Speak Out: Obscene salaries

Posted by oldphil on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 6:37 AM:

I think Mr. Obama is right in taking away all that money that belongs to all us poor folks, from all those bankers and stockbrokertheeves, but HE DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH!! What about all those Hollywood stars running around stirring up trouble making millions of dollars to make a bad movie? And how about paying a baseball player or a basketball player $15,000,000.00 each year when you've got all those Dads out there playing hoops with their little boys? Don't they deserve some of that money too? Mr. Obama, cap the salaries of Hollywood stars and professional athletes, like you did with all those Republican businessmen, and give the extra to the little people. It will level the the playing field. It's only fair.

Replies (12)

  • Mr. Obama is going to tax or limit the earnings of business people who make a lot of money because of their talent or education and give it to the poor people. But he's missing another source of money he could take and give to the poor. I still think it's unfair for Pujols and the rest of them to make all that money while all those inner-city dads don't have nothing. They should get most of his salary because they are deserving. It doesn't matter if they can't hit a homerun. They are deserving. Mr. Obama needs to take care of the poor people. The rich folks earn all that money and say thay don't need to share because they earned it. That's just bull. Just because poor folks can't get a job because they don't have no education is no reason for tycoons or baseball players or movie stars to hog all the money. Mr. Obama needs to take all the money that everybody makes above $35,000. and divide it up among us poor folks. That's what I think.

    -- Posted by oldphil on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 8:54 AM
  • I do agree that athletes/Hollywood make entirely too much money. But it's clearly supply/demand. If Americans weren't so obsessed with their lifestyles, sports, etc..there would be no market for these guys.

    If you worked, planned and have a successful life you deserve it. If you need help, you deserve that as well. But the idea that b/c 'Joe', the neighbor has two boats so you should have one is ridiculous.

    -- Posted by Turnip on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 9:06 AM
  • OldPhil, My dad had a saying that he would use often " I would like to by you for what I think you are worth and sell you for what you think you are worth". What a person makes depends on the "free market" and what the person can bring to the table. If I have two diffrent company's wanting my skills and company 1 offers me $8 an hour and company 2 offers me $14 an hour. I'm going with company #2.

    To say I do not deserve what the market is willing to pay me beacuse someone else does not have a job just does not make any sence.

    -- Posted by Airborne 95B on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 9:15 AM
  • James, I agree that the market allows for this BUT c'mon...$850,000. a episode is RIDICULOUS. Entertainment" should not be worth that much money. A brain surgeon, a teacher...but not a ACTOR!

    -- Posted by Turnip on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 9:35 AM
  • oldphi: You miss an important point. The inner city dad had the same opportunity to get an education as did the banker. While they may not have attended the same schools, the inner city dad could have made his education a priority and learned enough to do well on the ACT thereby earning him an opportunity to go to college. A 31 on the ACT will get your tuition,room and board paid at any public Missouri university.

    I suspect the inner city dad had other priotities whose consequences have left him in financial bondage. While sad, we all face the consequences of our poor choices. It is NOT government's place to take money from one citizen and give it to another. I would rather live in a mud hut with very little and know that it was MINE and was MINE because I worked for it rather than live in a huge mansion that was taken from someone else who was better prepared for the real world.

    Turnip: If people quit watching OR buying the products sold on the commercials during those shows they would not get $850,000 an episode.

    The rich will be held accountable for what they did or didnt do with their money. God says "to whom much is given, much is required" but He also said "If you dont work and support your family you are worse than an infidel."

    The only thing that I see as evil is if an executive cooks the books and runs a company into the ground knowing that he/she has employees below him who are not wealthy who have families to take care of.

    I have very little sympathy for these auto workers unions have priced themselves out of the market because they listened to their union leaders who are paid tons of money to protect the workers' interests. Just like with the American treasury, you cannot keep voting yourself money from the company without eventually running out of money.

    -- Posted by WisdomSeeker on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 10:02 AM
  • All those republican businessmen, that made me smile. Let me get this straight, under the oldphil plan professional athletes will have salary caps and that money saved will go to fathers playing baseball with their kids? I would like to make a couple comments about your post: All banker's and stock brokers are not thieves. Pretty much everything you stated is stupid and you are a communist. It should be noted that "all you poor folks" that you speak of should not be entitled to anything. How is it only fair that people with talent and worth should share thier wealth with people who have nothing to offer society?

    -- Posted by Cape's Advocate on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 11:31 AM
  • Well, now, oldphil sure got a lot of people thinkin' an' writin' about what the current administration is trying to do. It IS proposing to cap salaries in business and industries. It will, if allowed, tax energy at all levels and redisribute the money. It will tax healthcare benefits and redistribute to those who have none. If a government can dictate the earnings in business and industry without you fine people screaming at it rather than oldphil, can anyone, including old Albert, be far behind? Write you representatives. Oldphil might have done good today.

    -- Posted by oldphil on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 12:59 PM
  • Can't decide what, if any, of your blog statement was tongue-in-cheek, oldphil.

    In Great Wisdom, our government ... our society even ... seems to be encouraging a dependent welfare state while often discouraging, and even in some ways punishing, independent success. James (and others) seems to know this ... To take from the rich to give to the poor might sound good ... but that concept is rather self-defeating in many ways.

    Funny thing ... My grandparents were really poor (which I didn't realize until years after I grew up); my parents were rather poor (I did realize that) but did better than their parents; as adults, two brothers and I started out poor, but did even better than my parents. All of this generational 'stepping-up' was done without one single bit of help from any governmental program, or even from relatives.

    However, one sibling is still living in about the same financial status as our parents ... the one who used governmental programs steadily for 15 years, and off and on throughout the remaining decades. The five children of this sibling have all utilized 'welfare' programs off and on (four still do) ... with one having been on the programs steadily for almost a decade, but one who worked hard enough for years to overcome 'poverty.'

    All that may be off-topic? Guess my feelings are that Americans who work hard (or even inherit) and honestly for their wealth should be as deserving to keep their money as I should be to keep mine ... if that makes any sense?

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 2:51 PM
  • If the Gov. sets a max wage/cap as well as a min. wage, will inventors keep coming up with new idea's?

    Think about it would Ford had made the improvments to the automobile that he did if he would not been allowed to make money at it? Or Bill Gates, would he had made the improvements to the computer (that are now used world wide) if he could not make money at it?

    What would happen to the economy if people stopped moving forward?

    -- Posted by Airborne 95B on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 2:52 PM
  • Suggest salary restrictions go against the rules of supply-and-demand - both for the high end and the low end of the supply spectrum.

    While the stories abound of companies with lackluster results still paying CEOs gobs of money - what about the CEOs who make decisions that in turn make the company gobs of money, doing what no one else has been able to do?

    If salaries are capped, essentially removing that part of the negotiating process - what other means can a given company use to keep a desirable CEO, and can other companies use to entice the desirable CEO away?

    Still suggest that the true responsibility for high compensation and corresponding expected performance lies with the Board of Directors who authorized and approved the salary package. If the CEO is to be flamed for his salary - then the BoD should be right alongside in the line of fire.

    On the other end, how many employees out there are so useless so as not to be worth even the minimum wage, driving up consumer costs from that end?

    IMO, wages should be negotiated between the employer and employee, not derived from some government-mandated look-up table.

    -- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 5:57 PM
  • Rather good one, WOBBLE ... especially 'what was I thinking' Darn, I really, really don't like Pelosi ... but it isn't because she's wealthy.

    Never understood the 'wealth envy' crowd ... not that I've never envied the wealthy ...

    I'm one of very few I guess who never understood 'punishing' the wealthy by assessing a higher tax rate on them.

    Well, thanks then, oldphil ... and fxwpt, I'm with you. If only we could convince the government to get out of private business affairs ... although apparently some businesses have called for the interference themselves.

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Jul 6, 2009, at 11:03 PM
  • WisdomSeeker

    Where did you get the idea that if you are in a union you get get to vote and receive a pay raise. Auto workers received the pay & benefits that management offered them. Union workers do not have any say in how the company is run. There is a large divide between labor and management.

    -- Posted by LocalFan12 on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 6:47 AM

Respond to this thread