Revealed: Huge Increase in Executive Pay for America's Top Bosses

[slim 1,525]

Stock brokers.

So you're going to PAY someone to invest money for you?

Sounds like you could cut out the middle man, save yourself some money, and learn more about where your money is going all in one fell swoop.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So you're going to PAY someone to invest money for you?

Sounds like you could cut out the middle man, save yourself some money, and learn more about where your money is going all in one fell swoop.

You could but it takes up a lot of time, especially if you have your money spread out. A lot of peeps are working full time jobs and have kids, etc.. and they don't have time to do it themselves so they rely on a broker.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Why_Me

[slim 1,525]

You could but it takes up a lot of time, especially if you have your money spread out. A lot of peeps are working full time jobs and have kids, etc.. and they don't have time to do it themselves so they rely on a broker.

Then they shouldn't b!tch about the policies of the companies they're invested in.

That's like complaining congress doesn't do what you want them to but then not knowing anything about the candidates.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Then they shouldn't b!tch about the policies of the companies they're invested in.

That's like complaining congress doesn't do what you want them to but then not knowing anything about the candidates.

A lot of times they don't b*tch. They lose their money in those stocks when the company goes t*ts up for the fact the suits running it ran it into the ground all the while giving themselves big fat bonuses and pay raises, and life goes on. That or the stock holder gets p*ssed at his broker and gets another one.

When it's profitable for the few on top to run a company into the ground it makes for shady business deals and high risk but it happens when there's no checks and balances.

[SMR 368]

Slim, what you're saying makes a lot of sense until a real person actually tries to do it. Do you own stocks? Do you have a retirement plan? Naturally, not investing is an option. But it typically means that you are just going to end up further behind in the end. Those that don't understand interest, pay it, as the saying goes. Investing in a company is beneficial, but that is often inspite of, and not because of, ridiculous executive compensation.

Managing a well balanced portfolio well is a full time job. If you have another full time job, managing your portfolio on your own is not really reasonable. All I'm saying is that you need to think about what is really reasonable to expect of a person and to what extent a free market is good. A market needs to be free to some extent. But at a certain point, caveat emptor is just not cutting it. People don't really know exactly what they want and they don't know how to get it or determine if they have it. That's reality.

[slim 1,525]

it happens when there's no checks and balances.

Keeping your money out of a company is a pretty good way to balance it out.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Keeping your money out of a company is a pretty good way to balance it out.

SMR pointed out some good stuff in that last post, but the average Joe these days doesn't have money to gamble and that's what the stock market is...Las Vegas on roids. Fck that. IRA's and CD's. Rock solid and insured. Screw the 401K's and playing the market. I fckd most of my money away so I don't have ####### to invest anyways, but I saw what happened to my dad and my ex fiancee and between those two they lost their arses and then some when the tech companies took a dive back in the late '90's. Top that with people losing their ####### with their company 401's that were gambled away along with union retirement funds that were gambled away by the pr*cks holding that money and I say no fckng way would I ever invest in anything other than an IRA or CD's.

Buy a cheap piece of land out in the sticks, pay it off and start looking at house plans that don't meet mansion standards. I mean how much square footage do two people really need, especially when their in their older age?

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I like capitalism as much as the next guy, and I wouldn't want a maximum wage either. But when the divide between rich and poor gets wider and wider as it's the case in the U.S., it's only fair that those who have so much more will give a bit more. So while it's great to keep the tax burden as low as possible up to a point where an individual actually can save a few bucks for college or retirement, it should go go up as more money comes in.

Somebody who takes home several million dollars a year, more than he could spend if he had a harem of top-notch call girls pleasing him three times a day in any of his ten or so multi-million dollar homes, he should be paying a higher tax rate than the guy who's working at or near minimum wage. And in case somebody makes tens of millions of dollars per year, he should be paying a lot, a great lot more taxes for ever dime above a certain income ceiling.

The corporation will use tax deductions wherever possible, so the corporate jet and the limos and the 5-star accomodations are business expenses anyway. But perhaps the fact that the CEO or the ball player can "only" keep 30 or his 50 millions per year would cause the corporation to invest the money into the business instead of paying their love child silly money.

[slim 1,525]

Slim, what you're saying makes a lot of sense until a real person actually tries to do it.

Now you're sounding like the government.

If it's not possible for an average person to do something... then average people shouldn't be doing it!

Do you own stocks? Do you have a retirement plan? Naturally, not investing is an option.

I do not own stocks. However, I do have a retirement plan. I'm "investing" in guns and ammo, military equipment, etc. - tangible assets that will be worth far more than a folder full of papers once the lights go out and the grid goes down. I'd love to see someone try to trade their paperwork for a chicken. Or hold that portfolio up to block bullets from AK-47s.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling before I reach retirement age we're going to see, at best, what happened to the ruble and, at worst, zombies in the streets. Either way, a 401k is worthless, no matter how good my broker is or how much pay the CEOs take.

But it typically means that you are just going to end up further behind in the end. Those that don't understand interest, pay it, as the saying goes. Investing in a company is beneficial, but that is often inspite of, and not because of, ridiculous executive compensation.

Managing a well balanced portfolio well is a full time job. If you have another full time job, managing your portfolio on your own is not really reasonable. All I'm saying is that you need to think about what is really reasonable to expect of a person and to what extent a free market is good. A market needs to be free to some extent. But at a certain point, caveat emptor is just not cutting it. People don't really know exactly what they want and they don't know how to get it or determine if they have it. That's reality.

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong and I know "smart investing" makes sense over the long haul. What I'm saying here is if you don't like the way your money is invested you should take more ownership of it.

A buddy of mine does the 401k at his job because "they match 3%." That's a great plan, until you take into account inflation which, pretty much, wipes out that "free" money. When I asked him why he didn't just take his money and use it to pay down debt he already had like his credit cards - at 29% - he just kind of looked at me funny. "Dude, because they're giving me free money and it's 3% match."

We really need to send people back to 3rd grade.

it's only fair that those who have so much more will give a bit more.

How is that fair?

I see people every day who don't do sh!t and never will. Not only that, but they're teaching their six kids (by three different people) to do the same thing. Fair? How is that fair?

[SMR 368]

Now you're sounding like the government.

If it's not possible for an average person to do something... then average people shouldn't be doing it!

I do not own stocks. However, I do have a retirement plan. I'm "investing" in guns and ammo, military equipment, etc. - tangible assets that will be worth far more than a folder full of papers once the lights go out and the grid goes down. I'd love to see someone try to trade their paperwork for a chicken. Or hold that portfolio up to block bullets from AK-47s.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling before I reach retirement age we're going to see, at best, what happened to the ruble and, at worst, zombies in the streets. Either way, a 401k is worthless, no matter how good my broker is or how much pay the CEOs take.

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong and I know "smart investing" makes sense over the long haul. What I'm saying here is if you don't like the way your money is invested you should take more ownership of it.

A buddy of mine does the 401k at his job because "they match 3%." That's a great plan, until you take into account inflation which, pretty much, wipes out that "free" money. When I asked him why he didn't just take his money and use it to pay down debt he already had like his credit cards - at 29% - he just kind of looked at me funny. "Dude, because they're giving me free money and it's 3% match."

We really need to send people back to 3rd grade.

How is that fair?

I see people every day who don't do sh!t and never will. Not only that, but they're teaching their six kids (by three different people) to do the same thing. Fair? How is that fair?

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on a couple issues. But FYI, when someone says that a 401k is matched 3%, that typically means that there is a 100% match of the first 3% of the employee's gross pay. In other words, if I put 3% of my pay into a 401K, my company will put an equal amount into my 401K. Sometimes that number is a 50% match of the first 3%(or 2 or 4%, etc.). But I've never really seen anything less than that. In any case, it's a lot more than inflation and even more than that credit card unless you got a really bad credit card.

A 3% match doesn't mean they give me 3% of what I put into the 401k. That, admittedly, would be laughable. So if you're making $50k and an employer was offering you a match on 3%, not taking it would be turning down $1,500. That's not going to make you rich, but it is a significant amount of money.

[Nina~ 431]

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on a couple issues. But FYI, when someone says that a 401k is matched 3%, that typically means that there is a 100% match of the first 3% of the employee's gross pay. In other words, if I put 3% of my pay into a 401K, my company will put an equal amount into my 401K. Sometimes that number is a 50% match of the first 3%(or 2 or 4%, etc.). But I've never really seen anything less than that. In any case, it's a lot more than inflation and even more than that credit card unless you got a really bad credit card.

A 3% match doesn't mean they give me 3% of what I put into the 401k. That, admittedly, would be laughable. So if you're making $50k and an employer was offering you a match on 3%, not taking it would be turning down $1,500. That's not going to make you rich, but it is a significant amount of money.

+1

The 401k is a part of your compensation package. I have no idea why you would turn it down.. Its almost like telling your company that you will work for a lesser pay.

And its not only that, but the money is tax deferred. So if you put in 3% of $50,000 of your paycheck, your taxable income is reduced to $48,500. If you max out your 401k contribution at $16,500 this year, your taxable income will be only $33,500. Plus the money you make in your 401k is also tax deferred.