Those at the top have been getting a free ride for far too long

Politics & Elections
41

I’m pretty sure that living as a minimum wage housekeeper under constant physical stress is not particularly good for your mental health either. Face it we don’t pay people based on purely on the personal sacrifice that the job entails.

As Stranger on the train said, The reason CEO’s are paid much more than housekeepers is because the CEO is capable of doing things that the housekeeper isn’t. Its supply and demand. There are lots and lots of people who can be housekeepers and relatively fewer who can be CEOs. Although even that is not quite right, because an awful lot more people have the skills to be a pretty good CEO than there are CEO positions available. If you only paid CEO’s 400K instead of 10 mil you would still have lots of good applicants.

The difference is that the difference in profit between hiring an elite housekeeper vs a mediocre one is negligible. So there is no point in giving the best housekeeper in the world a million dollar signing bonus, when two run of the mill $8.00 and hour ones will do just fine. But choosing the wrong CEO can cost hundreds of millions, so you are willing to spend top dollar to get who you think will be the very best. Of course just because you choose the one you think will be the best doesn’t always mean they actually will be.. You may have been better off with someone who would have taken the job for at 400k.

So the primary difference that really distinguishes the CEO from the housekeeper is a whole lot of luck. Luck that gave them the background, connections, personality make up and skills to be a CEO and luck enough to distinguish themselves from the other CEO candidates and actually land the job. That isn’t to say that there is no work involved. Most of the people with the same background skills and advantages that the CEO had are perfectly willing to lie back and live easy comfortable lives without the stress that the CEO has. Which brings us to the other difference between the effort of the CEO to that of the housekeeper. The CEO works hard because he wants to, the housekeeper works hard because she has to.

42

Would i be naive for pointing out that the only reason those “ambitious hardworking CEO’S” and lower level mid management slacker level employees are able to do their jobs is because there’s a million minimum and mid level wage people doing the work to maintain basic business infrastructure like roads, airports, and hotels? Granted theres a “million” people able and willing to do these things but a big reason we’re seeing the “nahployment” crisis right now is because essential workers are changing Warren Buffett’s sheets for $8 an hour and can’t pay rent.

Edit: FTR I actually like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos. I think they’ve brought more good than bad to the world but this isn’t capitalism. It’s oligarchy under a different name.

43

Long post that says nothing to my point.

44

Note, nowhere in my posts have I said that Buffet, Gates or Bezos are bad people, just that they, like many others, are being compensated well in excess their actual effort as compared to others.

45

My point is not as to compensation but as to your implication that hard work equates pretty much solely to physical work. I have no quibble with the idea that the compensation between them is completely disproporationate.

46

I don’t think that I ever said it did. At most I said that the combined physical and mental stress of being a housekeeper is harder than the purely mental stress of being a CEO. i.e. that even without taking compensation into account, if they had the ability to do both jobs, more people would choose the job of CEO over that of housekeeper.

47

Apologies to both Buck_Godot and Princhester. I feel I may have confused things by jumping in. I don’t think Buck was suggesting it was harder work to be a CEO than a housekeeper. I simply said the CEO’s job wouldn’t be doable on a daily basis without the housekeepers work. I think that’s where the compensation question came in.

48

No need, I agree with everything you posted and didn’t feel that you were misrepresenting my views in the least, other than possibly suggesting that I was criticizing Buffet. The post you quoted was directed to Princhester (who I also have no problem with).

49

Yes, but he has also said that unless and until the flawed tax code is changed, he intends to continue to take full advantage of it.

50

Well a Two Billion Dollars inheritance does not exactly indicate compliance with Buffett’s stated goal of allowing his kids “to do anything, but not to do nothing”. (See article and video below.) Two Billion is certainly enough money to do absolutely nothing useful and still live a brilliant and rarefied life even if that Six Billion is a tiny fraction of the Warren Buffett estate. There are numerous sources that claim that amount and no one is disputing it, but that might not be the end of the story.

The kids do not have $2 Billion trust funds, they have $2 Billion foundations. That is a world of difference, what he left his children was a job. Pour yourself a single malt scotch and nip the end off of a Cuban, this is one of those kinds of stories. I once had a friend . . .

Okay, I deleted six long paragraphs explaining how I learned what many wealthy people do to involve their kids in issues important to them, and to make them get off their asses and do something. When I lived in Columbus, Ohio I became aware of a wealthy family whose kids ran a construction and development company. They tended to be less successful financially when they were not working directly with and for their parent’s company; they also lacked a devotion to the religious priorities of their parents. These parents, like Buffett did not want to leave their kids in charge of the businesses they worked their whole lives to make successful, but did want to provide the kids with a challenge and an income.

The way they solved all this was to set up foundations for all the kids (including a cousin or two [nephews to the wealthy parents] I believe) to run. The foundations had very specific goals and involved causes dear to the parents. Each kid was charged with running a whole and separate foundation – and they had to personally set up initiatives and allocate contributions (which could not go to themselves or any agents). It made sure the kids learned about the various players in a world they knew little about. It also allowed the kids to draw a stipend as chairman or whatever they called themselves. The shorthand on this was it provided a job they HAD to do, which they could never be fired from. They could literally shape the world and build any worthwhile thing – and it provided only enough pay to live a modest upper middle class lifestyle.

If the kids wanted to make their own fortune and delegate the foundation work, they could forgo the pay and do so. If they never made a fortune, they had a guaranteed income as long as they paid attention to the cause their parents cared about and worked to make the foundation accomplish things. (I was informed there were conditions like the foundation had to fully understand and consider a minimum of three possible solutions to the challenges for that year, they had to set a long term plan and a next years agenda, they had to personally inspect progress and generate reports from personal observations. The kids could fund all three small projects or allocate all the money to one specific project. The estate attorneys had more leverage to make the kids do their work than the parents likely did while they were alive.)

I am guessing those billion dollar foundations Buffett set up are structured in a similar manner. The kids can accomplish incredible things with that much money year after year (I assume the foundations will continue to generate worth-- many endowments pay out just income each year and never lose value while paying out quite a tidy sum each year.) In addition, while the kids will have immense power it might only pay a moderate sum each year, enough to be comfortable but not enough to be spoiled rotten.

Here is Buffett speaking his intentions, and a written article about the same:

51

He is also in the process of giving away his fortune. So in effect what he’s doing is saying “I’m woefully under-taxed but until the tax code changes I’ll keep what I can and give it away to causes I believe in, rather than give it to the government to give away to causes the government believes in”.

One can agree or disagree with his approach, but it is in my view it’s damn hard to see his approach as unreasonable.

52

Most his fortune. Which he could still do, pay his proper share of taxes, set up foundations for his kids and still live a luxury lifestyle.

53

What is the “proper” share? He’s already paying that, per actual tax law.

54

He has said, himself, that he doesn’t believe he pays his fair share. Which means that he has some idea of what he thinks his fair share should be. And yet he is still unwilling to pay that because the tax code, which he has said is flawed and should be changed, doesn’t compel him to.
You shouldn’t have to be forced to do something that which you believe you should be doing in the first place.
You and Temporary_Name want to give him credit for admitting the tax code favors the rich. Fine. However, he loses that credit back, in my estimation, for continuing to exploit that loophole for his own gain.
The argument, that by “giving his fortune away” he’s basically doing what the govt would do anyway, doesn’t fly. Nobody elected him, he doesn’t get to decide how best to use that money.
It’s either his money and he’s spending it at his pleasure. Or it’s the govt’s and he’s keeping it for himself. He doesn’t get to play it both ways.

55

He pays his legally required share. He believes that this is not set at a fair level and should be higher.

56

What loophole? You don’t show any signs of getting it. I find myself saying the same thing over and again in similar discussions. There is no “proper” amount of tax that Buffett and others should be paying but are not. They are paying what tax law requires them to pay.

You talk like the tax laws say “you shall pay X tax unless you can wriggle out of it”. That is not what the laws say and is a frankly childish view.

What tax laws actually say is that one shall calculate taxes in a particular way. If that results in Buffett (or others) paying less than seems appropriate it is unrealistic to blame Buffett.

57

I know but my question was deliberate and pointed

58

This is where you go astray.

He is more than willing to pay a higher amount. He is not at liberty to just decide how much to pay in taxes be it less or more than what the government says he should pay, just like the rest of us.

Being an influential person who many look to for guidance, he has spoken out for the truth despite the fact it would negatively impact his wealth. Not that it would matter in any real sense, he is not on the verge of being taxed into hunger.

The good he does with his fortune has nothing to do with what taxes he pays. The taxes he does pay only prove he is a good and diligent citizen. Do you expect him to pay a little extra? Are you suggesting he grease their palms, give the government a little tip? That is an absurd argument in my opinion.

The fact that he tries to do well with ALL of his fortune is to his credit in my opinion.

59

Someone will come in and point out that you’re allowed to pay more than you owe. However, one person overpaying, even if that person is Buffet, will have a negligible effect on the US budget, which is why he pushes to get the tax laws changed so that everyone who is extremely wealthy can chip in.

Anyway, I’m still looking for the OP to come in with a mea culpa for posting right-wing nonsense.

60

Yes, better stated than I did.