# New bill HR 2847



## Beaniemaster2

I understand this bill is very damaging.... Can anybody explain it in plain English??? I've looked into it but just don't understand how it will affect us and the economy... Thanks ahead of time


----------



## biobacon

The Truth: 
This eRumor appears to be an unproven conspiracy theory that warned of the possible ramifications of the passage of the Hire Incentives to Restore Employment Act along with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. TruthOrFiction.com has found no evidence at this time as to how the enforcement of this act will effect the U.S. Dollar. 

We will post findings here if anything develops.

We found the possible source to this eRumor on the Victory Women In Development Association (VWIDA) website. The page links this allegation with a story about gun control legislation and the lobbying efforts of National Rifle Association. How the two topics are related remains a mystery.




Hire Incentives to Restore Employment Act & Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act 

H.R. 2847, the Hire Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act is real and was signed into law in 2010. In this bill was tacked the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. This law, known as FATCA, makes U.S. residents accountable for money invested in foreign banks by requiring the offshore financial institutions to provide a 1099 form to the Internal Revenue Service for their American customers. This according to a July 28, 2013 article by The Hill, a new service that reports on the business of the U.S. Government in Washington, D.C. 

The article said, "Under FATCA, banks will be forced to submit information on total assets, account balances, transactions, account numbers and other personal identifying information. This intrusion goes way beyond a 1099 and would not be accepted or tolerated by Americans living in United States. " Noncompliance will result in huge financial penalties and sanctions to the foreign financial institutions.


The Hill added that neither Congress, the Internal Revenue Service nor the U.S. Department of Treasury are certain how much FACTA will generate in terms of revenue in taxes. The article said that President Obama "suggested $210 billion over ten years," and $800 billion over the course of ten years was projected by unnamed "others." 

It is not really known what ramifications this law will have on U.S. residents with funds in foreign banks or if foreign banks will cooperate with the law. The Hill also reported that the U.S. demands on foreign banks to provide client information may "violate their own country's laws and constitutions." 

Posted 02/28/14





A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet: 

U$ Dollar 2Collapse ’cause U.S. House of Representative Bill “H.R. 2847” read more……

On July 1, 2014 the U.S. Dollar Will Officially Collapse; because, on this date, U.S. House of Representative Bill “H.R. 2847” goes into full effect, making it essentially impossible for Americans to protect their savings. 

Since no one is talking about this right now, we will assume, you, the reader, does know now.. 

Let me be redundant here… We know that this collapse will coincide with a new Federal law that goes into effect this year; So, how prepared are you? You now have only 6 months left to figure out about your money, what are you doing? - 

You See…people who do have lots of money and know how to spend their money are busy calling the shots in our government…..read on!


----------



## crabapple

I am missing something?
The top 10% of the rich will have nowhere to hide their over abundance of cash.
If I got that right, then what is the problem?


----------



## BillS

crabapple said:


> I am missing something?
> The top 10% of the rich will have nowhere to hide their over abundance of cash.
> If I got that right, then what is the problem?


NOBODY will be able to have a foreign bank account. That includes the average prepper who might want to have $1000 in a Canadian bank to keep their money from being confiscated by the big banks or the IRS.


----------



## BillS

The other thing I heard about the law is that foreign banks would be required to share information on every single account holder if they had a single American as a customer. No foreign banks will accept those terms. It makes it virtually impossible for the average American to try to keep their money safe by putting it in foreign banks.


----------



## tsrwivey

biobacon said:


> The article said, "Under FATCA, banks will be forced to submit information on total assets, account balances, transactions, account numbers and other personal identifying information. This intrusion goes way beyond a 1099 and would not be accepted or tolerated by Americans living in United States. " Noncompliance will result in huge financial penalties and sanctions to the foreign financial institutions.


This is the part that bugged me the most. And it doesn't only effect the rich, it effects EVERY American. If the government has the power to collect this information on "them", they have the power to collect it on YOU & all future generations.


----------



## squerly

tsrwivey said:


> This is the part that bugged me the most. And it doesn't only effect the rich, it effects EVERY American. If the government has the power to collect this information on "them", they have the power to collect it on YOU & all future generations.


In the addictive environment of spend-spend-spend, the need for new cash is always going to be foremost in the gov's mind. Given that, you might want to skip the "what if's" and move straight to finding a solution or work around. The government is going to do this, regardless of how you feel or what you say.


----------



## Geek999

I can speak a bit to FATCA.

The first thing to realize is that every law passed tends to have some unintended consequences and they are hard to predict in advance. To the extent Congress considers possible unintended consequences they are making a decision that the benefits of the law outweigh whatever those unintended consequences might be.

Our tax code is different from other countries as we tax the worldwide income of American citizens. If you have a foreign bank account, or foreign sourced investment income, you are supposed to report it when you file your tax return. The perception in Washington is that there is a large non-compliance factor involved. How large is a question and any figure you hear is an estimate. FATCA was intended to force foreign financial institutions to report on the accounts of Americans, which would presumably solve the problem.

However, there is quite a bit of bureaucracy involved. If you are running a foreign bank you now have to file a bunch of reports with the US IRS that you never had to file before. If you only have a few accounts belonging to US citizens, the easiest way to comply is simply to tell those customers to find another bank. This is happening, but it is unclear to what degree, or whether the process is over. Folks who are affected include Americans who may have jobs overseas, have been paying their taxes correctly, and suddenly find they have to make new banking arrangements.

The fear is that the amount of additional revenue raised will be very small and the disruption from the unintended consequences quite large.

Time will tell, but I am expecting the unintended consequences to be harmful, but not destroy the economy, and the revenue estimated less than forecast. If I am correct, then you won't be able to sort this out from all the other stuff affecting the economy.

As for the idea that the government is collecting information on Americans, the whole idea of the income tax does not allow for any privacy in financial matters, so this really isn't a new concept. I'm not defending it, just saying it isn't new.


----------



## bkt

crabapple said:


> I am missing something?
> The top 10% of the rich will have nowhere to hide their over abundance of cash.
> If I got that right, then what is the problem?


Who gets to decide how much cash amounts to an "overabundance"? Do you believe the money someone earns is not legitimately theirs if it exceeds an arbitrary amount determined by a politician or bureaucrat?

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe naked short sales resulting in multi-million dollar income in a half-hour span or similar abuses of the system constitute real earnings. I'm talking about people who work for a living.

And I don't mean to come across as a prick. But solutions put forth by any government entities rarely solve more problems than they create, and very often they are put forth to solve a problem the government created in the first place. That's just my $0.02.


----------



## Geek999

bkt said:


> Who gets to decide how much cash amounts to an "overabundance"? Do you believe the money someone earns is not legitimately theirs if it exceeds an arbitrary amount determined by a politician or bureaucrat?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I don't believe naked short sales resulting in multi-million dollar income in a half-hour span or similar abuses of the system constitute real earnings. I'm talking about people who work for a living.
> 
> And I don't mean to come across as a prick. But solutions put forth by any government entities rarely solve more problems than they create, and very often they are put forth to solve a problem the government created in the first place. That's just my $0.02.


While I agree with your basic point, the example of naked short sales just doesn't fly. Short sales used to be controlled by the uptick rule. In 2007 that rule was eliminated by the SEC (bad decision) and the control was supposed to be the concept of naked short sales, but if you are a short seller, you simply place a trade with a brokerage firm. They are supposed to insure the shares are on hand before executing your trade. As a customer you would have no way to know whether your short sale was naked or not.

Initially this was tough for the brokerage firms as they had been set up to follow the uptick rule and it took awhile to institute the new rule systematically. That's been done now, so it isn't at all clear how you could actually do a naked short sale, or how you would know if you had done one.


----------



## bkt

Geek999 said:


> While I agree with your basic point, the example of naked short sales just doesn't fly. Short sales used to be controlled by the uptick rule. In 2007 that rule was eliminated by the SEC (bad decision) and the control was supposed to be the concept of naked short sales, but if you are a short seller, you simply place a trade with a brokerage firm. They are supposed to insure the shares are on hand before executing your trade. As a customer you would have no way to know whether your short sale was naked or not.
> 
> Initially this was tough for the brokerage firms as they had been set up to follow the uptick rule and it took awhile to institute the new rule systematically. That's been done now, so it isn't at all clear how you could actually do a naked short sale, or how you would know if you had done one.


Fine, forget I ever referenced naked short sales. I of course meant that in the context of large entities dumping fictitious shares of something to drop the price, then buy cheap. Or not. Instead, consider any activity that can get for the mouse operator a large sum of currency without actually doing anything other than gaming the system, legally or not.


----------



## Geek999

bkt said:


> Fine, forget I ever referenced naked short sales. I of course meant that in the context of large entities dumping fictitious shares of something to drop the price, then buy cheap. Or not. Instead, consider any activity that can get for the mouse operator a large sum of currency without actually doing anything other than gaming the system, legally or not.


Depends on what you consider gaming the system. For instance, most of us take for granted that if you own stock you can sell it within seconds if the market is open. That ability is known as liquidity. If you want market liquidity somebody has to be willing to buy or sell all the time. If they are doing that, then they might have to go short. They might make a lot of money, but the rest of us are getting that liquidity. Is that worth anything? All of the regulators seem to think that market liquidity has some value.

Trading is simply acting as a middleman. Do we complain that WalMart makes money as a middleman? Why should we condemn financial traders but not WalMart?


----------



## bkt

Right, and that's not what I'm talking about.


----------



## Geek999

bkt said:


> Right, and that's not what I'm talking about.


What do you mean by "gaming the system"?


----------



## readytogo

*Hr 2847..............*

1.	Title 1-Incentives for hiring and retaining unemployed workers
2.	Title 2-Increase in expensing of certain depreciable business assets
3.	Title 3-Issuer allowed refundable credit for certain qualified tax credit bonds
4.	Title 4-Extension of current surface transportation programs
5.	Title 5-Offset provisions, Foreign account tax compliance, Reporting on certain foreign accounts, this one is a long one but in other words if you are hiding dollars in foreign bank accounts they will get you, The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to reflect this new tax laws.
This bill is related to commerce and business and gives tax credits to business that hired unemployed workers; it also deals with the country inner structure like highways, bridges and monies for projects.
In a few words if you are an average John Doe , working your butt off to support your family and pay your taxes,don`t worried about it, it will only give you stress and probably a coronary ,and if you get the 10,000 page bill just hang it in the outhouse.:beercheer:


----------



## crabapple

bkt said:


> Who gets to decide how much cash amounts to an "overabundance"? Do you believe the money someone earns is not legitimately theirs if it exceeds an arbitrary amount determined by a politician or bureaucrat?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I don't believe naked short sales resulting in multi-million dollar income in a half-hour span or similar abuses of the system constitute real earnings. I'm talking about people who work for a living.
> 
> And I don't mean to come across as a prick. But solutions put forth by any government entities rarely solve more problems than they create, and very often they are put forth to solve a problem the government created in the first place. That's just my $0.02.


I understand, but work for a living is not the same for everyone.
I am one of the highest paid hourly person in my company & I made under $75,000.00, with a bonus of less then $1,500.00 last year.
The company CEO had a bonus of 6,500,000.00, he did not work for that, the board gave it to him, because they are greasing each others palms.
I say if they can cheat the little men all his life & make millions off our sweat, then why should the GOV. do to them what they are doing to us.


----------



## Geek999

People earn money from labor, from education, from taking risks, from investments and probably some other stuff I am overlooking. When CEO compensation is published it includes all of those things and generally is not directly comparable to the average worker in the same company. for instance the CEO is often the largest individual shareholder in a company. The published compensation is often more about being the biggest shareholder than it is about his labor.

Don't fall into the Obama "You didn't build that" trap.


----------



## northstarprepper

Sorry sir to pop that bubble, but the vast majority of CEO's become the largest shareholders AFTER they have been in that position for a time, rather than when first taking the position. In reference to your not falling into the trap of Obama's "you didn't build that comment," he was speaking in reference to the related infrastructure that allowed businesses to grow and prosper. Now there are few people who like our president less than I do, but let's be realistic and take things in context. We should take a look at just how hard a CEO works...coming straight from one's mouth. 

While still employed by a major airline a few years ago, the CEO decided to come have a chat with us little people. He must have been bored. Before launching into his spiel as to why we needed to agree to accept more concessions in pay and other areas, he described his previous day at work. In his words, he stopped into the office for an hour or so to sign some "important papers" but then hurried off back home to pick up his son, who he had allowed to skip that day of school. You see, this business tycoon spent the rest of the day with the local professional football team, watching practice, getting autographs for himself and his son, and I am sure, doing important business on his phone the whole time.

So pardon me if I have less than no admiration for the thieves who run major corporations. Their compensation is the result of one thing only...handshake deals with board members to keep everyone sucking money out of a company that they do very little to either improve or grow. (By the way, the two co- chairmen and their major fund manager who they placed on the board of that airline all walked away with over $500,000,000 each in their pockets from their little escapade. They left the airline in bankruptcy.) These business geniuses grow their company by buying other companies, and they get more productive by laying off hard working people and piling more work on other people. After all, you will never see an over worked CEO.

I see this cost cutting today where I work. They have not filled fully one half of the positions we used to have in our area. Now we are being told that if we do not voluntarily work overtime every single Saturday and Sunday, they will change our schedules so that we will be forced to work three of every four weekends from now on. 

Productivity...try fighting back when there is real world unemployment over 15%. Do you think this economy gives any worker any leverage against being used and abused? A clueless president, a corrupt congress, and Wall Street that still says there is no real inflation problem. Our CEO is in his second year and got a 13% raise. I got 2%. Hmmmmmmm. I wonder what is wrong with this picture. 

What is wrong is there is no oversight. Business owns congress and the rest of government. You can bet that the NSA knows every business secret out there, but not one escapes...now how is that possible unless government and business are on the same team? The government then turns a blind eye to nearly all business activities...until some business leader (Jaime Diamond) says the wrong thing or criticizes the wrong person (the president), and then is made a public example of to show the peons that the government is really doing its job. You can bet that each Wall Street tycoon that falls has made a powerful enemy in Washington D.C. 

Well, I gave my 2 cents and more. If any college has a business ethics class, they might as well shutter it, because the only ethics in the real world is decided in a courtroom. Patent infringement, copyright infringement, outright theft, and then companies threaten and sue individuals for downloading stuff off the Internet. Every buck counts...more than honesty, more than honor, more than humanity. How sad I am at what my country has become.


----------



## Geek999

northstarprepper said:


> Sorry sir to pop that bubble, but the vast majority of CEO's become the largest shareholders AFTER they have been in that position for a time, rather than when first taking the position. In reference to your not falling into the trap of Obama's "you didn't build that comment," he was speaking in reference to the related infrastructure that allowed businesses to grow and prosper. Now there are few people who like our president less than I do, but let's be realistic and take things in context. We should take a look at just how hard a CEO works...coming straight from one's mouth.
> 
> While still employed by a major airline a few years ago, the CEO decided to come have a chat with us little people. He must have been bored. Before launching into his spiel as to why we needed to agree to accept more concessions in pay and other areas, he described his previous day at work. In his words, he stopped into the office for an hour or so to sign some "important papers" but then hurried off back home to pick up his son, who he had allowed to skip that day of school. You see, this business tycoon spent the rest of the day with the local professional football team, watching practice, getting autographs for himself and his son, and I am sure, doing important business on his phone the whole time.
> 
> So pardon me if I have less than no admiration for the thieves who run major corporations. Their compensation is the result of one thing only...handshake deals with board members to keep everyone sucking money out of a company that they do very little to either improve or grow. (By the way, the two co- chairmen and their major fund manager who they placed on the board of that airline all walked away with over $500,000,000 each in their pockets from their little escapade. They left the airline in bankruptcy.) These business geniuses grow their company by buying other companies, and they get more productive by laying off hard working people and piling more work on other people. After all, you will never see an over worked CEO.
> 
> I see this cost cutting today where I work. They have not filled fully one half of the positions we used to have in our area. Now we are being told that if we do not voluntarily work overtime every single Saturday and Sunday, they will change our schedules so that we will be forced to work three of every four weekends from now on.
> 
> Productivity...try fighting back when there is real world unemployment over 15%. Do you think this economy gives any worker any leverage against being used and abused? A clueless president, a corrupt congress, and Wall Street that still says there is no real inflation problem. Our CEO is in his second year and got a 13% raise. I got 2%. Hmmmmmmm. I wonder what is wrong with this picture.
> 
> What is wrong is there is no oversight. Business owns congress and the rest of government. You can bet that the NSA knows every business secret out there, but not one escapes...now how is that possible unless government and business are on the same team? The government then turns a blind eye to nearly all business activities...until some business leader (Jaime Diamond) says the wrong thing or criticizes the wrong person (the president), and then is made a public example of to show the peons that the government is really doing its job. You can bet that each Wall Street tycoon that falls has made a powerful enemy in Washington D.C.
> 
> Well, I gave my 2 cents and more. If any college has a business ethics class, they might as well shutter it, because the only ethics in the real world is decided in a courtroom. Patent infringement, copyright infringement, outright theft, and then companies threaten and sue individuals for downloading stuff off the Internet. Every buck counts...more than honesty, more than honor, more than humanity. How sad I am at what my country has become.


So your alternative is what? Communism? Socialism? Fascism? Even greater government control of corporations? Get rid of Congress and democracy with it?

Generally by the time someone becomes the CEO of a major corporation, assuming the corporation existed previously and wasn't something they founded, they have been in senior management for awhile and do hold significant stock and receive significant stock based compensation.

As for oversight of corporations, that is up to Boards of Directors and shareholders, not government. If you have government overseeing everything, then you don't have private enterprise. It is not the job of a corporate leader to maximize employment across the whole economy, so it is unfair to criticize corporations for doing what is best for their shareholders.

It seems to be popular here to bash corporations and their leaders and to impugn their integrity. I feel that is very shortsighted.


----------



## northstarprepper

And I also feel that if corporations conducted themselves in a manner based less upon outright greed for those at the top, the entire economy would be in much better shape. When I first started working over forty years ago, employees were seen as assets, not liabilities. Now, the only factor is to inflate the share price, so the CEO can claim another million dollar raise. Contrary to that famous movie line, greed is NOT good. 

When CEOs made twenty times the average worker wage, our economy was thriving. But then, greed raised its ugly head. Jobs were shipped overseas, quality control was downgraded, oversight was lost...all in the name of greed. That extra money, sure the stockholders made some money in raised value and dividends, but corporate boards and executive pay skyrocketed at the same time that Americas manufacturing base was destroyed. Greed. I am all for capitalism. But capitalism can never work unless there is a strong ethical component in those running the businesses. That lack of ethics is what has destroyed this country. 

It permeates business. It is in every layer of government right down to the smallest little town in the country. It is in our schools, our children now say there is nothing wrong with cheating...only the end result matters. Who can tell them they are wrong? Business leaders? The ones who lay off thousands and demand millions more for themselves? The President, who has acted like he thinks he is the Emperor of the U. S.? The Congress, who compromises every principle they supposedly held dear the last election? Teachers? The ones who care so much about educating kids and then spend the year brainwashing them with liberal hogwash? There are no ethical leaders in America anymore. If anyone stands up and says this is wrong, they are shouted down and told they are socialists or communists or nazis or some other insulting name that denotes intolerance.

Well sir, I am intolerant. I am not going to be quiet when business and government leaders are driven by greed. That lack of ethics, that lack of character, is destroying the best nation God ever created on this earth. When businesses cannot and will not police themselves...and will not allow shareholders to challenge these outrageous compensation packages during annual meetings, which many companies have, then yes it is time for the government to step in. When the government gets out of line, then the people must vote them out. That of course, has not been occurring. Something has to change and here is why.

Because of this greed at the top...this has been going on for so long, the middle class has died. I just learned the other day that I am now in the upper 28% of income in the U.S. I am anything but rich. Paycheck to paycheck. There is no one left to buy what all those companies want to sell. Pretty soon the utilities and cable companies will star showing declining revenues and then you will see where all of that greed got us. We are not coming out of a recession, we are headed back into one. Take a look at the grocery store next time you go. People are buying less because they no longer have the money. It is sitting in the hands of the ones who don't need to spend it. The dollar stores are even losing money. 

Meanwhile the head of Goldman-Sachs goes to Washington to defend putting billions into commodities (oil). In doing so, the price of gas rises for the average Joe, but he doesn't care because he can't make money in an over priced stock market. I am sure he stopped in to see his buddy in the white house while he was there too. Greed is not good. The love of money is the root of all evil. If things don't change, capitalism will become just another arm of a repressive government that uses low wage labor to keep the profits coming in for the privileged few. I don't think you want that outcome any more than I do. Let's just hope that somehow this stupidity ends and a little bit of reason returns to Americas boardrooms. That would be in all of our best interests.


----------



## Geek999

northstarprepper said:


> And I also feel that if corporations conducted themselves in a manner based less upon outright greed for those at the top, the entire economy would be in much better shape. When I first started working over forty years ago, employees were seen as assets, not liabilities. Now, the only factor is to inflate the share price, so the CEO can claim another million dollar raise. Contrary to that famous movie line, greed is NOT good.
> 
> When CEOs made twenty times the average worker wage, our economy was thriving. But then, greed raised its ugly head. Jobs were shipped overseas, quality control was downgraded, oversight was lost...all in the name of greed. That extra money, sure the stockholders made some money in raised value and dividends, but corporate boards and executive pay skyrocketed at the same time that Americas manufacturing base was destroyed. Greed. I am all for capitalism. But capitalism can never work unless there is a strong ethical component in those running the businesses. That lack of ethics is what has destroyed this country.
> 
> It permeates business. It is in every layer of government right down to the smallest little town in the country. It is in our schools, our children now say there is nothing wrong with cheating...only the end result matters. Who can tell them they are wrong? Business leaders? The ones who lay off thousands and demand millions more for themselves? The President, who has acted like he thinks he is the Emperor of the U. S.? The Congress, who compromises every principle they supposedly held dear the last election? Teachers? The ones who care so much about educating kids and then spend the year brainwashing them with liberal hogwash? There are no ethical leaders in America anymore. If anyone stands up and says this is wrong, they are shouted down and told they are socialists or communists or nazis or some other insulting name that denotes intolerance.
> 
> Well sir, I am intolerant. I am not going to be quiet when business and government leaders are driven by greed. That lack of ethics, that lack of character, is destroying the best nation God ever created on this earth. When businesses cannot and will not police themselves...and will not allow shareholders to challenge these outrageous compensation packages during annual meetings, which many companies have, then yes it is time for the government to step in. When the government gets out of line, then the people must vote them out. That of course, has not been occurring. Something has to change and here is why.
> 
> Because of this greed at the top...this has been going on for so long, the middle class has died. I just learned the other day that I am now in the upper 28% of income in the U.S. I am anything but rich. Paycheck to paycheck. There is no one left to buy what all those companies want to sell. Pretty soon the utilities and cable companies will star showing declining revenues and then you will see where all of that greed got us. We are not coming out of a recession, we are headed back into one. Take a look at the grocery store next time you go. People are buying less because they no longer have the money. It is sitting in the hands of the ones who don't need to spend it. The dollar stores are even losing money.
> 
> Meanwhile the head of Goldman-Sachs goes to Washington to defend putting billions into commodities (oil). In doing so, the price of gas rises for the average Joe, but he doesn't care because he can't make money in an over priced stock market. I am sure he stopped in to see his buddy in the white house while he was there too. Greed is not good. The love of money is the root of all evil. If things don't change, capitalism will become just another arm of a repressive government that uses low wage labor to keep the profits coming in for the privileged few. I don't think you want that outcome any more than I do. Let's just hope that somehow this stupidity ends and a little bit of reason returns to Americas boardrooms. That would be in all of our best interests.


Again, what do you propose instead? The government is the way it is because people don't bother to vote. Businesses are run by shareholders. Do you own shares and vote them?

Nobody says you have to vote for a large business with an overpaid CEO. There are plenty of small businesses and there is nothing (except government) stopping you from starting a business and running it in the manner you think proper.


----------



## bkt

northstarprepper said:


> The love of money is the root of all evil.


The lust for unearned money is indeed evil. The respect of earned money and money itself, however, is the root of all good.

For those quick to condemn CEOs, I ask you this: can you do their job? Not can you do the job of incompetent CEOs who run companies into the ground; anyone without a soul can do that. I mean, can you make a Fortune 500 company into a Fortune 50 company? Do you have those skills? If not, perhaps you might rethink painting with such a broad brush before condemning CEOs.

Granted, there are enormous problems in our economy and certain businesses are deeply involved. We live in very interesting times, unfortunately, and all this must shake out before we can begin to resume anything "normal" again.


----------



## Geek999

Money is neither good nor evil. Money is a tool to facilitate trade between people.


----------



## bkt

A universally valued means of exchange facilitates peaceful interaction. Without money, we would be reduced to bartering at best and outright thievery, often with violent outcomes. Without money, most of us would be operating at subsistence levels with no real means of improving our lot. Money has enabled a great deal of peaceful and beneficial growth and increased prosperity for everyone. That's all I meant.


----------



## machinist

I would suggest a return to being a nation of people with MORALS would be a good start on cleaning up the situation. It is obvious that our country has become not only fiscally bankrupt, but morally bankrupt as well. *NO *system of government can prevent that. It has to come from within the people of the nation.

Q. What do you call a fatal passenger train wreck that was loaded with lawyers and bankers?

A. A good start.


----------



## crabapple

Geek999 said:


> People earn money from labor, from education, from taking risks, from investments and probably some other stuff I am overlooking. When CEO compensation is published it includes all of those things and generally is not directly comparable to the average worker in the same company. for instance the CEO is often the largest individual shareholder in a company. The published compensation is often more about being the biggest shareholder than it is about his labor.
> 
> Don't fall into the Obama "You didn't build that" trap.


That is true, but I was only talking about his $6,500,000.00 Bonus.
I am not talking salary or stock options, just his bonus, which is more then most people will make in a life time.
More then anyone in the big bad GOV. makes in a year, so maybe the CEO's are as bad or worse than the FED.


----------



## Geek999

crabapple said:


> That is true, but I was only talking about his $6,500,000.00 Bonus.
> I am not talking salary or stock options, just his bonus, which is more then most people will make in a life time.
> More then anyone in the big bad GOV. makes in a year, so maybe the CEO's are as bad or worse than the FED.


If you want to attack someone else's compensation you have to propose what should be done instead. Without an alternative you're simply expressing jealousy. Neither you nor I know what he did to get in that role, or what he did in the past year. If it bugs you, you can always quit and go work for someone you respect.

As for the comparison to government, the federal government takes in more than any other organization on earth and still manages to lose money every year. I'm sure your company does better than that.


----------



## machinist

I also believe that corporate executives are overpaid. What to do is very simple. Pay them less. Probably some reasonable multiple of what the lowest paid employee gets. 

Yes, I did what you suggested and quit. Started my own business and was happier than I have ever been operating it for the last 9 years before I retired. I didn't get rich, but I made a good living and a lot of good friends. I wish I had done it 30 years sooner.

I am well acquainted with a few people who have made a lot of money, all of them business owner/executives. I asked them individually what is the purpose of making more money than you can ever need?

The answer was always the same, and I quote: "It's not about the money; it's about playing the GAME. Money is just how you keep score."

Basically, they were saying that it is an ego trip. That concept was borne out in their personal behavior, as being the most egotistical people I have ever known. I think that is disgusting.


----------



## bkt

Respectfully, I think some folks need to think things through a little more. This isn't a zero-sum game and NO ONE should care what anyone else is paid. You should be concerned that you are getting fair wages for your work. If the company/board/shareholders think upper management and the CEO should get a $6.6M bonus, that's no skin off your butt.


----------



## crabapple

crabapple said:


> I understand, but work for a living is not the same for everyone.
> I am one of the highest paid hourly person in my company & I made under $75,000.00, with a bonus of less then $1,500.00 last year.
> The company CEO had a bonus of 6,500,000.00, he did not work for that, the board gave it to him, because they are greasing each others palms.
> 
> I say if they can cheat the little men all his life & make millions off our sweat, then why should the GOV. do to them what they are doing to us.


I think I made it clear in "cheat the little man".
The company can not give good annual raises because they are passing the saving on to the customer, but they can gave the upper curst big bonus, top being $6500,000.00 for the CEO.
As for expressing Jealousy, is that what you are doing when the talk down to LEO & upper Government for what they do that you think is unfair?


----------



## bkt

You know the difference between unfair and illegal, right? The Constitution defines the legal bounds within which the federal government must operate. State constitutions and municipal regulations define the bounds within which LEOs must operate and sometimes the federal laws intervene (in the context, for example, of the Bill of Rights).

If a bumbling moron of a CEO who is killing a company brings in $15M base pay with a $6.5M bonus, that's unfair but not illegal. That's shouldered by the Board and shareholders.

You and I are "the little men" and we are due the rate of pay we agreed to. That's it. We are not due more money if the company makes more unless there is some clause that raises our pay based on corporate income that grants us this money.

I am a software developer for Xerox. Xerox's CEO, Ursula Burns, is a bumbling moron who is disgracefully overpaid. I have not seen a raise in 10 years. So I understand what "unfair" means. But I sure as hell don't want the government stepping in to compel the company to "spread the wealth around a little" because that would create FAR MORE problems than it solves.


----------

