts with 'their' money stashed in nice stocks and other capitalist/right wing securities. The socialist/liberal/commie/demonrat way ? That great recent socialist, Mr. Clinton, who earned at least $31 million dollars just between 2001 and 2005, he seems to be keeping his money too. He made it, what's wrong with others making it. Take a risk, start a business, run for office, make alot of money. Nothing wrong with that. Drop out of school, live on socialist programs, you get what you strive for.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 33): Aren't they just wonderful?

Tax shelters, aren't they wonderful? I know of at least one member of the Forbes 400 who paid less than 10% income taxes for years, completely legally. It's the less well off that foot the bigger bill. Of course, it's hard to think about that in your idealistic view on tax policy.

[Edited 2008-03-13 09:18:58]

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 35): Of course, it's hard to think about that in your idealistic view on tax policy.

Me? Idealistic? Far from it. I'm actually a pragmatist.  

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 35): I know of at least one member of the Forbes 400 who paid less than 10% income taxes for years, completely legally.

They all do. That is normal.

The poeple who get screwed on taxes are the doctors and (some) lawyers. Biz people get un-taxed things like exotic stock grants vested overseas and things like that.

Capital gains tax is 15% and it can be continually deferred if you know what you are doing. That is how all these business tycoons pay under 10% tax.

In a way, it is very "unfair." Yet, the rich are still paying the full brunt of the USA's taxes. Since George Bush's capital gains cut, the top incomes have soared. Why might that be? Because billionaires can actually afford to shift their money around again.

Free flowing capital has big benefits for the USA. And it has resulted in unexpected, large gains in tax revenue for the top class. Our government loves it. And the economy works better!

So yes, their income spiked wildly. But it is an effect of the Bush tax cuts. If we repeal them, Wall Street/Corporate incomes will plunge as money heads offshore to the Caymans and Bermuda. Tax revenues could possibly fall.

So, the 10% payment seems unfair. But hike it to 40% at all our peril. But yeah, the richest people I know (mega wealthy) are all unemployed, wealthy investors. They only pay 15% maximum tax by law, hopefully less. Quite odd.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 20): Why is it bad that the rich got richer? Should they have less income?

I was responding to Nicholas who made the false statement that the gap between the rich and the poor wasn't growing. He said it wasn't; that in fact it was Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama who have exploited it, which is false.

Anyway, I think you're looking at it from the wrong end of things. I think the question you should be asking is why are the poor getting poorer?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 26): He said it buddy, believe or don't. Your in denial anyway. Here I wasted a few minutes of my time since you won't accept reality. Here is where Obama makes a really foolish statement that some CEOs are making more in 10 minutes than some make in a year. What crap.

Sorry you had to waste your time. Thanks for finding a quote. But, um, nowhere did Sen. Obama state he would go after CEO's. That quote just simply isn't there. You have stated that Sen. Obama said he would go after CEO's. So please show me where he said that.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 28): You mean this one? "where the average CEO now earns more in one day than an average worker earns in an entire year; Find it here: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/2...arks_of_senator_barack_obam_17.php The video is also there.

No I don't mean that one. Anyway, thanks RJ for the link. But again, nowhere in there does Sen. Obama say he would go after CEO's. That's what Nicholas is claiming that Sen. Obama said. Again, it's not impossible that Sen. Obama said that, I'd just like to see for myself where he said it.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 38): But again, nowhere in there does Sen. Obama say he would go after CEO's.

Ok, well here it does.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070530-obama_calls_for_5/index.php

S. 1181 would require a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation packages. I believe public discussion and debate over executive compensation packages would force corporate boards to think twice before signing over millions of dollars to CEOs

Why? It doesn't stop them now. Useless legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1181:

In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker. Put another way, a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in a year.

I don't see how this is possible. The average worker in the United States is an hourly worker. CEO pay is salary. Take in to account weekends and holidays and I don't see how the numbers add up.

[Edited 2008-03-13 16:36:15]

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 39): Ok, well here it does.

I wouldn't waste my time with him anymore. He supports someone and refuses to see what his candidate is about. He refuses to admit all this rhetoric is just talking points and once the debates begin McCain will tear him or Hillary apart and will win the election in November. The majority of people in this country are not going to stand for more government, or government intervention in free enterprise or people earning a lot of money. Nor we will stand for through the roof taxes to pay for substandard health care not to mention a passive attitude toward the middle east.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 39): In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker. Put another way, a CEO earned more in one workday than an average worker earned in a year. I don't see how this is possible. The average worker in the United States is an hourly worker. CEO pay is salary. Take in to account weekends and holidays and I don't see how the numbers add up.

Again save you breath, Hillary and Obama are already successful in painting the rich and well to do as the evil to the lower class people that are going to vote for them but the majority of us see through it. Again like 04' the DNC has placed it hopes in a candidate with little substance (Obama) and one that most of the country doesn't trust (Hillary) and are praying on the anti war and anti GOP crap to get it done. Unfortunately once again this will fall short.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 39): Ok, well here it does. http://obama.senate.gov/press/070530...x.php

You forgot to include this minor detail:

"S.1181 neither caps nor limits CEO pay but merely requires that firms discuss and debate pay packages for CEOs on a case-by-case basis with their shareholders. If a board of directors disagrees with the nonbinding vote of shareholders, the board can still go forward with the pay package. But at the very least, shareholders would have had the opportunity to voice their opinions about whether the pay package is appropriate."

Um....I hate to be rude but, Nicholas said Sen. Obama said in a speech Sen. Obama that he will go after CEO's. Can somebody please show me the quote where it says Sen. Obama will "go after CEO's" please. Please can somebody freaking do that simple task?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 40): I wouldn't waste my time with him anymore. He supports someone and refuses to see what his candidate is about. He refuses to admit all this rhetoric is just talking points and once the debates begin McCain will tear him or Hillary apart and will win the election in November

   Look here, Nicholas, you couldn't even produce any documentation to back up your claim that Sen. Obama would go after CEO's. NONE. Period. Dot. End of sentence. Do you wish to produce some? Or are you gunna have RJ do all your work for you?

Also, I just want to say that I find it absolutely hilarious you have the audacity to claim I don't know what my candidate is about when you sit here and support Sen. McCain after your love affair with Mr. Giuliani. Do you even know the differences between the two, or are you so partisan that you just jump on board with Sen. McCain because he has an R after his name? Do you even know what his stances are?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 40): Again save you breath, Hillary and Obama are already successful in painting the rich and well to do as the evil to the lower class people that are going to vote for them but the majority of us see through it. Again like 04' the DNC has placed it hopes in a candidate with little substance (Obama) and one that most of the country doesn't trust (Hillary) and are praying on the anti war and anti GOP crap to get it done. Unfortunately once again this will fall short.

They don't have to paint anything, as been shown to you, your statement was false about the growing gap between the rich and poor has grown. But you conveniently overlook that fact. Further, Sen. Obama has plenty substance, you just cannot look past your hatred for the man to see it.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 41): You forgot to include this minor detail:

I did?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 39): S. 1181 would require a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation packages. I believe public discussion and debate over executive compensation packages would force corporate boards to think twice before signing over millions of dollars to CEOs

And my question still stands:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 39): Why? It doesn't stop them now.

And it is still:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 39): Useless legislation.

Unless you can see some redeeming quality in it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 42): I did?

Ummmm, are you serious? Here's what your post said:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 39): S. 1181 would require a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation packages. I believe public discussion and debate over executive compensation packages would force corporate boards to think twice before signing over millions of dollars to CEOs

Here's what mine said:

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 41): "S.1181 neither caps nor limits CEO pay but merely requires that firms discuss and debate pay packages for CEOs on a case-by-case basis with their shareholders. If a board of directors disagrees with the nonbinding vote of shareholders, the board can still go forward with the pay package. But at the very least, shareholders would have had the opportunity to voice their opinions about whether the pay package is appropriate."

Am I not seeing something, or did you leave that whole second part of the bill out?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 42): Unless you can see some redeeming quality in it.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but in some cases, it can provide some oversight to CEO's pay.

Dave

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): And, meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and those who are the least well-off grows by leaps and bounds. The American way, eh?

But what should this guy do? Should he not create wealth for himself and others so as to not create the income gap. Why is the blame on the gap put on the wealthy and not the poor?

The US is the only country in the world whose % of high school graduates is decreasing. What responsibility do individuals have for studying hard, staying in school and taking responsibility for the outcome of their lives?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): Am I not seeing something, or did you leave that whole second part of the bill out?

Which is a reiteration of the second line of the quote from Obama that I provided.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): but in some cases, it can provide some oversight to CEO's pay.

How? According to the bill the shareholders vote is non-binding. Oversight would imply that they will actually have a say in the CEO's pay and benefits package. It's useless feel good legislation. The only point to it can be so at a later date the government could swoop in and say, "we gave you boards and opportunity to limit your CEO's pay, now we're going to do it for you!".

Quoting Pope (Reply 44): But what should this guy do? Should he not create wealth for himself and others so as to not create the income gap. Why is the blame on the gap put on the wealthy and not the poor?

The wealthy have the power, Pope.

I know it's the GOP way to deamonize the poor, and protect the wealthy, Pope, but any society that has such a frightening between the most wealthy and the poorest is in trouble. When a small percentage own most of the wealth, there is a problem-a big problem, in any society.

It amazes me how you blame the poor for this gap. I see incredible greed, when a CEO makes billions. You see another chance to dump on the pooerst in this nation, and make them the bad guys.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): I know it's the GOP way to deamonize the poor, and protect the wealthy, Pope, but any society that has such a frightening between the most wealthy and the poorest is in trouble. When a small percentage own most of the wealth, there is a problem-a big problem, in any society.

And your solution is to take it away from the people who earned it legally and give it others? You don't think that action might have consequences?

IIRC, the last time the State of California raised taxes only on the top tier of taxpayers, tax collection from that tier eventually went down, because many people affected simply moved to Nevada or Oregon. The same thing will happen if you replicate it on a national scale. Wealth will fly out of the country as fast as it can.

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 30): This is why the vast majority of hedge funds and private equity firms are private. The top managers pull in close to $500 mil to $1 billion a year.

Some years - this year quite a few will make nothing - zero dollars.

Because they pay is linked to how well the fund increases in value. If the fund does not increase in value - the managers get nothing. For a fund to pay $2 billion to the top managers - the fund has to increase in value about $200 billion. It can do that through smart investments - for which the manager is responsible.

It can also decrease in value - and a lot of things this year make the income picture for those guys look poor this year.

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 35): Tax shelters, aren't they wonderful? I know of at least one member of the Forbes 400 who paid less than 10% income taxes for years, completely legally. It's the less well off that foot the bigger bill. Of course, it's hard to think about that in your idealistic view on tax policy.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 37): They all do. That is normal.

I disagree. Most of the tax shelters are long gone. The main ones remaining is giving to charity and giving money to children/ grandchildren for college funds. Charity is pretty wide open, but giving to family is very limited - under a couple hundred thousand per year maximum.

I'd love to see the real numbers on the folks you mention.

Most members of the ultra-rich have almost NO INCOME.

A member of the Forbes 400 can increase his net-worth significantly - and have no income - living just on savings and dividends.

Numbers like the Forbes 400 are always very suspect because it is very hard to get real numbers on these folks.

Forbes can report that a person's net worth increased from 1.5 billion to 2 billion. What they do not report is that's all on paper, and the person did not get one red cent from the increase in net-worth.

Forbes and others are famous for listing a person's net-worth to include stocks and such they control - but they can never personally touch / receive.

Many of that group have trust funds included in their net-worth - but they will only ever actually receive only a few million from those funds. They are setup to continue the family for generations and they are also setup so that no one family member has enough power to damage or deplete the trust.

The two main ways of becoming a new millionaire or billionaire are still the same despite the economy ups and downs:

1. Inherit the money/ control of a trust
2. Marry/Divorce the person with the money

Divorce is still the leading reason people fall out of the billionaire/ millionaire groups.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): And, meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and those who are the least well-off grows by leaps and bounds. The American way, eh?

Quoting PSA53 (Thread starter): This is incedible.Call it highway robbery.CEO and co-founder Stephan Schwarzman of Blackstone,took his company public last year and made 5.13B at the expense of investors,including me,and his companies downward negative reporting.I know.I got in at about 30.00 per share,I'm long de-invested,but the stock is around 16.62.

BLACKSTONE.

Ah, I sort of glossed over the title when I first read it.

You know the only reason why Blackstone went public was so that the founders could cash out, knowing that the public would probably jump at the chance to "invest" (actually that would be "speculate") in Blackstone? I'm not surprised at all that the stock has tanked.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 48): The two main ways of becoming a new millionaire or billionaire are still the same despite the economy ups and downs: 1. Inherit the money/ control of a trust 2. Marry/Divorce the person with the money

I believe those are 2. and 3. The primary way to become a new millionaire/billionaire is the same it's always been.

1. Start a successful business.