I know how it's gonna be....
Trending Content - Off Topic Forum
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
June 30, 2026
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
High Finance Applications
Guaranteed
Get at least one offer GUARANTEED
- 1:1 support
- 92% success rate
- 2,000+ mentor network
- Unlimited Live bootcamps
- AI for resume + LinkedIn
- Networking automation tools
- HireVue simulation tool
- Full course library
- Private Slack community
- 20hrs of mocks
- + much more...
Literally 10 minutes after talking about how "successful" the GM bailout was, he proclaims "No more bailouts!!"
Such a shitshow.
If the government can even efficiently accomplish a tenth of what he proposes... Nope, not gonna happen.
Where is the money for this shit going to come from?
give us some of that internet money...
Let me guess...own energy, more roads and bridges, rich middle class, more taxes, no war, healthy environment, most innovative technology, manufacturing jobs...what else did i miss? ohh yea moral society, free money at the FED, world respect and domination.
I think you forgot no more rich people.
From the individual to the collective we go. He sounded like Marx at the end. I think I heard the word "fair" 15 times. He gave himself more power with a royal fiat...errr...executive order etc etc
For anyone that wants to get a better sense of the manufacturing sector in this country (as I was relatively ill-informed as well): http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/making-it-in-americ… It's a much more nuanced problem than simply "taking away tax subsidies to outsourcers and giving them to insourcers" (paraphrasing, of course).
Generally, his populism-mongering," let's demonize success," speech made me want to vomit. But I suppose it struck the appropriate tones and sentiments that will help him get elected.
You don't have to like or dislike the shit he says, but to say that he "demonizes" success is just outrageous.
"We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference - like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know it's not right." He presents a false choice between people suffering because the greedy rich are unwilling to pay their fair share and an alleviation of economic hardships and deficits if the greedy rich pay up. While I think generally Americans admire financial success, economic hardships, in my opinion, understandably switch that admiration to sentiments of envy and unwarranted inequity. Obama seems to be appealing to that sentiment and does so by focusing attention on the rich and letting the others know he's on their side.
Also, I believe his effective tax rate was in the realm of 26%? Why hasn't he written a check to the US Treasury for another 4% to meet the 30% minimum threshold for those making over a million he suggested in this speech?
I'm gonna try to see him this Friday... pretty excited to actually see a President in person
Back in 08 my high school class went to go see him.. Crowd went BERSERK when he finally came to the podium. Wish I still had my old phones videos
hey scott what do you do? what industry if you dont want to say the specific type of job...
Heavy on rhetoric, thin on actual plans.
I still want someone to explain to me what "fair" means. It is such an open ended and nebulous statement. The poorest 50% pay nothing in Federal taxes while the rich pay the lion share.
Only in American can you get something for nothing and then complain that the people who pay for you don't give you nice enough free shit.
ANT I rarely agree with you, but you're 100% right on this.
How about this for liberals.
How about we ended the Dept of Education and take their $80B per year budget and spend it on retraining programs or stimulus checks.
There. No new taxes, reducing government and helping the poorest Americans.
He didn't mention guns even once. I like guns. He didn't even talk against them.
The rest of the speech was alright, I liked that he's putting colleges / schools on notice about training people for actual jobs and charging too much...what he does about it remains to be seen.
You mean hes talking about possibly fixing shit (education) that he fucked up (with the federal government bulling every private lender out of the market with a bit of totally unrelated legslation in obamacare). Yes thats just a great talking point. "I fucked up people, instead of taking the blame and fixing it I am going to blame the instutions that because of what I did are able to increase rates at an even faster rate thene before."
To clarify: I'm not advocating anything when it comes to taxes, I just think it's absurd to say he's demonizing the rich by suggesting tax rates similar to what we had under Clinton.
I do, however, find the carried interest tax loophole for money managers (including people in my own industry) to be total bullshit. Cap Gains should only apply to money you yourself have invested, not on the 20% of the fund returns you get via investing other people's money. That's the kind of thing that one could classify as "unfair."
Whether tax rates go up or down for those declining few who pay Fed taxes, it is not an issue of fairness.
Robin Hood was about fairness. This is simply about the rich being able to pay more and a growing population of people who want to punish those who are better off.
The only thing unfair about the tax system is the fact that people who benefit from the Federal government pay nothing into it and have a say on what others should pay. Nothing can be more unfair than the poor telling someone else to pay for more of their free shit.
Americans simply don't have the fire in their stomach anymore.
Eliminate the income tax, which the US didn't have until the early 1900s. Obviously government is currently too big to finance without an income tax, but, over time, the govt could be shrunk enough to completely eliminate the income tax. It would take a while to do that and even longer to get our debt under control, but after that, eliminate the tax. Now that is the fairest system of all - every individual keeps every penny they make. Govt could be financed by a 25% flat rate on all business, no loopholes.
Too bad that will never, ever happen.
"The only thing unfair about the tax system is the fact that people who benefit from the Federal government pay nothing into it and have a say on what others should pay. Nothing can be more unfair than the poor telling someone else to pay for more of their free shit. "
This
Why should we have to pay money because you lived beyond your means or because you are just accepting unemployment.
You want to know what rate I pay? Just a bit over 27% this whole let's take the one hedge fund manager that pays .04% and paint the entire top 1% in his shade is just a flat out lie. Obama spews more shit in a single speech then a herd of cattle do in a year. The biggest problem is his loyalists will soak up every word and we will have a divide that will never dissolve. The country was built on success, the playing field has never been more level then it is now. The problem is everyone wants but no one wants to work for what they want.
I'm getting a pretty awesome tax return this year. Not relevant but I'm pretty happy about it.
Raising capital gains would do more bad than good, unless there was a way to separate out carried interest earned by fund managers and raise that. But here is the problem with that.......how much extra tax revenue would even be gained? What percentage of the rich earn their money through carried interest? My guess is that it's not worth making such a big deal over, it won't actually fix anything and it is just populist bullshit
No kidding? You just now figured that out?
No, I just posted it now
The Carried Interest Tax Loophole could absolutely be fixed. It's one of the few taxes that can actually be legitimately argued as being "unfair." It's basically a cheat code for higher earnings for HF / PE guys.
That said, I kind of take offense to the classification of the law as a "loophole" or a "cheat code." The law isn't ambiguous or even secret. It is incredibly clear and well known -- carried interest is currently treated as capital gains under the existing laws. The President and Congress have known about it for many years. They are the ones who write the laws and the HF/PE guys are the ones who follow them. Instead of blaming HF/PE guys for the current laws, you should be complaining about the administration that permits them to exist. Don't begrudge HF/PE guys for paying exactly what the IRS says they owe.
+1 It always kills me when the guys who write the laws complain about the people who are following the stupid laws they wrote in the first place.
Congress has the power to change the tax code, but its easier for them to blame people who "abuse loopholes" instead of writing the damn bill that would tax carried interest the same way wages are taxed.
I would completely agree with this except for the fact PE/HF managers have a tremendous amount of sway in terms of lobbying expenditures and political contributions, both of which are used frequently. The blame should be shared, at least a little bit. I think this really points to some more fundamental flaws in the US political process and the role money plays.
1.) I am complaining about Congress for writing this into law.
2.) Please provide a "reasonable argument for why carried interest should be treated as capital gain." I've yet to hear someone give an honest defense for it.
As a speech and political theater, it was first-rate. But of course we already knew that Obama is great at delivering speeches. In terms of substance, it was liberal class warfare drivel. He blamed the top 1%, the wealthy, bankers, oil industry, and a bunch of others for the economic woes that face us. His populist rhetoric got ramped up a notch, and it's clear that Obama intends to win re-election, not based on his actual achievements, but rather by blaming the successful and invoking resentment. I was watching past SOTU addresses by Reagan and Clinton, which were optimistic speeches about American greatness, individualism, and free market. It's clear that Obama does not get what makes this country great. His values are antithetical with our founding fathers, more reminiscent of Karl Marx than George Washington or James Madison.
Obama is in re-election mode so nothing is going to get done (same for Republicans). It sucks that this election is going to be nothing but class warfare, but it is strategically smart for Obama. Sadly, it will only destroy this country faster. You aren't going to make the lower class in this nation competitive with the world by penalizing the rich or making excuses.
The best way to avoid poverty is to complete high school, not commit crime and don't have kids until you are older. All are incredibly easy to do or at least something that cannot be fixed by throwing money at the problem.
But yeah, lets not focus on the prevalence of single mothers in the black community or kids not learning a trade or spending beyond their means. Lets focus on carried interest, which is a small drop in the bucket.
This is why I dislike Obama so much. He runs on this populist, minority, progressive ticket, yet all he does is fuck this country and the people who need help over. Republicans never try and run on that help the poor bullshit.
Yeah, they run on that help the rich bullshit.
It blows my mind that people are cool with the uber wealthy paying an overall less tax rate than they are. Mitt Romney only pays ~14%. You guys bust your ass working 100 hours a week and pay ~28% or whatever.
Count capital gains as regular income then drop all the tax rates across the board
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Romney already paid income tax and is now paying capital gains on his investments. Only a small amount of his has anything to do with carried interest.
I just cannot deal with someone so uneducated. Romney pays a low tax rate because of carried interest or capital gains, not some magic loop hole that allows rich people to pay less than the poor. Oh wait, the poor pay ZERO so even carried interest is higher than what poor individuals pays.
End of the day, the poor don't matter. They are truly irrelevant. They do jobs that robots cannot do yet. As a person living in a major city, I cannot wait for the day when a robot can make a burger and eliminate the lazy, sloppy and fucking worthless people making me a cheese burger.
I pay 28% because I am paying INCOME TAX, which is bullshit. Romney is smart enough to make his money in carried interest or capital gains. I salute him, not hate him.
and say that we did
I think the president making something of himself and leading by example does more for that demographic than anything else.
ORLY?
I think a little more has to be done, not just there, but everywhere. You can demonize the rich all day, every day, but they are still rich, have opportunity and will do just fine. The poor can cheer and rally behind the chosen one, but unless they get educated, stop having premarital children and attempt to stem the exodus of male parents, they will continue to be poor and downtrodden.
Heister -
You just made a generic argument for lower taxes in general, not a specific argument for the carried interest rule.
Heister -
We are talking about Private Equity and Hedge Fund guys, not entrepreneurs. I don't understand the argument you are making here.
PE guys do the same thing that business owners do. Aside from that the corporate earnings of private companies is treated in a similar way that carried interest is. PE will take a serious hit from the ending of carried interest. PE is responsible for the retaining of hundreds of thousands of jobs in legacy industires.
Counterpoints to heister:
--PE guys, for the most part, invest in companies with other people's money.
--I have zero issue with PE guys getting capital gains tax rates applied to money of their own that they invest in the fund. I do, however, have an issue with them getting the capital gains tax rate on the 20% of returns they earned using other people's money.
--If I'm an individual business owner of an s-corporation (for example), I take dividends out of my company's earnings and they are taxed at the appropriate personal income tax rate, not at the capital gains rate. I only see the capital gain tax rate if I sell part or all of my company.
--I absolutely do not believe that getting rid of the carried interest tax rule would drive people out of the industry. If anything, I'm of the mindset that there are already waaaay too many PE shops out there, so that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
--I don't think your arguments hold much water for PE, and basically don't apply at all to hedge funds.
What a fucking lying hypocritical two-faced piece of shit this guy is. Harvard and Columbia or wherever the fuck he went, probably got in because of some affirmative action bullshit anyways, associates with the world's rich and elite for years and then goes and vomits out his worthless opinion about the evil rich to the masses of lazy proles that now make up this country...FUCK obama
CompBanker:
Thanks for the thoughtful post. Those are the best arguments I've heard. Also appreciate that you gave them with a grain of salt, knowing that they aren't infallible.
I expect Obama to be a Democrat, probably because he is. The best we could ever hope for is that he would run as a New Democrat, which is still only as good economically as a compassion conservative.
What disappoints me is that Republicans, and especially Romney, are not effectively countering him. How can informed Republicans and independents support Romney when his economic plan could only be described as not making matters worse.
There's always HK.
By the way, I just want to say that Buffett is probably the most evil person in America.
Capital gains is already taxed at the business level (taxation on businesses) and then again with the capital gains tax. It is a glaring example of double taxation in the system. Drop the business tax to 0% and then make cap gains=income tax. Far better solution and far more pro-growth.
Romney donated 42% of his income last year, Biden donated $379.
BTW, I'm all in for a regular guy paying 15% too vs 30%.
No way someone making 30-40K is paying 30% dude. Most people end up paying 0 in fed taxes. So this isn't about the rich paying zip and the poor carrying people. The middle, upper middle and rich pay all the ta x.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/72291
And yeah, some kid doing a shitty job at McDonalds is irrelevant. If only it could be automated so we could get rid of them.
Listen I know the poor don't pay 30%, but the middle class people do 50k and up...and this a fact because many of my buddies are in that range and pay this...of coarse some can write off due to dependents and mortgage, but overall that's where you start if you are in the middle. Now it pisses me off that a rich dude because he's in PE, he pays 15% . Now i don't mind him paying 15% (if that with all of their deductions) as long as the middle guy starts with that as well. Seems reasonable to me. I still don't agree on the MCD comment because if the guy wasn't there you wouldn't be able to get a sandwich, which makes his job relevant enough, but that's another argument.
FYI, didn't read the article u posted, but it looks promising. Thanks.
Obama and the dems are making taxes/class warfare a big issue now in order to distract from the real problem, runaway government spending. It's fucking out of control and it's going to take a currency crisis for these treasonous cowards to realize they are fucking destroying what's left of this country.
Dude, come to Philly and tell me how relevant the cock suckers here are at making a burger. I could train a dog to do the job better.
And the only rich people paying 15% are people who pay nothing but carried interest rates, a small exception.
Fine it's a simple job that many people don't even do well because it is truly boring, but if all the MCD's employees quit and noone wanted to replace them. People who eat at McD wouldn't be able to eat there and the company would go broke. Many people in manufacturing jobs do really mundane work that's pretty simple, but without them these facilities would have a tough time operating properly...so in my view this makes their job relevant...for some reason i don't think our heads will meet on this issue today.
We've been talking about carried interest here. I wasn't generalizing about all the rich.
You do a job shitty because you think it doesn't matter and you will never advance. Attention to detail.
We are talking about Obama and his war on tax payers and successful people. That is all.
If I'm in private equity and i hate my job considering it boring I might not do it as diligently...it doesn't make the job irrelevant, it really depends on the individual's attitude whether you are in McD or KKR (lol).
Robots need to replace McDonald's workers. If Obama would support that I might consider voting for him.
Carried Interest is a non issue. Eliminating that won't close the budget gap nor increase revenue to help anyone. Class warfare.
Obama sucks and cannot run on his record. He should have stuck to going to racist churches and paling around with terrorists.
People who make 50k do not pay anything close to 30% in taxes. I don't know who said that above but ANT was spot on in saying it isn't even close. I make more than double that and don't pay 30% in taxes.
Not every rich person inherited their wealth and even if they did, is it the government right to not allow parents to pass along wealth?
I mean yeah it is unfair, but at what level are we going to stop "righting" wrongs? It is unfair that some people have to take loans or pay for college themselves, are we going to stop parents from saving and paying for their kids college education?
Some kids are born with health issues. Are we going to "right" that wrong also?
Life is unfair. We live in a country where you can work hard, go to school and improve your life. That is all a person needs.
You know who gets fucked over the most? Single people who live in apartments. Why the fuck should you be rewarded for getting married or buying a house?
Where is my mother fucking lobby group!
And I'm speaking in the most general sense, not to single you or anyone else here out.
Out getting wasted at happy hour brah!!! LOL.
Seriously though, I agree.
Regards
Most of the married people are more stable. They tend to be less of a social and economic burden. Not many married people will go out every night and spend irresponsibly and they wont go out fighting for a chick at a bar. It makes sense to give married people some tax credit for sure. I dont agree with giving reward for owning a house, but probably when this rule was introduced majority of the house-owners were credit worthy and well settled people in life.
1) I don't work in banking
2) Where did I say banking was rocket science or anything like that
My entire argument, especially about the poor service I receive from inner city burger places, is the fact that no one even attempts to do their job anymore. Yeah, it is a shit job, but you cannot flake off and expect to move up. If you want the paycheck you should do the job.
I am frustrated with the entitlement mindset and this idea that because you don't get paid enough it gives you an excuse to be a lazy piece of shit at work.
So yes, I reiterate, bring on the cyborgs and put fast food workers out of business. Or at least the ones in the city. You go outside the city and you find good kids who do a good job.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/27/garden/robot-chef-s-new-dish-hamburge…
YES!!!
Heister -
PE guys don't "run" companies, they own them and provide guidance at the board level and financial resources for growth as needed. There is a big difference between owning, monitoring, providing guidance at the board level, and bringing in consultants as needed and actually running a company as an owner / operator.
That entirely depends on the PE shop. I have worked with PE shops that directly run companies, granted they bring in their own leadership team to replace the existing team. Mega PE funds do not do this, however there are a large number of shops that do. PE guys might not be in there every day at every company they own stake in. However to assume they just go to the board meetings and spend the rest of their day sitting by the pool is just stupid.
Heister -
Don't misconstrue my point. PE guys are deal professionals, they monitor and provide guidance and resources to their portfolio companies while looking for new platform acquisitions, add-on acquisitions, and planning portco exits.
Again, bringing in new leadership teams is still different from being an owner / operator / entrepreneur.
Btw, I'm not assuming anything, I work in MM PE at a place that gets reasonably "hands-on" with its companies, but we by no means think of ourselves as operators.
PE guys are investors, mostly of other people's money, not business operators. There isn't anything wrong with it at all, but it's a whole different planet from starting and running a non-investment company.
Can we all agree that eliminating carried interest is not going to generate enough revenue to do anything for anyone? This is simply a PR piece.
Like I said before, eliminate the Dept of Education and spend that $80B on re-education and tax cuts. Reduced government and helped people without increasing spending.
Bang, so simple.
ANT -
No, it won't fix the problem by a long shot, but that doesn't mean it's ok philosophically. Just apply cap gains to returns tied to one's own $ investment, and apply income tax rates to the rest. Then, there's no issue to deal with.
Marginally reducing welfare benefits won't fix the budget either, but it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.
SO how would you parse out the capital required for new associates to 'buy in' to firms from investments made with 'personal capital'?
Honestly, I really don't care about the carried interest point. People will still work in PE. Most likely PE partners will find another way to structure comp to reduce their tax exposure.
What I don't like is how this is become such a big issue when it will have no effect other than rich vs. poor or Wall Street vs. Main Street.
Do both, cool with me. I would like to see the tax credit for charitable donations increased. My issue with government is that it is one of the most inefficient ways of helping people. Incentivize people to donate more and you will get more good deeds done per dollar spent.
But alas, government spending is about power and control, not doing good or helping people.
Because this is a war my friend. Obama is using this for his re-election bid. While in the grand scheme it isn't a big deal, if Republicans allow Obama to do this it will be a huge win for him and eventually provide more momentum for Obama to increase taxes on others.
I love how the super wealthy are now called "Job Creators" . Dems give handouts to the poor and the GOP will go to war to defend the 15% tax rate for our sacred "Job Creators". All the while the rest of us in the middle-upper middle still getting W2's get squeezed dry.
The "job creators" thing is so absurd. I joke with a friend of mine that every time we go out to bars and buy overpriced drinks we are acting as "job creators."
Could someone tell me who creates jobs then, if not the rich? Poor don't. Middle class work for someone.
Bill Gates, Branson, Ted Turner, Bloomberg, on and on. You get super rich by building a business. I am not talking about some dude making a couple million as CEO. I am talking about business owners and creators.
In between billion dollar firms and welfare there's the vast chasm in the debate, but that's where the overwhelming majority of people fall. If the dems represent the poor and the GOP is all about hooking it up for the big guys, who the hell represents the the middle? I'm all for a third party, the two that exist now are obsolete.
You do realize that the super rich hf managers are job creators right? Anyone who employs someone is a job creator. If it makes you two feel better I can become what you guys think I am and fire all 200 of my employees and just become this "super rich guy" that fits the whole OWS idea of how the world and economy works. Fucking morons.
Demand for goods and services creates jobs. It's not about "who" creates jobs, it's about "what" creates jobs.
I'd rather have lots of people with disposable income to spend on things vs. extremely concentrated wealth. One guy buying a Ferrari creates way fewer jobs than 50 people buying Fords.
Demand creates the incentive to create jobs, not the actual jobs. Businesses also create products which create a demand. End of the day, the person putting capital to risk benefits. It is always someone mortgaging their house, taking out loans, using savings, that rents the building and pays payroll.
And I am glad that you, personally, would rather have something. Thank god we have a system where people are rewarded for their effort rather than handed money by Mom and Dad government.
I'd rather live in a country where people earn what they have. The guy buying a Ferrari deserves it.
Where the shit do you think demand comes from, the sky?
This is just too much gold.
^ LOL, agree
Let's put it another way: if large amounts of jobs are shipped overseas, and those jobs are to produce things overseas, what fills the purchasing power void. It's one thing if a few people are laid off, but the American economy has experienced huge hits. Of course, people pick themselves up and find something else, but at what point are business leaders creating value vs gutting the general economy for short term personal gain? And at what point does the unemployment issue obviously not fix itself well enough in the short term so that the long term economy survives? Once people get desperate and turn to crime, for example, they are DONE in the legit economy. Not a big problem on the micro level, HUGE problem at the level of the national economy.If, as you say, the vast majority of people are raised to be employees, then the vague "ENTREPENEURIALISM" answer just doesn't cut it. In the time between an entire new industry emerging and wholesale layoffs, I don't exactly forsee how entire populations have enough time and resources to go back to school and learn a whole new job. Even the most basic master's degrees, an MSF for example, usually run +/- 12 months from the start date, not to mention that there are admissions schedules etc that may not coincide with the termination of employment date. This seems like a major hole in the reasoning to me, and the best answer I seem to get from the business mind is "it's not my fucking problem". Fine and well, but then it becomes the governments problem once we're talking about large amounts of people. It doesn't matter that some think it "shouldn't"...it does. What happens then?
FYI, mind the tempers, I'm asking this out of curiosity to see the various permutations of this particular line of reasoning and could very well be on the other side of it in a minute with another question.
Heister -
Way to completely misrepresent what we're saying. Be serious.
One you are wrong about the car analogy you gave one is made by robots the other by humans. Secondly how is that misrepresenting what you said? You pretty much said that rich people do not create jobs. The fact of the matter is they do. If I were to start a company that builds grills. I would need to hire people to work there. I would then need to buy the equipment to mold the metal for the grill components, this creates a need for the components which creates business for those companies. I would then need to buy raw materials to assemble the grills with this also creates demand for those parts. Have to hire sales people, contract freight, ect ect. Nowhere this creates demand but what created that demand? Me a rich guy.
Great, you explained how a supply chain works.
You aren't going to start a company that builds grills unless there is a viable demand for your product. Or else you'll just end up with a shit ton of unsold inventory and money thrown down the drain.
Furthermore, you don't need to be a "rich guy" to be an entrepreneur. I'm not a "rich guy," but I could start a business selling a service or product. However, I wouldn't do it unless I felt I had a product or service that met a demand. Without a market, there is nothing.
The rich are not rich, they are job creators and tax payers. Calling them rich is a ploy in Obama's class warfare agenda.
Just like Bush's tax cuts for people who pay the majority of taxes. Comrade Obama labels it a tax cut for the rich as if everyone pays taxes and only rich people benefited. The people who got the tax cut were the ones who pay the most taxes.
This is probably the funniest thing ANT has ever said.
Rich is subjective and a label that connotes class-ism. The majority of millionaires in this country are small business owners. The majority of taxes paid are from higher income earners (above $50k). My statement is more factual and less emotionally driven than calling someone "rich" which doesn't tell me their income, how they earned it, how long it took for them to earn that, etc.
So wait, there was a demand for computers before they were invented?
Maybe not for computers, but there was obviously a market for their capabilities.
Kind of like how there wasn't a demand for cars, per se, but rather for means of transportation.
Or like how calculators had a viable market because they improve upon the abacus.
Alright folks, I've had enough fun on here today. Don't see this going anywhere useful, so enjoy yourselves.
Entrepreneurs are job creators and people who actually start their own business deserve their wealth since they control the shares, but your telling me the non founding CEO's of F100 companies add enough value to deserve their comp. These guys all sit on each others boards and hire compensation consultants to determine their pay and surprise surprise the consultants come back with a huge pay package. Its a joke and minority shareholders have zero say in the process.
Most CEO's spend 10-20-30 years working for a company and moving up. I think they deserve what the market is willing to pay. I also don't care, nor do I focus on what someone else makes. We do not live in a world of finite wealth and my income is of my concern.
If a company wants to pay someone millions then do so. I create my own value proposition.
Ut est dolorum nobis ut tenetur. Corrupti nam repudiandae et reiciendis ad. A repellat quo quo excepturi nobis quia. Ipsa consequatur quia quisquam.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Reiciendis incidunt ut est sit. Praesentium expedita qui assumenda sed ea. Voluptatibus et et eius dolor. Reiciendis cum tempora quia beatae. Doloremque omnis nobis repudiandae dolore. Eveniet ullam temporibus aspernatur dolorem.
Dicta enim ad vel. Repellat velit perspiciatis amet sunt quas ab. Perspiciatis porro reprehenderit saepe rerum. Veritatis ut qui saepe. Qui enim voluptatem illum ad.
Laboriosam qui et rem asperiores voluptatem quia libero. Provident recusandae voluptatibus voluptatem recusandae unde ea. Reprehenderit quis dolorem in veniam eum ducimus. Aut corrupti nihil est maiores. Quam adipisci cupiditate cum optio quidem non aut. Est et omnis facilis sunt quo. Consequuntur quaerat maxime laudantium.
Consequatur illo mollitia quia quia officia vel et. Rem incidunt doloribus dolor et tempore. Blanditiis earum odit tempore nesciunt aliquam dolor alias dolorum. Aut ea facilis et earum fuga. Aut voluptate aperiam porro sit odio molestiae. Reiciendis deserunt ea quis suscipit recusandae qui.
Eligendi numquam et debitis odit laboriosam. Porro nemo quas repellat corporis odit fugit totam. Eum quibusdam aspernatur fugit esse ut est. Non suscipit quo et aut.
Ex voluptatibus non adipisci officiis dolores inventore minima. Molestiae rerum pariatur eligendi sunt explicabo modi. Cum aut tenetur enim et natus exercitationem iusto.
Ipsa quis nemo vero qui. Sit dolores laudantium voluptatem. Nemo sint voluptatum provident quibusdam dolore.
Consequuntur doloremque voluptatem in iusto corrupti. Aut molestiae sunt et necessitatibus consectetur cum optio illo. Odit non odit commodi expedita fugit quidem sit.
Ut architecto nihil sed ullam. Rerum quasi quisquam aliquam ut molestiae a eveniet dolorem. Quia non architecto illo ut enim. Rem nihil perspiciatis quia.
Consectetur asperiores non velit voluptatem amet animi enim at. Amet excepturi enim tenetur. Nisi aut deserunt sequi.
Velit ratione provident aut. Perferendis rem quod quo qui nobis tempora.
Deleniti repellat accusamus beatae dolorem a rerum. Hic et corporis fugit deserunt voluptas rerum. Dicta excepturi non quisquam dolorem.
Culpa dolorem dolorem temporibus dolores consequatur sapiente qui. Asperiores doloribus quam quo nulla voluptatem. Sed voluptatem quia nisi quis delectus aliquam. Qui praesentium qui ducimus vel voluptate ex. Et et nobis eum sunt dolorem deserunt.
Eaque cupiditate consequatur possimus nobis accusamus. Velit qui deleniti qui iste impedit rem voluptatem.
Non quasi natus laborum a dolores enim sit. Ut eos blanditiis maxime deserunt. Rerum deserunt accusamus eum rem perferendis sed. Eaque asperiores exercitationem consequuntur atque. Sint ut inventore odio explicabo qui et.