Executives take one-third of all pay in the US

[rollingrock]

...not including other forms of compensation such as bonuses, stock options, etc.

If you count all their compensation, it might be closer to 50%. Wow.



Wall Street Journal
BY ELLEN E. SCHULTZ
July 21, 2009

The nation's wealth gap is widening amid an uproar about lofty pay packages in the financial world.

Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S., according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data -- without counting billions of dollars more in pay that remains off federal radar screens that measure wages and salaries.

Highly paid employees received nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total U.S. pay in 2007, the latest figures available. The compensation numbers don't include incentive stock options, unexercised stock options, unvested restricted ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124813343694466841.html


Edit: for purposes of the article, 'highly compensated' is defined as pay that exceeds the Social Security Wage Base, or above $106,800. That's the cut off point where the SS tax is no longer imposed.

[MercutioATC]

1. "...and other highly compensated employees"

"Highly compensated employees" are not necessarily "executives"...

...and I don't see a definition of "highly compensated".

[cliffordu]

2. Those would be the ones with all the money.

:rofl:


(sorry, couldn't help it)

[MercutioATC]

4. Yeah, but I probably qualify as a "highly paid employee" and I'm certainly not an executive.

...nor do I feel that I'm part of the problem that this article seems to present.

[cliffordu]

8. I would it hope that it means more than 2 mil a year.

56,000 was my ceiling....

[MercutioATC]

10. That's my point..."highly compensated" is completely subjective.

...and I'm a lot closer to $56k/year than I am to $2M a year :)

[Hannah Bell]

5. yes, specifics would be nice.

[lexanman]

12. These types of threads are like gravitational pulls

They gravitate to them to regurgitate talking points and misinformation. Maybe they are getting paid to do it. Who knows.:evilgrin:

[lexanman]

6. They are also Board of Director members

COO's, CIO's, and the very top management. You are correct, it is not just one executive. Its several executives. Perhaps stop by StarGazer's thread and offer your condolences on the loss of her daughter. Didn't see you there.:hi:

[rollingrock]

7. Pay that exceeds the social security wage base

which is $106,800, or about 6% of the working population.
above that amount, the social security tax is not imposed.

[MercutioATC]

11. That's the definition?

Interesting.

[rollingrock]

14. Yeah

in other words, 6% of the population well above 1/3 of all pay.

But they actually take much more than that, because remember they don't have to pay SS tax above 106k, so they get to take home a much higher percentage of their income then people who make less. And factor in the stock options, bonuses, etc, that is common for this class of earners, and it is approaching more like 40% of all pay.

[MercutioATC]

20. ...but the top 5% also pay 36% of all income taxes.

I'm not saying that it all evens out...but the top 1/20th ARE paying over 1/3 of total income tax receipts.

[rollingrock]

22. I seriously doubt that

even if that was true, it doesn't mean a thing--so why not let the top 1% take 95% of all the income in the country, as long as they are paying 95% of all the income taxes, you would have no problem with it? I guess the rest of the 99% of us can fight each other for the last 5% of the pie?

Lower income people pay a higher per cent of their income then higher income.
For one, income on the wealthy is taxed only below a certain point. the SS tax is eliminated above 106k for example. Sot they take home a higher percentage of their income then the rest of us. There was also an article a while ago about how more than half of US corporations don't pay any income taxes at all (ie: by having a PO box in the Cayman Islands).

[MercutioATC]

23. I'm aware of the FICA cap and I'd support it's elimination...

...IF the money generated went to something useful like universal access to health care.

That said, below the FICA cap, lower income people do NOT generally pay a higher percentage of their income. You can argue that the wealthy still have more money to spend, but (for the most part) it's after they pay a HIGHER percentage of their income in taxes.

[rollingrock]

28. Correction

My mistake. Its actually 2/3 of corporations in the US that don't pay taxes. Not 50%.

Most Companies in US Avoid Federal Income Taxes
Report Says Most Corporations Pay No Federal Income Taxes; Lawmakers Blame Loopholes

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5561455

[MercutioATC]

31. I also agree with closing corporate tax loopholes.

We agree on a lot of things. My only issue is with the "tax the rich" argument when it's not presented with all of the relevant facts.

[Cresent City Kid]

35. What relevant facts do you want?

I'm personally okay with the top 1% paying all the taxes if it were enough to fund everything we need to do. Every time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy goes in the crapper, and the benefits only go to those who get the tax cuts.

The notion that higher taxes for the rich will reduce investment is a threat, not a mathematical necessity. They could pay higher taxes, invest the same amount, and just simply have less money, still enough to live in luxury while people starve.

[question everything]

25. The ones earning more than the SS cap

$106,800.

[hedgehog]

3. The rest of the article is locked except to suscribers, but the

comment page is priceless.

[Mari333]

19. like this one?

'agree. This boom bust hurts rich people the most. That is why we see spending is coming down so sharply for everything. Basically, the poor and middle class use rich's money to buy house, and they pay initial interest rate only for living in it below rent fee. And when they go bust, they simply foreclosure without hurt them because the tax law changed recently that they don't have to pay loss as gain in tax.

However, the good thing is I see many rich friends already making good money this year and covered most of the losses in last year in business, and they start spending again.'

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE

[question everything]

27. You can read more here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6119131

[vixengrl]

9. That's impressive--and not in a good way.

We've heard lots of arguments against a "living wage" or even raising the minimum wage, and while for many small businesses this is a concern--let's just consider how in the hell any person who can wear a suit to work and not get their nails dirty is working many hundreds of times "harder" and more "valuably" than, say, a retail salesperson.

Note: I've been a retail salesperson.

I'm not saying I didn't get a piece of the stock plan....ahem, but for an average of sixty hours a week I never brought home what you'd call a "package." I got paid hourly. No bonus. I unloaded trucks and talked to SOB customers. While I didn't deal with big numbers like a financial wonder in Wall Street--I also didn't lose massive money. I helped stop shrink--my store improved every inventory. I improved sales.

But these big money people don't even have to, like, prove they do anything. They can be fired, and walk away with a packet. If I was fired from my retail job, I'd have just lost my health benefits and not even had enough savings to manage without sponging off folks. A little. I say the reason these guys are paid what they are--you want to know?

My conspiracy theory:

Hush money.

So help me. You rise enough to get dirt on your co-workers, management and competitors, and you have a kill file we'd all kill for. They'd rather pay'em off than have them turn state's witness and open up a can of Enron on their company's ass. It's enforcing Omerta by handing out golden parachutes. I could be wrong.

But it's bad business. Many people own stock and never realize how much of the potential profits get plowed back into compensating desk-bound number-jockeys--plus options and bonuses. I think shareholders in the dense, unreadable packet of glossy BS they get with their various voting bids, should get a simple pie chart that reflects top board member compensation in proportion to worker compensation, so when lay-offs get discussed, everyone recognizes how to clear the brush for the best savings value. Doing the least harm to productivity, naturally.

It would just be good business sense.

And financial industry pay at the top is just crazy. I almost wonder if it shouldn't be used as a factor in whom to do business with--as in, if public numbers indicated a ridiculous percentage of liquidity was plowed into upper-management payroll, wouldn't I be concerned about the priorities of that company, as a customer?

(I'm obviously not a business student. Really, I just wonder how such high salaries get justified.)

[Mythsaje]

13. Retail work can be a beast...

We had an ex career Marine come in as holiday help last year. After about a week he told me, "whew, this is a lot harder than anyone thinks."

Well, yeah. It is.

edited to fix a typo

[vixengrl]

15. I have to laugh a bit, because many of my co-workers in retail

were ex-military, or military reserves. It does require kind of an overlapping skill-set. You need to be professional, you need to be fit (because you'll be on your feet), you need to have mental toughness because people will unload on you sometimes, you need to be flexible and on-call (because you can pick up extra hours of pay that way), and you have to be resourceful with what management gives you. My best co-workers were service and reserve--they had good esprit de corps and were really able to focus on tasks well. I worked with one guy who did demo in the Marine reserve--he didn't last in retail because it worked on his nerves. He had great war stories--

Well, I have some retail war-stories. (My husband is retail lifer--he's been in a store that actually had someone shooting it up. He's been injured on the job, a couple times, and works crazy hours.) It sure isn't easy.

[Mythsaje]

18. I'm the head trainer for one of the busiest Target stores on the west coast...

I got that job because of my flexibility. I know nearly every job on the floor.

[rollingrock]

16. There is no justification for it

the US has by far the highest income disparity in the industrialized world.

And you're right, these executives can cause their companies to go bankrupt and still walk away with millions of dollars in bonus money. The banking industry is an excellent case in point. These executives make their banks go bankrupt and Congress rewards with with hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts which they promptly use up to line their pockets.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

17. I wonder how this compares to other capitalist countries

No matter where you draw the line and what is an executive or highly paid employee, I have long read that U.S. executives tend to make a far greater percentage in compensation compared to those actually providing the goods and services beneath them than those in other countries like Germany, Japan, and Korea. And is the wealth gap really widening in this country? With an economy in trouble and businesses shutting down or cutting back, I wonder how executive compensation can still be growing as the pie is shrinking.

[question everything]

21. Posted yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6119131

[mzmolly]

24. Curious what percentage of the population they represent?

Interesting info, thanks.

[rollingrock]

29. According to Wikipedia

a little less than 6%.

[mzmolly]

32. Wow.

That's quite a disparity.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Over $106,000? That includes...

airline pilots, some schoolteachers, our county cops, just about all doctors and dentists, newbie law associates at major firms, dockworkers, accountants, a lot of small business owners, most of middle management jobs, some waiters I knew, and anybody who owns a McDonald's franchise.

A hundred grand just ain't what it used to be any more, and it's a much more common paycheck than you would believe.

So, yeah, people making the most money, and there are a lot of them, would be taking in the bulk of the salaried income. Why is this a surprise?

[Mind_your_head]

30. my brother-in-law is one of the stinkers........they're nothing 'special' eom

[HOLOS]

33. Crooks!!

[anonymous171]

34. And they do much less than 1/3 of the work. How the fuck is that fair? nt