A Message from President Elect Donald J Trump

[yota691]

 

[gregp]

Amen!!

[easterlily]

God bless Donald Trump

[jg1]

So tell me. Who still wants obama or more of the same with Hillarious again? FOOLS!

[bostonangler]

I don't know... The Obama years were definitely better the "W" years. My bank account proves that. Let's hope President Elect Trump can keep the good times rolling. JMHO

 

B/A 

[Indraman]

9 minutes ago, jg1 said:

So tell me. Who still wants obama or more of the same with Hillarious again? FOOLS!

 All the precious little Snowflakes and SJWs...you know, the ones who are throwing their temper tantrums in the streets of our great cities.

Indy

[Synopsis]

50 minutes ago, Indraman said:

 All the precious little Snowflakes and SJWs...you know, the ones who are throwing their temper tantrums in the streets of our great cities.

Indy

Not sure who negged you Indraman but I evened you out.  Truly they are, "the ones who are throwing their temper tantrums in the streets of our great cities."

This is a Democratic Republic that has used a consistent set of standards throughout the presidential elections.  With the rife corruption promulgated mostly by the candidate who was not elected, there is likely inviolate reason for having the Electoral College.  Why should States in the United States of America who have taken steps to reduce/eliminate voter fraud and eliminate non citizen voting be penalized by States who do not have appropriate citizen voter standards in place?

[jg1]

1 hour ago, Indraman said:

 All the precious little Snowflakes and SJWs...you know, the ones who are throwing their temper tantrums in the streets of our great cities.

Indy

These rioters remind of a time when I saw a mother handing a icecream to a small child and the child knocking the icecream to the ground and crying. A bunch of ingrates who have been coddled, apologized to and spoiled. Time for TOUGH LOVE.  Time for discipline and respect.

Edited November 22, 2016 by jg1

[RV ME]

3 hours ago, bostonangler said:

I don't know... The Obama years were definitely better the "W" years. My bank account proves that. Let's hope President Elect Trump can keep the good times rolling. JMHO

 

B/A 

Just curious, can you give some examples, other than your bank account, of the good times the Country has been rolling through these past 8 years?

[bostonangler]

1 hour ago, RV ME said:

Just curious, can you give some examples, other than your bank account, of the good times the Country has been rolling through these past 8 years?

 

Sure.  My customers are begging for workers. If you want a job you can get one today. My mortgage rate is certainly lower. It was 6.5% in 2001 now it is 3.75%. Huge savings per month. My credit card is 9.9% much better than the 15% it was in 2000. Advertising sales a leading indicator of the economy have been up. You see when the economy is bad businesses do not advertise. It is one of the first industries to take a hit when things are going bad. However that hasn't been the case in the last 8 years. The last 8 years have been very robust. As I said, personally my lifestyle has improved immensely under Obama. I'm sorry if that isn't the case for you and your family.

I don't want to confuse with this answer, but many things have been good in the last 8 years. Below are some links showing the growth. Following that are some forward looking statistics that show things may be changing. The new administration needs to move slowly or they could really rock the boat. Tax cuts sound great, but it depends who gets them. Pushing out cheap labor sounds great, but Americans will not work as cheap and that will cause prices to rise. Deregulation of Wall Street sounds great, but look what happened last time Wall Street made their own rules.

 

Here is a quote from an advertising statistic company... to see the whole report you have to have a VIP membership. But this gives you an idea.

"Annual growth of advertising, sales promotion and sponsorship spending in North America from 2010 to 2016. This graph depicts the annual growth of advertising, sales promotion and sponsorship spending in North America from 2010 to 2014 and a forecast for 2015. In 2010, advertising spending grew by two percent. It is expected that it will grow by 3.8 percent in 2015."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/196872/change-in-advertising-sales-promotion-sponsorship-since-2008/ 

 

Auto sales are up... Here is a snippet, followed by link from February..

   "Ford, the number-two US automaker, scored a 20.4 percent year-over-year increase in February, with 217,192 vehicles sold, well above expectations"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ford-fiat-chrysler-us-sales-jump-february-gm-172647882.html?ref=gs

 

Housing sales hit 10 year high

"October existing home sales added to September's rebound, rising to the highest annualized pace in nearly a decade."

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/11222016_existing_homes.asp

 

The sad thing is advertising has begun to slow down. I'm already seeing people cutting back. Sometimes that is simply because of it being an election year. I'm hoping that's all that it is, again as a leading indicator, advertising can tell us the future of the economy. The other thing that is scary is how the stock markets are overbought, meaning there could be a big selloff. I personally am moving a lot of my investments out of stocks over to bonds and metals. JMHO

The above articles are talking about the last few years... The articles below are looking forward. Things are slowing down.

Some updates... Auto industry slowing down

After six years of growth, he says, there is effectively no more pent-up demand, so "we are headed toward a stable market for U.S. auto sales, not a growing market."

http://www.autonews.com/article/20161121/RETAIL06/311219939/nada-economist-says-auto-sales-will-cruise-along

 

Advertising is slowing

Internet ad revenue may have reached $17 billion in the first half of the year, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, but the rate of growth declined between 2011 and 2012.

https://gigaom.com/2012/10/11/internet-advertising-still-a-growth-business-but-pace-slows/

 

Housing is a big question

"Demand from first-time buyers has increased with household formation and is outpacing supply, leading to significant price increases and affordability challenges for entry-level buyers. Home purchase affordability will be constrained further if the recent pickup in mortgage rates persists, which would present a downside risk to our forecast of housing and mortgage activity."

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/609164.html

Blame whomever you'd like, that's your right. But don't deny things improved from the Bush years. Let's just hope the change coming is really for you and me and not the multinationals.

B/A

 

 

[Whatshername]

Here's a Message From The Naked Cowboy Outside The Elevators At Trump Tower   

 

[RV ME]

18 hours ago, bostonangler said:

Sure.  My customers are begging for workers. If you want a job you can get one today. My mortgage rate is certainly lower. It was 6.5% in 2001 now it is 3.75%. Huge savings per month. My credit card is 9.9% much better than the 15% it was in 2000. Advertising sales a leading indicator of the economy have been up. You see when the economy is bad businesses do not advertise. It is one of the first industries to take a hit when things are going bad. However that hasn't been the case in the last 8 years. The last 8 years have been very robust. As I said, personally my lifestyle has improved immensely under Obama. I'm sorry if that isn't the case for you and your family.

 

B/A

 

 

Again, so many points I hope I don’t miss any.  I did not realize that advertising revenue was considered a leading economic indicator, first and only time I have heard that one.  The person trying to get me to advertise my business told me that when times are bad, I should spend more on advertising so not sure if he or you would be correct.  Nowhere I looked mentioned ad revenue, but everywhere I looked did mention real family income as one leading economic indicators.  Under Obummer the highest family income has been $56,516 in 2015, which is almost back to the $56,663 in 2006 and $57,423 levels in 2007.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Consumer confidence is another recognized leading economic indicator, and while it is more of a mixed bag, Obummer still has never reached the 103.8 level from 12 years ago.  But at least Obummer can rightfully claim his lowest CC level of 55.8 (when the progressives were forcing Obamacare down our throats) was not as bad as Carter’s 51.7 in 1980.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT/

Something else I do not understand is when you say there are more jobs than there are people to fill the positions.  Apparently none of the 95,000,000 able bodied Americans who are not working, or counted as unemployed (Obummer actually worse than Jimmy here), live in your area.  That or there are 95,000,001 jobs available where you live.

And I hope you realize that the stock market bubble you rightfully fear, is a direct result of the artificially low near 0% interest rate that you extoll.  The stock market is extremely overvalued (due to the Obummer economic policies) and when the current bubble pops it will make the Clinton market correction seem like a fart in the bathtub.

That being said, in my original response I was not thinking only of economics, but more along the lines of the fabric of the Country under Obummers leadership because a fish rots from the head down.  After 7 years of the Obummer administration, have the good times really been rolling?  We have had the (IN)Justice Department not only politicized, but allowed to act lawlessly without any repercussions (see fast and furious).  We have had the IRS used in ways that would make Nixon green with envy, again without repercussions.  A stifling of critical journalism by nefarious means (see Sharyl Attkisson).  After 7 years of the most racist President since Johnson, we are now to expect riots if BLM feels slighted.  Under the current leadership we have an openly declared war on the police all across America, the likes that makes the 1920’s seem like the 1950’s.

I could go on and on but I have to get ready for work.  As a taxpayer, I am in a minority group (since less than 50% actually pay taxes) and need to do my part to make sure the record number of EBT cards (under Obummer) have money in their accounts.  But before I go I ask again, and point out the “other than your bank account” line, have the last 7 years really been “good times”?  Because to me, it seems more like the end of the Carter administration, and I have never heard anyone attempt to make the claim that was a good time in America.

[bostonangler]

5 minutes ago, RV ME said:

Again, so many points I hope I don’t miss any.  I did not realize that advertising revenue was considered a leading economic indicator, first and only time I have heard that one.  The person trying to get me to advertise my business told me that when times are bad, I should spend more on advertising so not sure if he or you would be correct.  Nowhere I looked mentioned ad revenue, but everywhere I looked did mention real family income as one leading economic indicators.  Under Obummer the highest family income has been $56,516 in 2015, which is almost back to the $56,663 in 2006 and $57,423 levels in 2007.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Consumer confidence is another recognized leading economic indicator, and while it is more of a mixed bag, Obummer still has never reached the 103.8 level from 12 years ago.  But at least Obummer can rightfully claim his lowest CC level of 55.8 (when the progressives were forcing Obamacare down our throats) was not as bad as Carter’s 51.7 in 1980.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT/

Something else I do not understand is when you say there are more jobs than there are people to fill the positions.  Apparently none of the 95,000,000 able bodied Americans who are not working, or counted as unemployed (Obummer actually worse than Jimmy here), live in your area.  That or there are 95,000,001 jobs available where you live.

 

And I hope you realize that the stock market bubble you rightfully fear, is a direct result of the artificially low near 0% interest rate that you extoll.  The stock market is extremely overvalued (due to the Obummer economic policies) and when the current bubble pops it will make the Clinton market correction seem like a fart in the bathtub.

 

That being said, in my original response I was not thinking only of economics, but more along the lines of the fabric of the Country under Obummers leadership because a fish rots from the head down.  After 7 years of the Obummer administration, have the good times really been rolling?  We have had the (IN)Justice Department not only politicized, but allowed to act lawlessly without any repercussions (see fast and furious).  We have had the IRS used in ways that would make Nixon green with envy, again without repercussions.  A stifling of critical journalism by nefarious means (see Sharyl Attkisson).  After 7 years of the most racist President since Johnson, we are now to expect riots if BLM feels slighted.  Under the current leadership we have an openly declared war on the police all across America, the likes that makes the 1920’s seem like the 1950’s.

 

I could go on and on but I have to get ready for work.  As a taxpayer, I am in a minority group (since less than 50% actually pay taxes) and need to do my part to make sure the record number of EBT cards (under Obummer) have money in their accounts.  But before I go I ask again, and point out the “other than your bank account” line, have the last 7 years really been “good times”?  Because to me, it seems more like the end of the Carter administration, and I have never heard anyone attempt to make the claim that was a good time in America.

 

 

 

As a taxpayer, you might be interested in this story. I'm just saying...

 

 

Trump's tax plan: massive cuts for the 1% will usher 'era of dynastic wealth'

More than eight million low-income and single-parent families will face sharp tax increases under Donald Trump exacerbating income inequality, experts warn

 

   Under Donald Trump’s proposed tax plan, the most wealthy Americans will recive an average annual tax cut of $215,000. Photograph: Peter Foley/EPA

Rupert Neate in New York

@RupertNeate

Wednesday 23 November 2016 07.00 EST Last modified on Wednesday 23 November 2016 07.02 EST

 

President Donald Trump is set to give America’s richest 1% an average annual tax cut of $214,000 when he takes office, while more than eight million families with children are expected to suffer financially under his proposed tax plan.

On the eve of the election, Trump promised to “massively cut taxes for the middle class, the forgotten people, the forgotten men and women of this country, who built our country”. But independent expert analyses of Trump’s tax plan show that America’s millionaire and billionaire class will win big at the expense of struggling low- and middle-income people, who turned out in large numbers to help the real estate billionaire win the election.

Experts warn that Trump’s tax plan will exacerbate America’s already chronic income inequality and herald in a “new era of dynastic wealth”.

“The Trump tax plan is heavily, heavily, skewed to the most wealthy, who will receive huge savings,” said Lily Batchelder, a law professor and tax expert at New York University. “At the same time, millions of low-income families – particularly single-parent households – will face an increase.”

Batchelder, who wrote an academic paper on Trump’s tax plan published by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said that the president-elect’s plan “significantly raises taxes” for at least 8.5 million families, with “especially large tax increases for working single parents”. More than 26m individuals live in those families.

According to Batchelder’s research Trump’s tax changes – taken at their “most conservative” – could leave just over half of America’s nearly 11m single-parent households facing an increased tax burden. This figure rises to 61% – or 7m households – if the analysis is run on “reasonable assumptions” that the changes Trump has suggested go ahead.

Single-parent families would suffer the most because Trump would lower the minimum of tax-free earnings to $15,000 per adult no matter how many children in the household. Under current law the threshold is $17,400 for single-parent families with one child and $24,750 for a couple with one child, and the threshold increases by $4,050 for each additional child.

Trump also plans to consolidate the current seven tax breaks into three: 12%, 25% and 33%. His plan would scrap the current 10% tax for earnings under $19,625 and replace it with 12%. Trump’s proposed childcare credits would not make up for the changes, according to Batchelder.

Minority families are set to suffer disproportionately from the tax increases, according to Batchelder. With 32% of African American families facing a tax increase compared with 19% of whites, this is mostly due to African American families being more likely to share the burden of childcare within the family and hence not benefit as much from Trump childcare credits. Batchelder said the effective tax increase for many millions of families would run into the thousands.

While the poor will face tax increases, the Tax Policy Center research said the rich would received big tax cuts that get even bigger as you work up the income scale. The top 20% of earners would receive an average annual tax cut of $16,660 compared with an overall average cut of $2,940.

The richest 1% will collect 47% of all the tax cuts – an average saving of $214,000.

The 0.1% – the 117,000 households with incomes of more than $3.7m – would receive an average 2017 tax cut of $1.3m, a nearly 19% drop in tax they were due to pay in 2016. The tax savings of the super-rich will increase further in future, with the 0.1%’s estimated 2025 tax bill to fall by $1.5m.

It is a stark contrast to Hillarious Clinton’s tax plan, which would have seen taxes rises for the super-wealthy. Under her plan, the top 1% would pay an extra $163,000 a year more on average, and would have made up 93% of all new tax revenue by 2025.  

 

Clinton and Trump promised very different tax plans during the election. Composite: Justin Sullivan/ Mike Segar/Getty/Reuters

“Listening to Trump’s rhetoric, most Americans probably don’t realise at all the impact of Trump’s tax plan,” Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) said. “Any way you slice it, the very best-off Americans will be the biggest beneficiaries.

“If it looks bad now for middle-income families, those who turned out to vote for him, it’s only likely to get worse [with Trump as president]. It is very likely that they will end up poorer still. The most likely victims are middle- and low-income families.”

Gardner said that under Trump, America will become even more divided between the rich and poor. “America is already very unequal, and his proposals would make income inequality a lot worse,” Gardner said. “This is obviously quite worrisome. If he rode to victory on a middle-income wave of support, those middle Americans will be very disappointed.”

The inequality problem will be exacerbated by Trump’s plan to scrap inheritance tax – which he refers to as “the death tax”. The 40% inheritance tax is currently only charged on personal estate worth more than $5.45m and joint estates of $10.9m – sums so large that it only affects less than two in 1,000 Americans.

Trump has proposed repealing the tax entirely. While Clinton, pushed by Bernie Sanders’ strong stance on the issue, had suggested lowering the threshold to $3.5m and increasing the rate to 65% for the super-wealthy.

“It’s hard to think of a tax change that will have a more detrimental effect on inequality,” Garnder said. “There is no question that this will lead to a perpetual income elite – hardly the thing that Trump voters would have wanted. This will lead to a new era of dynastic wealth.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/trump-tax-plan-cuts-wealthy-low-income-inequality

 

 

B/A

Edited November 23, 2016 by bostonangler

[Jaxinjersey]

6 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

As a taxpayer, you might be interested in this story. I'm just saying...

Trump's tax plan: massive cuts for the 1% will usher 'era of dynastic wealth'

More than eight million low-income and single-parent families will face sharp tax increases under Donald Trump exacerbating income inequality, experts warn

 

False Premise = False Narrative... by Fake News.  There is no such thing as Income Inequality... Period.

[Shabibilicious]

1 hour ago, bostonangler said:

As a taxpayer, you might be interested in this story. I'm just saying...

Trump's tax plan: massive cuts for the 1% will usher 'era of dynastic wealth'

More than eight million low-income and single-parent families will face sharp tax increases under Donald Trump exacerbating income inequality, experts warn

B/A

Income inequality is a myth, B/A......every check writing sound sleeper knows this.  

GO RV, then BV 

[Indraman]

Since Shabs and BA seem to think that the low-income families are going to see "sharp" increases in income taxes from Trump's tax plan, can one of you list just one such income tax and the changes it will go through (remember, I am looking for 'massive' changes).

Just so we are using the same language and terminology, I will define "low-income" as any family in the bottom 25%; but just for grins, I will even conceed that you could define "low-income" as the bottom 40% (gives you a wider chance of proving your Liberal Talking Point).

Mind you no one low-income family is probably even paying income tax at the 25% as all the other tax credits usually offset anyone paying any income tax up to the 40% bracket.

I anxiously await your responses...

Indy

[Shabibilicious]

6 minutes ago, Indraman said:

Since Shabs and BA seem to think that the low-income families are going to see "sharp" increases in income taxes from Trump's tax plan, can one of you list just one such income tax and the changes it will go through (remember, I am looking for 'massive' changes).

Just so we are using the same language and terminology, I will define "low-income" as any family in the bottom 25%; but just for grins, I will even conceed that you could define "low-income" as the bottom 40% (gives you a wider chance of proving your Liberal Talking Point).

Mind you no one low-income family is probably even paying income tax at the 25% as all the other tax credits usually offset anyone paying any income tax up to the 40% bracket.

I anxiously await your responses...

Indy

I never said anything about Trump increasing taxes on low income Americans ever......In fact, I've never even posted an opinion on Trump's tax plans.  I only mentioned income inequality, which with regards to millions of working women in this country is indeed......a FACT.   

GO RV, then BV

[Indraman]

13 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

I never said anything about Trump increasing taxes on low income Americans ever......In fact, I've never even posted an opinion on Trump's tax plans.  I only mentioned income inequality, which with regards to millions of working women in this country is indeed......a FACT.   

GO RV, then BV

Income inequality is a myth propagated by the Left that implies the equal outcome of all people earning a living in this country. I am sorry to say that a trash man will never be paid the same amount as a rocket scientist at Boeing. 

I am for equal opportunity, not equal outcome...until the Left can understand this concept and distinguishing the differences, they are arguing for Socialism and the Government mandated redistribution of wealth.

Indy

[BJinMontreal]

25 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

I never said anything about Trump increasing taxes on low income Americans ever......In fact, I've never even posted an opinion on Trump's tax plans.  I only mentioned income inequality, which with regards to millions of working women in this country is indeed......a FACT.   

GO RV, then BV

Actually you didn't mention women at all with your remark ...   which tends to lead people to question why they always have to try and interpret what you're saying with your comments.  Just clarifying - not trying to be offensive.

[RV ME]

6 hours ago, bostonangler said:

As a taxpayer, you might be interested in this story. I'm just saying...

 

 

Trump's tax plan: massive cuts for the 1% will usher 'era of dynastic wealth'

More than eight million low-income and single-parent families will face sharp tax increases under Donald Trump exacerbating income inequality, experts warn

 

B/A

 

5 hours ago, Jaxinjersey said:

False Premise = False Narrative... by Fake News.  There is no such thing as Income Inequality... Period.

BA, do you pay all of your employees the same amount?  More importantly, when your employees fill out their tax returns, is the figure they list for their income the same figure you list on yours?  NO?  If not, please explain how you can perpetuate this income inequality on your employees specifically and the rest of the Country in general.

[yota691]

21 hours ago, bostonangler said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/trump-tax-plan-cuts-wealthy-low-income-inequality

Your quoting from the Leftist wanna be News site called the Guardian 

 

 

  

Source

[bostonangler]

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 2:29 PM, RV ME said:

 

BA, do you pay all of your employees the same amount?  More importantly, when your employees fill out their tax returns, is the figure they list for their income the same figure you list on yours?  NO?  If not, please explain how you can perpetuate this income inequality on your employees specifically and the rest of the Country in general.

 

 

To answer your question I'm not perpetuating anything. I simply copied a news story and supplied a link. As you can see by the definition, many people misunderstand the meaning of income inequity. It's not simply having everyone receiving the same pay. It's about the how earnings are based by population. It also is about profit sharing, stock options and bonuses. Should everyone make the same pay? Hell no. Should Americans work for third world pay? Hell no!

Below is a pretty good explanation...

What is 'Income Inequality'

Income inequality is the unequal distribution of household or individual income across the various participants in an economy. Income inequality is often presented as the percentage of income to a percentage of population. For example, a statistic may indicate that 70% of a country's income is controlled by 20% of that country's residents.

Read more: Income Inequality Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/income-inequality.asp#ixzz4Qt1ftyB4
 

BREAKING DOWN 'Income Inequality'

Income inequality is often associated with the idea of income "fairness." Most people consider it "unfair" if the rich have a disproportionally larger portion of a country's income compared to the general population. The causes of income inequality can vary significantly by region, gender, education and social status. Economists are divided on the implications of income disparity and on whether it is ultimately positive or negative.

Income inequality has grown increasingly evident since the 1980s, when the distribution of income had 30 to 35% of national income going to the top 10% of earners. Since then, the percent of income going to the top 10% has increased to 50%, creating a huge disparity between high earners and low earners. The issue has become politically and economically divisive regarding its root cause and acceptable solutions. While most economists agree that the growth in disparity is generally attributable to unequal education, environment and social interactions, they don’t fully agree on the specific mechanisms that are driving the increase.

Contributing Factors to Income Inequality

Education is known to affect equality in societies. Certain social-economic groups of people do not have access to quality education in the United States, especially at the secondary school level. In countries that provide higher-quality secondary education across the economic spectrum, there is much less income disparity.

Competition for talent creates a salary divide. There is much more competition for high-quality executive talent, which has driven salaries for executives higher relative to the level of generated productivity. Big bonuses and other incentives have led to an inflation of executive salaries.

Stagnant wages play a big role in inequality. The median income for low- to middle- income workers has been mostly flat since 2007, while executive compensation has increased. The diminished influence of labor unions has also led to flat or declining wages among workers.

Family and social interactions impact earning potential. Social and emotional skills critical to leading a quality life are not sufficiently developed in economically distressed areas with a high percentage of unstable families.

Increased demand for high-skilled workers adds to a widening wage gap. Companies are investing more heavily in developing a high-skilled workforce, driving wages up for high-skilled workers. This leads to de-emphasizing or automating low-skilled functions, pushing wages for low-skilled workers down.

Read more: Income Inequality Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/income-inequality.asp#ixzz4Qt20ek7c

 

 

 

 

PART 2 Executives Pay.... My how things have changed. Our parents had much better earnings when compared to their bosses than any middle class worker today.

Americans are working for less and by allowing corporations move off-shore and pay next to no taxes, workers were supposed to see the benefits. However, the truth is the only ones who benefited were executives who received bonuses, options and profit sharing.

 

 

CEO Pay: How Much Do CEOs Make Compared to Their Employees?

Employee Sentiment and Communication Around CEO Pay

CEO pay in the U.S. has grown exponentially since the 1970s, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), rising almost 1,000 percent compared to a rise in worker salaries of roughly 11 percent over the same time period (adjusted for inflation.)  Starting next year, the Dodd-Frank Act, enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), will require publicly traded companies to publish their CEO-to-worker pay ratio, a move that could bring this issue further into the public consciousness. To get a sense of what might be revealed once companies begin reporting this new information, PayScale partnered with Equilar, a leader in executive compensation and corporate governance data solutions, to calculate ratios for some of the highest-paid CEOs in the U.S. Only companies with annual revenue over $1 billion were considered. PayScale also surveyed employees to find out how they feel about their CEO's compensation, and talked to a few CEOs (including our own) to understand how they communicate to employees about executive pay today.

---

The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio for the 168 companies included in this report stands at about about 70-to-1, with some CEOs making more than 300 times the median salary of their employees – just in cash (base pay, bonuses, profit sharing, etc.). Many CEOs receive substantial stock/option grants and perks as part of their compensation, which can more than quadruple their total annual pay. But similar data for employees by company is not readily available, so we looked solely at cash compensation for both CEOs and workers to calculate ratios for this report.

Larry Merlo, the CEO of CVS Health Corp, made roughly 434 times the salary of the median CVS employee in 2015, the largest ratio between CEO and employee pay at any company on this list.

See the full list of CEO-to-employee pay ratios

---

It wasn't always this way. In 1965, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio in the United States stood at about 20-to-1, according to a 2015 report by the EPI. But starting in the 1970s up through 2014, "inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker's annual compensation over the same period."

<a href='#'><img alt='Rounds Dashboard ' src='https://public.tableau.com/static/images/20/2016CEOPayRatios_0/RoundsDashboard/1_rss.png' style='border: none' /></a>

Is this a problem? Is it out of line for the Chief Executive of a successful company to be paid hundreds of times the salary of his or her average employee? Or is CEO a demanding enough job requiring such a highly developed skillset that these high salaries are deserved?

"Excessive executive pay is deservedly blamed for rising income inequality, because worker pay has stagnated as executive pay has soared," said the New York Times in a July 14 editorial. Additionally, the idea that the inequality between executive and worker pay is contributing to the downfall of the American middle class has been prevalent on the campaign trail this election year.

---

But not everyone sees the disparity as an issue. Some even question the validity of the data, pointing out the pay of a CEO at an average company is only about four-times higher than the average American worker, a decidedly more balanced ratio than found at the largest firms. The problem there, however, is that the average firm is very small, employing just 20 workers, and workers at those companies are not representative of the typical American employee. Again, according to the EPI report, a typical American worker "works in a firm with roughly 1,000 workers. Half (52 percent) of employment and 58 percent of total payroll are in firms with more than 500 or more employees. Firms with at least 10,000 workers provide 27.9 percent of all employment and 31.4 percent of all payroll."

Last year the SEC finalized a section of 2010's Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act designed to increase transparency into executive compensation by requiring publicly traded companies to publish, in addition to CEO pay figures, median worker pay and the ratio between CEO and median worker pay. By law, this data will be shared starting in 2017. (The Dodd-Frank Act was passed in response to the economic crisis of the late 2000s in an effort to avoid widespread financial collapse.)

 

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-pay

[bostonangler]

On ‎11‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 6:11 AM, yota691 said:

Your quoting from the Leftist wanna be News site called the Guardian 

 

  

Source

Yota, I may be wrong, but didn't you bring over some news from Alex Jones?

[Jaxinjersey]

14 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

To answer your question I'm not perpetuating anything. I simply copied a news story and supplied a link. As you can see by the definition, many people misunderstand the meaning of income inequity. It's not simply having everyone receiving the same pay. It's about the how earnings are based by population. It also is about profit sharing, stock options and bonuses. Should everyone make the same pay? Hell no. Should Americans work for third world pay? Hell no!

Below is a pretty good explanation...

What is 'Income Inequality'

Income inequality is the unequal distribution of household or individual income across the various participants in an economy. Income inequality is often presented as the percentage of income to a percentage of population. For example, a statistic may indicate that 70% of a country's income is controlled by 20% of that country's residents.

 

Your admission and understanding in your preamble is the only honest part of this post... because then you fall for the made-up premise and narrative.  THEY'VE GOT YOU!  And you should KNOW better...  THAT is the perpetuation...

It's NONSENSE!  I only quoted your beginning section... as that is all that is necessary.... ALL the rest is further pseudo-economic drivel in its attempt to support the concept.

This is unbelievable... that a made-up metric/perspective is supposed to be accepted as a valid social perspective.  It is not.  Just because certain social justice warriors put forth such in the news, or blogs, or otherwise, does not validate nonsensical philosophy/ideology.  And just because it is presented as such... it is "accepted" by the certain segment of society it is targeted to... as propaganda, because they are too weak to understand the truth...

There will always be disproportionate/disparity earned income in our Republic... as it should be... NO KIDDING!  ANY pseudo attempt to validate it otherwise is pure nonsense.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate such disparity... that's why it shouldn't be.  It's another social-engineered waste of time to confuse the citizenry and fool them into thinking that any "measurable" disparity on some ridiculous chart, is worth discussing.  It is not.  Even if it could be TRULY intellectualized AND "measured"... it should not be, as such narrative only fuels division and the concept of income redistribution...  Our Republic and Constitution does not recognize such a concept.  It is, rather, in direct violation and contempt of our nation.

So, while we're validating such nonsense... let's discuss the Harvesting of the Banana Crops in Idaho and the Distribution Processes through the Conveyance of Camel Caravans across the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains.  That should be interesting!  Kumbaya!  

 

[bostonangler]

So Jax is your boss giving out bonuses this year? Is the company sharing in the profit? You see when America was great, the people who made the companies successful were rewarded for their hard work. Sadly we have gone back to the Gilded Age, where the Rockefellers, and Carnages and the Vanderbilts built empires while paying their workers next to nothing.  Ask your grand parents how they were able to make a nice living and support the family. I'm willing to bet they won't say because the CEO make 400% more than the average worker. Or that they did well because they were earning a daily wage equal to a loaf of bread. Greed is a terrible thing and in today's America greed is the social disease bringing down this empire like so many throughout history. If you don't see the problem you cannot fix the problem. If you don't understand that greed is in control, I truly feel sorry for you and your family.

Be thankful for what you have and share what you don't need. That's the American way. JMHO

 

B/A