Meet the CEO Who Cut Worker Pay in Half While Pulling in $21 Million Last Year

[hfojvt]

79. it's certainly not trickle DOWN

when I pay a vet bill. The vet probably makes a lot more money than me.

But apparently their $80,000 a year income actually benefits me, so I should not begrudge the high prices they charge or dare to call them well off or anything because somehow that would just be playing into the hands of the lords of the universe.

As to why I think $38,000 a year is bigger money that $16,000 a year, I dunno, Maybe it is old school math that I was taught somewhere.

Even in Californication, 40% of households are making less than $36,000 a year. In Michimiligan, 40% of households are making less than $32,000 a year. Often households have two incomes, so I am supposed to be all sad, about ONE person making $19 an hour to START a job?

But the poor are not really virtuous either necessarily. It's not about the income, it is about the greed. You know, the people with the household income of $60,000 who think "it is not enough" or "it is barely enough" as if 40% of their "neighbors" (in the same town maybe, but on the other side of the tracks) are making less than HALF of that much.

True, most of those $60,000 crowd whiz away much of their income so they can live in a "better" neighborhood (far, far away from the canaille)

Let me say it again though. It is not the top 1% who is taking all of the pie. They currently only get about 20% of it. Or to give more detail. Total AGI in 2008 was $8.427 trillion. The top 0.1% got $839 billion, the top 0.9% got $846 billion, the top 4% got $1,242 billion, the next 5% got $930 billion, the next 40% got $3,496 billion, leaving a whole $1,074 for the bottom 50% with about 2/3 of that going to the top half of that group. That's $2,172 for the top 9% (by which I mean the top 10% without the top 1%) and $1,074 for the bottom 50%.

I would claim that the greed of the top 9% is as big a problem as the greed of the top 1%. That, in fact the Government, including the Democratic Party is considering and proposing measures that would negatively impact the bottom 50%. Things like the chained CPI and a higher retirement age. And yet, and yet, any sort of tax increase for those in the top 9%? Well, that is off the table. It cannot even be considered and in fact nobody is daring to propose such a thing. It is just not heard of.

So with the latest ATRA piece of Reaganomics crap that came, not from the Republicans, but from Obama and what was once the Democratic Party. $3.7 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade. With $666 billion of them going to the top 1%, but also $666 billion of them going to the top 4%, and another $1.07 trillion going to the rest of the top 20%.

And while those in the top 20% are counting their tax cut money, programs for the poor, like foodstamps and for the unfortunate, like unemployment insurance, because we have to cut spending.

Why do we have to cut spending? Because we cannot ask families making $140,000 to pay even a little bit more in taxes, because those people are part of the struggling middle class - just like me.

Yeah, sure, we are all in this together.

Oh, and let's also get rid of the "making work pay" tax credit and replace it with the accursed payroll tax cut. That way people above the median income get much bigger tax cuts (and people below the median income get much smaller ones) See page 3 http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf $7.3 billion for the bottom 20% then becomes $4.26 billion and $11.6 billion for the middle quintile becomes $16.8 billion.

Their gain, our loss.

Solidarity forever. (and the $26.9 billion going to the top 9% is just icing on the let them eat cake.)