Pages

  • Sharebar

Occupy Wall Street is back, and they're ON Wall Street. It's really just old at this point, and they're accomplishing nothing. I flat out told them to get the f*** out before they get hurt and that they were lucky the police were there.

Seriously, getting harrassed on the way to work sucks. Protesters: GET OUT, NO ONE CARES

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (226)

  • vdubben's picture

    OWS is a joke. It's a social gathering now, not a protest. More than half of the people don't have any views on anything, or even know what they're protesting. It's a pure joke.

  • In reply to vdubben
    UFOinsider's picture

    I've gone from agreeing with some of their intellectual points to just despising them on a person to person level.

    Get busy living

  • tiger90's picture

    Don't nuke our imagination bra!

    But more on point, ya they're tools most of whom don't really belong there, and then there are criminals, but like I told my roommate when he wanted to swing at a guy in Boston, "Just think about what they are doing, and look at what you are doing, and see who's going to be leave a more meaningful imprint in the future."

  • R5A7B's picture

    Occupy Boston came back as well, setting up outside the State House (at least). Last night, no fewer than 5 state cruisers were positioned blocking off the sidewalk and had kicked out all of these bums. Glad the patience for this crap has worn thin...

  • In reply to tiger90
    Xepa's picture

    tiger90:
    Don't nuke our imagination bra!

    But more on point, ya they're tools most of whom don't really belong there, and then there are criminals, but like I told my roommate when he wanted to swing at a guy in Boston, "Just think about what they are doing, and look at what you are doing, and see who's going to be leave a more meaningful imprint in the future."

    Fully agree.

  • In reply to vdubben
    CaliforniaAssociate's picture

    vdubben:
    OWS is a joke. It's a social gathering now, not a protest. More than half of the people don't have any views on anything, or even know what they're protesting. It's a pure joke.
  • DangerZone's picture
  • eriginal's picture

    Well we are getting to summer. I imagine that probably has a big role in them coming back. It's a lot easier to convince people to stand outside when it's not freezing.

    "One man with courage makes a majority." -- Andrew Jackson

  • Human's picture

    Sorry to hear about people harassing you on your way to work.

    "I am the hero of the story. I don't need to be saved."

  • In reply to Human
    UFOinsider's picture

    sxh6321:
    Sorry to hear about people harassing you on your way to work.

    LOL I was tired and grumpy this morning. If the hot girls want to protest in their bikinis, ok, I'm all for it, but otherwise just leave us alone. We work for the 1%, go pester them in CT/DC

    Get busy living

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    They're right. There are a lot of sociopaths in this business and they cause a lot of problems. I just wish they could attack this with a scalpel rather than a chainsaw.

  • jeffsmonte's picture

    Hopefully Bloomberg will grow a damn nut sack SOON
    and kick these pieces of human excrement out of NYC!

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    ^^^ The protesters or the sociopaths in our industry? I say let's shut wall street down and impose a 100% tax on income over $500K for a few years. The country will be a better place for it when we're done. Capitalism has cancer, and we need chemotherapy.

    It's really no skin off my nose. Given that I produce something, I'll land a job somewhere else, and money is not the most important thing in life.

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    Whgm45's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:
    ^^^ The protesters or the sociopaths in our industry? I say let's shut wall street down and impose a 100% tax on income over $500K for a few years. The country will be a better place for it when we're done. Capitalism has cancer, and we need chemotherapy.

    It's really no skin off my nose. Given that I produce something, I'll land a job somewhere else, and money is not the most important thing in life.

    Is that a serious viewpoint? Where's that money going to go? Will it be absorbed by the ever expanding Obama government or redistributed to the poor/middle class? If it's redistributed, what kind of incentive does that give people to succeed in this world? Yeesh, wealth has become taboo in the U.S.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    We could mandate that all income earned over $500K must be given to a charity of the taxpayer's choice. Otherwise, it goes to the feds to pay down the debt.

    I don't mind. Money is not that important. If money is the most important thing in your life, three years of seeing every extra dollar you make beyond a certain point go to charity will change that.

    I guess wealth has become taboo in the US. The coolest part is that we have the world's biggest military- we just killed Bin Ladin last year- and we claim global jurisdiction over earnings as well as charge an expatriation tax. So for a US citizen, we can easily make wealth taboo everywhere.

    We had 90% marginal tax rates during the red scare. Capping incomes does not make us socialist.

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    ChrisHansen's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:
    We could mandate that all income earned over $500K must be given to a charity of the taxpayer's choice.

    This is fucking retarded. Please tell me where that extra money would come from as there is no incentive to earn it.

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    ^^^ Bingo. So everyone would work a little less and spend more time with their families and friends. There's incentive to work, but no incentive to kill ourselves for money. The country needs to refocus on life's biggest priorities for two or three years, and money has supplanted them. Afterwards, people who really value money more than everything else can go back to making more of it, but at least they've had an opportunity to take a break and see what's important in life.

    If you happen to earn more than $500K, you can give it to a private domestic charity of your choice. I don't really see why anyone *NEEDS* more than $100K/year for a family of four to live on, anyways.

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    Bear in mind that IP is saying all this after he's made a significant amount of money, leveraged his success into one of the top grad school programs on earth, and is in a position to live comfortably for the remainder of his life. Its alot easier to advocate astronomical tax rates and such when you have gotten what you want out of it already.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    UFOinsider's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:
    We could mandate that all income earned over $500K must be given to a charity of the taxpayer's choice. Otherwise, it goes to the feds to pay down the debt.

    I don't mind. Money is not that important. If money is the most important thing in your life, three years of seeing every extra dollar you make beyond a certain point go to charity will change that.

    I guess wealth has become taboo in the US. The coolest part is that we have the world's biggest military- we just killed Bin Ladin last year- and we claim global jurisdiction over earnings as well as charge an expatriation tax. So for a US citizen, we can easily make wealth taboo everywhere.

    We had 90% marginal tax rates during the red scare. Capping incomes does not make us socialist.


    I wholeheartedly agree that major reforms are needed, I'm just a guy with a job and don't need to be caught up in everyone else's pathological need for attention or crusade to 'change the world', I do right by everyone and just want to live my life. As for your newfound openness to new ideas: it will pass and then you'll see things from a more balanced perspective. In the meantime, drink deep from the cup of socialism, you'll need it to get by in school....especially that one!

    Get busy living

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    happypantsmcgee:
    Bear in mind that IP is saying all this after he's made a significant amount of money, leveraged his success into one of the top grad school programs on earth, and is in a position to live comfortably for the remainder of his life. Its alot easier to advocate astronomical tax rates and such when you have gotten what you want out of it already.

    No, happy, it's easy to argue this when you know you can be content living on $60K/year; $100K/year with a family. I don't think I've saved up as much as you think and I wouldn't know what to do if someone gave me $500K/year and told me to spend all of it.
    I wholeheartedly agree that major reforms are needed, I'm just a guy with a job and don't need to be caught up in everyone else's pathological need for attention or crusade to 'change the world', I do right by everyone and just want to live my life. As for your newfound openness to new ideas: it will pass and then you'll see things from a more balanced perspective. In the meantime, drink deep from the cup of socialism, you'll need it to get by in school....especially that one!

    I don't think McCarthy was a socialist and his party was the one that supported 90% marginal tax rates on the rich during the '50s. Socialism is an economic system where the government takes care of people. Mandating that incomes beyond a certain point be given to private charity is actually extremely unsocialist.

    Money is not really the priority in life, and the fewer opportunities people have to engage in conspicuous consumption, the happier we will be as a country. It's not so much taking care of the poor as it is forcing ourselves to have healthier priorities and getting folks to focus on making the world a better place rather than focusing on an unhealthy obsession. If the law can help cure a bunch of successful folks' OCD- and if the government has the genuine legal authority to do so (it does, and it has used that authority to this extent in the past), why not do it for a short time? Only the sociopaths are going to wind up truly getting hurt by it, and it's not like they're completely innocent.

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    UFOinsider's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:
    I don't think McCarthy was a socialist and his party was the one that supported 90% marginal tax rates on the rich during the '50s. Socialism is an economic system where the government takes care of people.
    ...
    Mandating that incomes beyond a certain point be given to private charity is actually extremely unsocialist.

    Debating what socialism is and who was/wasn't a socialist will make you lots of friends in academia. True story

    Get busy living

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    CaliforniaAssociate's picture

    happypantsmcgee:
    Bear in mind that IP is saying all this after he's made a significant amount of money, leveraged his success into one of the top grad school programs on earth, and is in a position to live comfortably for the remainder of his life. Its alot easier to advocate astronomical tax rates and such when you have gotten what you want out of it already.
  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Nobody is arguing astronomical tax rates at $200K/year. I am just advocating astronomical tax rates at $500K/year. Life is a lot more fun where success motivates us to have a good work ethic but does not become the overriding factor in our lives. We would all be a lot happier if we did not need to sacrifice the stuff we shouldn't need to sacrifice to keep up with the Joneses, and if other peoples' success meant our success, too.

    Capping incomes at $500K for two years wouldn't cause the economy to grind to a halt. Capping incomes at $0 for five years would.

    Oh well, back to my rusty honda.

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    ChrisHansen's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:
    ^^^ Bingo. So everyone would work a little less and spend more time with their families and friends. There's incentive to work, but no incentive to kill ourselves for money. The country needs to refocus on life's biggest priorities for two or three years, and money has supplanted them. Afterwards, people who really value money more than everything else can go back to making more of it, but at least they've had an opportunity to take a break and see what's important in life.

    If you happen to earn more than $500K, you can give it to a private domestic charity of your choice. I don't really see why anyone *NEEDS* more than $100K/year for a family of four to live on, anyways.

    Look, I understand your point but I see a couple of problems. First it isn't your right or mine or the government's or anyone else's right to decide how hard someone works and how much money they make.

    Second, $100k/year is nowhere close enough to enough for a family of 4 that actually wants to live well. If you have 2 kids in private colleges you are paying that much in education expense alone. Then you have to buy cars, house, food, etc. Not to mention, you know, retirement savings.

    100k after taxes, lets say 75k. Cheap mortgage of $1000/month, that's 12k a year. You now have $63,000 to spread over the insurance, food, clothing, education, etc. costs of 4 people for a year. Add in car expenses and everything else, you would be lucky to be saving anything for retirement.

    This isn't 1950 where you can work on an assembly line at GM and support a family of 10 with that.

    There were 9 kids in my dad's family and my grandpa put all of them through private kindergarten through college on a salary that would be about 150k in today's terms. Now my dad makes 300k, has 2 kids in private colleges and is trying to figure out how he is going to pay for a new car. Life is just more expensive now.

    And don't give me any shit about expensive private colleges because that's where most of us go anyways and are the places where you are most likely to launch a good career.

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Look, I understand your point but I see a couple of problems. First it isn't your right or mine or the government's or anyone else's right to decide how hard someone works and how much money they make.

    If they're doing it to buy a Ferrari because they think we'll be impressed by it or care about it, it is our business, and they need our help. They just don't know it yet. Regardless, your parents wouldn't be affected.

    Who would be affected? The kid trying to decide whether he wants to work for a hedge fund or Allstate. Capping incomes will send that kid to the insurance company where he can do something that most people would argue is more productive for the economy.

    100k after taxes, lets say 75k. Cheap mortgage of $1000/month, that's 12k a year. You now have $63,000 to spread over the insurance, food, clothing, education, etc. costs of 4 people for a year. Add in car expenses and everything else, you would be lucky to be saving anything for retirement.

    Wife works part time, you're saving 20% of your income. You're right, this isn't 1950.


    And don't give me any shit about expensive private colleges because that's where most of us go anyways and are the places where you are most likely to launch a good career.

    You can do just as well in-state. UConn, SUNY, and Rutgers are excellent schools, and the factory line model of 200 students per classroom is a lot more efficient, too.
  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    swagon's picture

    IP: "No, happy, it's easy to argue this when you know you can be content living on $60K/year; $100K/year with a family. I don't think I've saved up as much as you think and I wouldn't know what to do if someone gave me $500K/year and told me to spend all of it."

    Who the hell are you, or the government, to tell me what makes ME happy? I need lots of dough to finance all this swag yo.

    Btw, is quoting not working for anyone else?

  • In reply to swagon
    UFOinsider's picture

    swagon:
    Who the hell are you, or the government, to tell me what makes ME happy? I need lots of dough to finance all this swag yo.

    Hilarious. Dudes, don't ruin this post with a social policy rant, please. oops, too late.
    swagon:

    Btw, is quoting not working for anyone else?

    [/quote]
    no dude, it's just you.

    Get busy living

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    When what makes you happy happens to bring sociopathy into society, the government has the authority to help make the country healthier for everyone else. Deontologically, the people who wind up getting hurt most by capping incomes are the sociopaths of the world, and this is very mild punishment for them.

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    swagon's picture

    UFOinsider:
    swagon:
    Who the hell are you, or the government, to tell me what makes ME happy? I need lots of dough to finance all this swag yo.

    Hilarious. Dudes, don't ruin this post with a social policy rant, please. oops, too late.
    swagon:

    Btw, is quoting not working for anyone else?


    no dude, it's just you.[/quote]
    Social policy rant? I asked a 15-word rhetorical question. Stop the straw man labeling.
  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    UFOinsider's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:
    When what makes you happy happens to bring sociopathy into society, the government has the authority to help make the country healthier for everyone else. Deontologically, the people who wind up getting hurt most by capping incomes are the sociopaths of the world, and this is very mild punishment for them.

    Canna getaa AHMENNNN from da gongegation!

    Get busy living

  • In reply to swagon
    UFOinsider's picture

    swagon:
    UFOinsider:
    swagon:
    Who the hell are you, or the government, to tell me what makes ME happy? I need lots of dough to finance all this swag yo.

    Hilarious. Dudes, don't ruin this post with a social policy rant, please. oops, too late.
    swagon:

    Btw, is quoting not working for anyone else?


    no dude, it's just you.

    Social policy rant? I asked a 15-word rhetorical question. Stop the straw man labeling.[/quote]
    ^ STRAW MAN?

    Get busy living

  • UFOinsider's picture

    Shit, you're right, something's wrong with the quoting...

    Get busy living

  • ChrisHansen's picture

    "If they're doing it to buy a Ferrari because they think we'll be impressed by it or care about it, it is our business, and they need our help."

    What about a car enthusiast like myself? Someone who wants to fufill their childhood/teenage dream? Same thing can be said about many consumer goods.

    "UConn, SUNY, and Rutgers are excellent schools"

    If you want to work for Burger King corporate, sure. I know you have been very successful IP, but you are the outlier, and we all know chances improve dramatically when you go to a better school.

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    swagon's picture

    UFOinsider:
    Shit, you're right, something's wrong with the quoting...

    Yeah, so why don't you stop with the condescension?

    Also, stop making false labels e.g. calling a shot rhetorical question a "social policy rant" then proceeding to make rebuttals which take the form of two word all caps yelling to make the other person's ideas sound stupid eg "STRAW MAN?"

    This is akin to the left skipping out on the analytical aspect of a rebuttal, instead opting for painting their opponent as loony.

  • In reply to ChrisHansen
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    FusRoDah:
    If you want to work for Burger King corporate, sure.

    I think this mentality right here is part of the reason we need to cap incomes. I think money makes it tougher to judge people by their values rather than their success. If we were to take a break from money for a couple years, we'd be healthier as a society. We're not doing this to help poor people; we're doing this to help the rich and upper-middle-class.
  • In reply to swagon
    UFOinsider's picture

    swagon:
    UFOinsider:
    Shit, you're right, something's wrong with the quoting...

    Yeah, so why don't you stop with the condescension?

    That's how I roll, brother

    Just playin'

    I meant that for everyone on the thread and wasn't trying to single you out. Easy there, killer

    Get busy living

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    swagon's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:
    When what makes you happy happens to bring sociopathy into society, the government has the authority to help make the country healthier for everyone else. Deontologically, the people who wind up getting hurt most by capping incomes are the sociopaths of the world, and this is very mild punishment for them.

    me wanting to join a startup brings sociopathy to society? Interesting.

    Now, to address the broader implications of your statement:

    So wanting to succeed brings sociopathy to society? In most cases that's not true. Buffet, Jack Welch, Gates, Zberg...these created people wealth/products that make our lives better.

    As for some bankers, many are sociopaths. But they're not making society sociopathic. Their sociopathy is not bleeding into the rest of society turning people into Patrick Batemans. If anything, the opposite is true - the libertarian and OWS movements have sprung up in opposition to bankers and corporatism, and those movements have actually had serious influence, as opposed to bankers who have less and less influence, and are now the scorn of society.

    Anyways, who is the goverment to tell people they should not be sociopaths? If I want to be psycho, let me be psycho. Now, if I go off on a murder spree like Patrick Bateman, or break the law somehow, arrest me...but you can't just make it illegal to be an asshole, which is essentially what sociopaths are, and arrest/fine/punish me for social behavior.

    Now, bankers DO cause destruction outside of themselves, but it's not a social issue, it's financial/economic one. Obviously they played a role in fueling the housing bubble. But what facilitates, and even enhances, banks' ability to cause financial destruction? The federal reserve, the goverment's collusion with the banking system, Congress, Barney Frank, GSEs....and you should know this as a libertarian-leaning person (though these recent posts make me question your libertarianism). Banks could never cause such destruction if capital markets were truly free.

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    swagon's picture

    UFOinsider:
    swagon:
    UFOinsider:
    Shit, you're right, something's wrong with the quoting...

    Yeah, so why don't you stop with the condescension?

    That's how I roll, brother

    Just playin'

    I meant that for everyone on the thread and wasn't trying to single you out. Easy there, killer


    NO DUDE THIS IS THE INTERNET WHERE SHIT GETZ REAL

    Seriously, it's all good man. No worries.

  • TheKing's picture

    Or we could just bring back the simple and sensible financial regulation that we had up until 1999 / 2000 that worked really well all around. But, because our politicians are essentially bought and paid for, we won't get that. So, instead, people are taking to the streets.

    Look, like it or not, people are angry and are only going to get angrier until actual, workable solutions are put in place. Considering we had financial regulations in place for ~80 years that worked, bring them back and it'll go a long way to fixing things.

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    So wanting to succeed brings sociopathy to society? In most cases that's not true. Buffet, Jack Welch, Gates, Zucckerberg...these people wealth/products that make our lives better.

    But here's the thing. The people who aren't sociopaths don't CARE as much about money. As long as we have enough to put food on the table, take care of our needs, and enjoy *some* (not all) of our wants, we're pretty darned happy. And if we have to sacrifice some of our wants to make society as a whole better for a while, we don't feel so bad about it. The only people who get *seriously* hurt by all of this are the sociopaths- who care more about their own WANTS more than society's HEALTH. But since we're not sociopaths, we have the ability to look beyond all of that and feel good about it.

    You can still succeed, and nobody is forcing you to give the money you earn to the government. You can give it to whichever cause you think makes the country a better place to live. After all, it's not like we get to take our wealth with us anyways. Capping incomes for a couple years is going to help us get some perspective and learn what's really important in life.

    I think the way to renormalize GINIs isn't to talk about the needs of the poor and middle-class, but to talk about the needs of the rich and the upper middle class and how we need to spend a few years getting off the hedonic treadmill, and to have a free-market capitalist solution to the country's problems. Rather than "The Strike", let's call it "The Vacation" and take a break from striving for million dollar paydays for a few years. It's a well-needed, well-deserved break after decades and decades of striving for more.

  • ChrisHansen's picture

    But that will never happen.

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    It's inevitable. GINIs have swung too high and are going to swing back. The problem was that in the '30s, it was all about class warfare. I just want it to be more constructive this time. If it's about a "vacation for the rich" and the upper-middle-class reevaluating its priorities in life, the renormalization of opportunities becomes an opportunity for personal development rather than an economic threat.

  • bigtool05's picture

    How would this hurt sociopaths? What is the proportion of sociopaths in finance relative to the rest of the country? How do you measure the societal harm inflicted by sociopaths? How do you measure the societal good done by sociopaths? How much societal good has been done by regular people trying to make a lot of money? Where do you draw the line between a sociopath and the average person who just likes money?

    You seem to be simplifying this down to "sociopaths like money. sociopaths fuck people over in their quest to get rich. society suffers". I'm saying these are tenuous assertions. If you want to advocate something as radical as a massive intervention into the current system you'd better have some goddamn convincing evidence that what you're doing is going to accomplish something positive. I have SERIOUS doubts as to the utility of your suggestion, even ignoring the obvious violations of individual property rights that it entails.

  • UFOinsider's picture

    Agree with above: I came to finance because I never wanted to be poor again. I've been laid off, had my job outsourced, company closed, etc... and my way of thinking is that if I develop a specialty I'd always have an income. If I get rich...hey, cool...but I just want to live well. Even my MD tells me to keep life in perspective and not to get too caught up in making money, as it cost them their marriage and they wouldn't go back and do it again like that.

    For most people here, this really is just a job. Some people are nuts, others just want to make a good living, and it's totally possible to do it honorably no matter WHAT the idiots on the fringes may say. OWS doesn't get that because they're nuts.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    swagon's picture

    UFOinsider:
    Agree with above: I came to finance because I never wanted to be poor again. I've been laid off, had my job outsourced, company closed, etc... and my way of thinking is that if I develop a specialty I'd always have an income. If I get rich...hey, cool...but I just want to live well. Even my MD tells me to keep life in perspective and not to get too caught up in making money, as it cost them their marriage and they wouldn't go back and do it again like that.

    For most people here, this really is just a job. Some people are nuts, others just want to make a good living, and it's totally possible to do it honorably no matter WHAT the idiots on the fringes may say. OWS doesn't get that because they're nuts.


    bro u gotta think bigger if u wanna get presteej
  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    How would this hurt sociopaths? What is the proportion of sociopaths in finance relative to the rest of the country? How do you measure the societal harm inflicted by sociopaths? How do you measure the societal good done by sociopaths? How much societal good has been done by regular people trying to make a lot of money? Where do you draw the line between a sociopath and the average person who just likes money?

    Sociopaths don't feel good when they give money away. The rest of us derive some utility from that. Maybe it doesn't feel as much as spending on ourselves, but generally, we feel good when we give our surplus towards making the rest of the country better. It sure as heck feels a lot better to write a check for $500K to the Salvation Army than to give $500K to the federal government.

    You seem to be simplifying this down to "sociopaths like money. sociopaths fuck people over in their quest to get rich. society suffers". I'm saying these are tenuous assertions. If you want to advocate something as radical as a massive intervention into the current system you'd better have some goddamn convincing evidence that what you're doing is going to accomplish something positive.

    The only certain assertion is that which goes up, and cannot keep going up forever, must one day go down. GINIs have to come down by hook or by crook, and we can make the world a better place and do something constructive with the decline in GINIs by requiring people give to charity rather than taxing them at 90%.

    It's an inevitable part of the 70-year economic cycle. The rich fought it in the 1930s and became "victims of class warfare" rather than people who rediscovered what really makes them happy and satisfied. Beyond a certain point, material possessions don't make people happy.

  • tiger90's picture

    Pay-caps...Central Planning in the US would lead to a huge brain drain, you would have people either hiding money of unprecedented value and methods, or the people making >$500k a year are going to take themselves and their companies to other countries. Once they do that they are going to bring talented people with them who want to some day make 500k a year. Plus politicians don't like to back-peddle on these types of things, and most "temporary" laws become long term and permanent ones, especially ones that single out individual groups to appease a larger spectrum of people who are indifferent to those people.

    If people want to devote their lives to making money I don't see why they can't/shouldn't because they may be antisocial or "sociopaths". I don't like the Kardashians, or Jersey Shore, but I'm not going to slam them in prison because they are distorting the minds of impressionable youth. It's not very fair to pick and choose special interests that don't serve your ideals and tell them that they need to act in a way that fits with your beliefs.

    I'm not saying that you have to be, like, or work for people who make that kind of money, who have those kinds of ideals, but you have to respect them and their rights to do that. If what you are talking about is fraud then propose better methods of pursuing and prosecuting it. If you think there is too much risk inside the banks, break them down into smaller pieces. But I don't think that someone who devoted their life to these goals should have to give it all up for people who dislike them and their ideals.

  • TNA's picture

    So wait, only people in finance are sociopaths? For some reason I feel like this is not dependent on income. Some of the largest frauds committed were people running companies or wealth managers, not bankers.

    I don't think anyone has a right to limit someones earnings or income based on personal opinion. Do that and people will simply go elsewhere to work. The country will be worse off, not better.

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    Its also a joke, assuming you could ever get a nominal limit on income through congress, that the number should be the same regardless of location. Family of 4 in NYC or San Fran on 500k != single person in an apartment in Charlotte.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • TNA's picture

    Yeah, also you can kiss NYC's economy down the drain.

    Bring back Glass Steagal, stop bailing out banks, fix the tax structure and reduce corporate taxes. There are plenty of companies outsourcing labor and operations that are only marginally profitable and would happily bring jobs back if things were just a little cheaper. Wages and costs are rising in China and all it would take is fixing the corp tax structure to bring some of them home.

    Besides, corporations don't pay taxes, they just college them for the government.

Pages