Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2106)	10/11/2003 1:41:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

That's income.....it doesn't begin to address their assets. That's true but the income is what becomes their assets. If their income is going down their assets are probably not increaseing as fast. Also in many cases their assets went down more then their income as the stock market bubble burst in the last few years. That is normal. Assets do not stay fixed. However, its their assets that make them really rich. And while those assets may fluctuate in value over the years, their grip on American assets remains steadfast.......the top 10% in this country control the vast majority of our assets. Its a shameful statistic. " In fact, since the top in 2000, individual tax receipts have fallen by over 23% -- and there sure hasn't been any 23% tax cut in effect since 2000. And Social Security tax receipts continue to rise, indicating that it's not a matter of overall unemployment." No Why no? All of that is true. That's just one metric. Besides, there's the matter of Bush and the GOP spending like there's no tomorrow. And Iraq is a prime recipient. True but its the biggest one. No, it isn't. Nearly a third of the deficit next year is due to Bush's spending in Iraq. There you have it.......the rich aren't paying their fair share! 1 - The rich pay the majority of all taxes. 2 - ". But Bartlett calculates that, in fact, the top 1% paid a slightly higher tax rate on their diminished income than they had paid on their higher income the year before (27.50% in 2001 to 27.45% in 2000)." I never thought I would post this statement but the American rich need to pay more.........they are getting off too easily. I need look no further than the Hilton legacy, Nicky and Paris, or the Bush daughters to know that they don't deserve to have so much money. They are an abomination/parasites on the land. There should be a cap on inherited $$$ with the rest going into the national treasury. ted

To: TimF who wrote (2106)	10/11/2003 1:54:35 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

More piglets feeding at the national trough! ****************************************************** bayarea.com Posted on Sat, Oct. 11, 2003 NYSE execs are owed a bundle DUE $133 MILLION IN RETIREMENT PAY By Landon Thomas Jr. New York Times NEW YORK - Two months after disclosing that its chairman was owed nearly $200 million, the New York Stock Exchange said Friday that its other top executives were due $133 million in retirement payments. The disclosures underscore how the exchange has paid all its senior executives, including a regulator and a part-time adviser, on a scale equivalent to some of Wall Street's top bankers. As a quasi-public entity, though, the exchange reported a profit of $28 million last year, a drop in the bucket compared with the securities firms that it regulates. John S. Reed, the interim chairman of the exchange, was quick to affix responsibility to the board and to Richard A. Grasso, his predecessor as chairman who resigned because of the pay furor. ``These numbers are `as they are,' '' Reed wrote in a letter to stock exchange members on Friday. ``For our management team, the recommendations for compensation were made by Mr. Grasso to the compensation committee of the board, approved by it and then by the full board.'' The largest retirement packages were $22 million each to Robert G. Britz and Catherine R. Kinney, co-presidents of the exchange and close associates of Grasso, who have worked there for close to 30 years. Kinney and Britz also received $3.6 million each in 2002 and a bit more than $4 million in 2001, according to documents released by the exchange. Perhaps more surprising were the compensation packages of Edward A. Kwalwasser, the exchange's top regulator, and William R. Johnston, an adviser to the chairman and a former president of the exchange. Kwalwasser received salary and bonus of $1.7 million and $1.5 million in 2001 and 2002, respectively, amounts that dwarf government regulators and exceed the compensation of his peers at other self-regulatory organizations. Johnston made $5.8 million in salary and bonus in 2001 as president, and as a part-time adviser earned $1 million in 2002. The numbers struck many stock exchange members as high, given that none of the payment was in stock or in any other way at risk. Disgruntled floor traders contributed greatly to Grasso's exit, but many floor traders talked about the latest disclosures as a final snapshot of the cozy way the exchange had operated under him. ``The numbers are alarming,'' said James Rutledge, a stock exchange member. ``But some members remain disappointed that they didn't break the numbers down further. There are also questions about how a regulator like Mr. Kwalwasser gets $1 million.'' A search committee set up by the board is rapidly working to find a permanent chairman, and the new executive, expected to be named within months, may choose his own management team. Along with new leadership will come a new board and a fresh slate of directors, presumably creating a new, more accountable culture.