Wait; isn't complaining about executive compensation...socialism?

Like Fox News gives a fark about teachers.

Shhhh.

Wait until the Faux News crowd learns that executives who send American jobs overseas get big fat raises for doing so.

Why does Fox hate the job creators? Why do they hate Americans who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps?

Are they outraged that it's only 10 times more?

Right...because working for a business where an executive happens to be is highly paid and FORCING teachers to join a union and pay the salary of its highly paid execs out of their own checks--that's the same thing.

As I said before, only in this country can the GOP make rich businessmen the victims and teachers the criminals.

MBK: As I said before, only in this country can the GOP make rich businessmen the victims and teachers the criminals.

And have people nodding in agreement.

The article is about Union Bosses making a lot of money, not Wall Street executive.

Shostie: Are they outraged that it's only 10 times more?

Most corporations have it above 20.

And you know what? If the Union has to hire from the same pool of people that usually get paid over a million (in stocks and bonuses, of course) then they're getting a really really good bargain. Especially considering that they probably are paying the guy in w-2 wages, and not in these horrendous schemes to inflate the takehome and dodge the taxman.

BravadoGT: Right...because working for a business where an executive happens to be is highly paid and FORCING teachers to join a union and pay the salary of its highly paid execs out of their own checks--that's the same thing.

so, "go work at a company where the boss isnt overpaid" is valid but "go work where there isnt a union" isnt?

Mantour: The article is about Union Bosses making a lot of money, not Wall Street executive.

not much of a distinction these days.

This is insulting! Those execs work hard for that money, it isn't like execs and the like get free money or anything like that CEO who quit the second day and made millions!

Teachers leech off the system via unions while execs work themselves to death daily to ensure that every dollar they are given is just compensation for a hard day's work.

rubi_con_man: Shostie: Are they outraged that it's only 10 times more?

Most corporations have it above 20.

And you know what? If the Union has to hire from the same pool of people that usually get paid over a million (in stocks and bonuses, of course) then they're getting a really really good bargain. Especially considering that they probably are paying the guy in w-2 wages, and not in these horrendous schemes to inflate the takehome and dodge the taxman.

20x? Try again. The average Fortune 500 CEO makes 380x worker pay.

Speaking of Dodging taxes: did you hear about Mill Romney's 401k ?

As CEO he made contributions to his 401k, which were managed by ... Bain. This allowed him to buy a special class of stock from ... Bain. This stock had the very special property that it paid huge dividends regularly and almost immediately based on the profits of ... Bain ...

So now his 401k has over 10 million in it. Wow. That's big.

It's especially big considering that the maximum allowed contribution into your 401k is $17,000 in 2011, meaning that it would take over 580 years for anyone else to get that balance in just contributions. This seems to be tax evasion to me.

madgonad: 20x? Try again. The average Fortune 500 CEO makes 380x worker pay.

I said "over 20"

380 is over 20.

:-)

rubi_con_man: madgonad: 20x? Try again. The average Fortune 500 CEO makes 380x worker pay.

I said "over 20"

380 is over 20.

:-)

Okay, I'll give you the TKO

BravadoGT: Right...because working for a business where an executive happens to be is highly paid and FORCING teachers to join a union and pay the salary of its highly paid execs out of their own checks--that's the same thing.

Sounds like a guy who's butthurt the union couldn't get him out of being fired for drinking on the job.

And it's the socialists that complain that union bosses make too much money and are in cahoots with business and government leaders.

BravadoGT: Right...because working for a business where an executive happens to be is highly paid and FORCING teachers to join a union and pay the salary of its highly paid execs out of their own checks--that's the same thing.

Wait. This is colliding with the talking point that teachers make too much money.

If the teachers are using their union power to get them great pay and benefits why would you be concerned about their requirement to pay dues...because you do seem really concerned about this.

/if this is such an outrage, where are all the teacher groups protesting and lobbying the government to get out of paying their union dues?

I sometimes wonder what would happen if Fox News started subtely shifting to the left. Just an occasional screencrawl or comment at first, then a segment or two a day on already established shows with hosts the masses know and trust.

I know the workers at Fox wouldn't give a shiat, since they've already proven they'll say or do anything for money. But I wonder if the people that absorb the channel for hours a day would notice, of if they would just accept what they're told like they always do?

rubi_con_man: Shostie: Are they outraged that it's only 10 times more?

Most corporations have it above 20.

And you know what? If the Union has to hire from the same pool of people that usually get paid over a million (in stocks and bonuses, of course) then they're getting a really really good bargain. Especially considering that they probably are paying the guy in w-2 wages, and not in these horrendous schemes to inflate the takehome and dodge the taxman.

Actually, it's around 400 times more...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/ economy/ceo-pay/index.htm

/FYI, the executives at one company are often CEOs at another company.

rubi_con_man: This seems to be tax evasion to me.

Not if it's all legal. The worst thing you can say about Rmoney is that he possibly lied on his disclosure forms (hopefully it'll disqualify the fark). It's not tax evasion if you're within the confines of the law.

Honestly? I can get on board with that. If I had that kind of cash, i'd be using every possible loophole and law to my advantage too. So would anyone else in that position.

/doesn't hate the rich
//hates douchebags
///unfortunately there's a lot of overlap

James F. Campbell: Like Fox News gives a fark about teachers.

I'm a teacher, and this is so infuriating. They spend most of their time branding teachers as do nothing, leeches on the system. Now they care? Why, because they get to shiat on the Union heads?

Look, can you cover this a little more objectively? This is a story. For sure. About the hypocrisy of ALL executive positions and compensations. Union leaders shouldnt be exempt, no doubt, but neither should any of the corporate leeches who make WAY too much for what they do.

they're outraged cuz it should be 100 times more you libs

Mantour: The article is about Union Bosses making a lot of money, not Wall Street executive.

Somehow I knew this only by the source... Wonder why?

TsukasaK: rubi_con_man: This seems to be tax evasion to me.

Not if it's all legal. The worst thing you can say about Rmoney is that he possibly lied on his disclosure forms (hopefully it'll disqualify the fark). It's not tax evasion if you're within the confines of the law.

Honestly? I can get on board with that. If I had that kind of cash, i'd be using every possible loophole and law to my advantage too. So would anyone else in that position.

/doesn't hate the rich
//hates douchebags
///unfortunately there's a lot of overlap

And yet it's legal because money has paid to make it legal. Legal != right.

So would Romney fight to keep it legal or make it right?

Fire the Union boss and credit every teacher their share of the salary. There's only what, 20 or so teachers in each union, so that means like a 50% increase in their salary (multiply by 10 for the boss then divide by 20 for the number of union members). The teachers might experience slashes in benefits or compensation without the union to bargain in their interest, but they will have that extra 50% salary to compensate for the loss. Really a huge win for the teachers if you do the math this way.

TsukasaK: Not if it's all legal. The worst thing you can say about Rmoney is that he possibly lied on his disclosure forms (hopefully it'll disqualify the fark). It's not tax evasion if you're within the confines of the law.

Honestly? I can get on board with that. If I had that kind of cash, i'd be using every possible loophole and law to my advantage too. So would anyone else in that position.

No. The Definition of Tax Evasion (by the IRS) is when you do apparently legal things and the only motivation is to avoid paying taxes.

So these 'contractually obligatory bonuses' that wall street types get (and which are taxed at 15%) are designed to minimize their tax burden. If the company is obliged to pay it for services rendered, and they can't go down if the company performance drops, that's Tax Evasion. Holy Heck, I live on 16k a year as a grad students and I am taxed on that income! Why should a guy making over 100k pay less on his last dollar of income than I do?

The fact that the politicians and the IRS have declined to go after this is a really big problem.

As the husband of a teacher, Fox may have gotten this one right for a change.

St_Francis_P: Wait; isn't complaining about executive compensation...socialism?

yes. you cannot point out that CEOs make over 300 times more than the average worker because that's socialisms. you can, however, complain about unions. I think its even on that 'warning signs of fascism' list, which is basically the GOP talking points for this year. unions are always wrong everywhere at all times. unions unions unions. Oh...my gawd...unions. did you SEE what the unions were wearing this year? soooo tacky! plus, they're slutty.

Mantour: The article is about Union Bosses making a lot of money, not Wall Street executive.

true, however - its a valid comparison. Fox news is making the argument about 'compensation being out of control'. ok, well - if that's the crux of their article then is ALL compensation out of control, or merely UNION compensation out of control? when you put CEO/executive compensation next to union compensation, a different picture emerges.

perspective is a good thing.

rubi_con_man: No. The Definition of Tax Evasion (by the IRS) is when you do apparently legal things and the only motivation is to avoid paying taxes.

So when people donate a ton of money to charity, it's illegal if the idea is to get a write-off instead of altruistic contribution.

Uh huh.

It bothers me that the headline of the article refers to thousands as "Gs". Clearly whoever wrote this doesn't deal with numbers for a living.

TsukasaK: rubi_con_man: This seems to be tax evasion to me.

Not if it's all legal. The worst thing you can say about Rmoney is that he possibly lied on his disclosure forms (hopefully it'll disqualify the fark). It's not tax evasion if you're within the confines of the law.

Honestly? I can get on board with that. If I had that kind of cash, i'd be using every possible loophole and law to my advantage too. So would anyone else in that position.

/doesn't hate the rich
//hates douchebags
///unfortunately there's a lot of overlap

What are you talking about? They couldn't even disqualify Obama, and he's a gay, Muslim, Kenyan, baby-killing, socialist, fascist.

SilentStrider: MBK: As I said before, only in this country can the GOP make rich businessmen the victims and teachers the criminals.

And have people nodding in agreement.

kind of crazy if you ask me.

So their solution is: Cut all their pay? Their job is so easy anyway.

TimonC346:
Look, can you cover this a little more objectively? This is a story. For sure. About the hypocrisy of ALL executive positions and compensations. Union leaders shouldnt be exempt, no doubt, but neither should any of the corporate leeches who make WAY too much for what they do.

So much this!

salvador.hardin: Fire the Union boss and credit every teacher their share of the salary. There's only what, 20 or so teachers in each union, so that means like a 50% increase in their salary (multiply by 10 for the boss then divide by 20 for the number of union members). The teachers might experience slashes in benefits or compensation without the union to bargain in their interest, but they will have that extra 50% salary to compensate for the loss. Really a huge win for the teachers if you do the math this way.

LOLWUT?

Lemme guess. You're not a job creator and you never will be.

TimonC346:
Look, can you cover this a little more objectively? This is a story. For sure. About the hypocrisy of ALL executive positions and compensations. Union leaders shouldnt be exempt, no doubt, but neither should any of the corporate leeches who make WAY too much for what they do.

um...this is Fox News we're talking about. they aren't there to be fair and balanced...in fact, quite the opposite. they're the media wing of the Republican party.

FTFA: American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten's pay jumped to $407,323 between 2010 and 2011, while her counterpart at the National Education Association, Dennis Van Roekel, got a raise to $362,644. Factor in stipends and other paid expenses and Weingarten took in $493,859 and Van Roekel $460,060 for 2011.

And how much does Rupert Murdoch pull in per year, again?

money is like manure.

Spread it around, and it helps things grow.

Put it in one place, and you just have a big ol' pile of shiat.

BravadoGT: Right...because working for a business where an executive happens to be is highly paid and FORCING teachers to join a union and pay the salary of its highly paid execs out of their own checks--that's the same thing.

All non-executives are pay for the salaries of their bosses. The value of their labor to the company exceeds the value of their compensation - that's how the company makes money. Those whose labor is indirect (i.e. directing the work of others) are ultimately paid for by the value produced by the direct laborers.

I'm so sick of the left saying "Fox is upset" when they're reporting a story.

FTA "The big salaries drew jeers from many educators and their advocates in the U.S."

It doesn't say FoxNews is upset. The fact that teachers are upset about this and the only place you read about it is from Fox, isn't Fox's fault. Ask, why isn't any other new organization reporting it?

damitjim: Ask, why isn't any other new organization reporting it?

Give it time.

That said, Fox has an agenda. They don't push stories out there for the lulz - it's very calculated and measured. (Read some of the Moody memos if you want proof of this).

But I thought all the lazy teachers make six figure incomes while only working 7 months out of the year.

damitjim: I'm so sick of the left saying "Fox is upset" when they're reporting a story.

FTA "The big salaries drew jeers from many educators and their advocates in the U.S."

It doesn't say FoxNews is upset. The fact that teachers are upset about this and the only place you read about it is from Fox, isn't Fox's fault. Ask, why isn't any other new organization reporting it?

well, in the grand scheme of things - union executive compensation isn't really all that much. Like I said up thread - put corporate CEO compensation next to union compensation and you get a completely different story than what Fox is trying to push.

Stile4aly: But I thought all the lazy teachers make six figure incomes while only working 7 months out of the year.

meanwhile, a CEO works one day and gets $44 million.

Because that's fair, right?

TsukasaK: Give it time.

Give it time for what? Reporting the news as it happens is an agenda, but holding the story until a more convenient time isn't? That appears to mean the other news agencies that are going to "get around to it" have an agenda too?

My guess is Fox's 'agenda' is stay number one, that's where the advertising dollars are and they're in business to make money.