Ok, but that isn’t what you said: “I never said that CEO’s are cheating people, just that they set everyone’s pay”

“Corporate governance in this country is a travesty. If it isn’t, would someone PLEASE explain to me how Ken Lewis of BAC still has a job?”

You’re letting the few color your perception of the whole. BAC is just one company. Also, you’re the one making the claim, you do the explaining. So you tell me how everyone of them “set everyone’s pay and increase their own pay while (temporarily) destroying the lives of many that work for them, much like feudal lords.”

Clearly markets DON’T set executive compensation. (I say that as a an enthusiastic and successful investor for almost 30 years. No sour grapes here!) The collusion is between boards, execs and compensation committees. Spiralling bonus structures seldom bear the slightless connection with shareholder interests nowadays — and when share prices implode bonus strike levels are reset. how many times has a loser been cut loose with a generous “non-compete” bonus? As if any one else would take him!

Corporate governance in this country is a travesty. If it isn’t, would someone PLEASE explain to me how Ken Lewis of BAC still has a job?

“Is one person’s day of work really worth a year of the average person’s work?”

Well, sometimes, yes. Lets think about McDonald’s, how much is flipping a burger worth? Any mechanical engineer student could build a simple machine to do that, but McD’s doesn’t use machines because its easier and cheaper just to have a high school student do it. Now how much is making all the choices that actually make McDonald’s a profitable company worth? If say, you’re in CFO, or something, at cooperate and see millions of dollars cross your desk everyday, McDonald’s would be in a very bad spot if that person makes mistakes after mistakes that could lead to multiple harsh consequences that could cost the company millions. I’d say a job like that is going to worth many times what flipping burgers is worth.

“they (CEO’s) set everyone’s pay and increase their own pay while (temporarily) destroying the lives of many that work for them, much like feudal lords.”

First, CEO’s don’t set pay, the market does (unless you think all CEOs are in collusion together?). Most CEO’s don’t take the profit now, and get out when it falls apart path that some at AIG or Countrywide or what have you did. They are there long term and want to see their company succeed at every level. Look at some of the giants like Google, Genentech, Apple. They have CEOs that give works all kinds of benifits. Lastly I’d say that sounds more like congressmen than feudal lords

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

The history of economic growth and highest tax bracket doesn’t exactly support you. (And of course the fact that more most higher-income taxpayers like you and me, great chunks of our icome is sheletered, thus driving our real rates far below the marginal rate. Between partnership income, municipal bonds and real estate, my own effective rate is currently under 25% though my reported income exceeds $550K.)

If I were making $250K even (fortunately I’m making a multiple of that) wouldn’t I be nuts to say “I’m gonna goof off rather than generate another $50K ’cause that means I’m gonna net only $30K more? Of course that assumes that people can target their income with pinpoint accuracy. My bet is that if this phenomenon really comes to pass that there will be a lot of $300K earners who wake up one day to see that they’ve come in under $200K.

Oh, and how horrible if they come in at $260K! The extra marginal burden on that $10K will surely undo them!

(BTW, thank goodness these tax-layabouts weren’t around in the solidly Republican 1950s. That was when the highest bracket was 90%.)