Streams

The Day After Tax Day

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

David Leonhardt, Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, and Diane BradyBloomberg BusinessWeek senior editor and author of Fraternity, talk about taxes -- the IRS, corporate rates, the Buffett rule and cheating. Plus the revolt from Citi shareholders about corporate compensation.

Guests:

Diane Brady and David Leonhardt

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [24]

Amy from Manhattan

"I'm in the middle of my peer group" = "All the other kids are doing it!"`

Apr. 19 2012 12:28 AM

$14.8 MILLION/yr and a $10 MILLION "retention" pay to $7.25/hr.

Now, that's "Trickle Down®"!!!

Go, Korporate AmeriKa™!!!

Apr. 18 2012 12:19 PM
The Truth from Becky

U R still Invisible

Apr. 18 2012 10:54 AM

Thank you so much for this segment, Brian.

The Republican mantra of "not taxing the job creators" is right in line with this show. It is so ridiculous, it's hard to believe they get away with it.

I think most of the 1% don't create jobs. The irresponsibility of Wall Street would have sunk the entire world economy had the taxpayers not bailed them out. I call those individuals "job DESTROYERS."

If the Republicans don't want to penalize job creators, give the real job creators a tax break that is based on the number of jobs that companies actually create. This has nothing to do with CEO or other ridiculously high pay. Let the job creators prove not only that they've created jobs, but real ones that have value for their employees and businesses, not bogus ones. Then they'll get their tax breaks! Why is this so hard to say?

Also, I don't think artists and athletes should be lumped into this group. At least some real art (although much of the crap coming out of Hollywood is debatable)and talent that only enhances quality of life should be rewarded. And I have a feeling (no proof) that these groups make up only a smidgen of the tops 1% of earners in this country.

Apr. 18 2012 10:52 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

BECKY,

Gee, yes, let's round up and arrest everyone who is disrespectful to your candidate. And then do what....put them in detention camps?
I think you would like that.
Whatever.

Apr. 18 2012 10:51 AM

The Federal Reserve gave $16.1 Trillion since 2007 in no interest loans to various banks - - to Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000).
Instead of investing it, they loaned it back to the US Government at 2%.
If management couldn't stabilize Citibank's assets with that sort of gift, that is bad management.
On the other hand, how clever to rip off the value of the dollar by having the Fed counterfeit $2.5 trillion just for Citibank. [More than any of the proposed tax the rich schemes would net the IRS] It must be nice to control the Federal Reserve.
Why do we need the Federal Reserve?

Apr. 18 2012 10:46 AM
THe Truth from Becky

I can't wait until after this term, when the repubs get back in office and remind this invisible, disrespectful coward, hiding behind the ficticious name, just how insignificant he really is. A disgrace to his race for sure.

Apr. 18 2012 10:43 AM
Nick from UWS

Imagine referring to as a " punk" the first African-Amercan man to power himself into the very Presidency of the United States. An accomplishment by itself of almost unimaginable depth and proportion. That really requires smallness of mind.

Apr. 18 2012 10:38 AM
The Truth from Becky

Again, should be reported and investigated as a hostile and threat towards the white house.

Apr. 18 2012 10:35 AM
Edward from NJ

Isn't this what the alternative minimum tax (AMT) is supposed to do already?

Apr. 18 2012 10:31 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan


“Freedom of speech encompasses precisely the freedom to annoy, to ridicule, and to offend. If it doesn’t, it is hollow. Inoffensive speech doesn’t need the protection of a constitutional amendment.”

Robert Spencer

Apr. 18 2012 10:31 AM
Brian from Hoboken

As one poster said, I likewise reject every pay package question in my proxy statements, including the pay of my own employer. They are all outrageous.

Martin- a little respect for the office of the president would be nice, as well as keeping discourse on this board civil. Take a look at the most recent Time cover story. It discusses the respect across party lines that current and former presidents have for each other in the worlds most difficult job. A great standard we should all hold ourselves up to.

Apr. 18 2012 10:30 AM
arthur

Carl Icahn's unhappiness over CEO pay is strictly driven by Carl Icahn's caring about one thing only: Carl Icahn (and by extension, his money). Which is fine - he has a right to only care about himself (and deal with the consequences of that at some later time). But let's not elevate him and his ilk one millimeter beyond what he actually is.

Apr. 18 2012 10:29 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Elite athletes and actors get paid what they they get paid because they do something most people on this planet simply cannot do at their level.

Bankers, who are dime a dozen, get paid high salaries because they are crooks.

Apr. 18 2012 10:27 AM
RL

Martin, the quality of your comments is really sinking. "punk"? Come on, you can do better than that. Get off your belly and quit skirming like a snake. If you don't have a legitimate thought to express, then just don't comment. You can skip one of these from time to time, and we will not think you gave up.

Apr. 18 2012 10:26 AM

1 in 5 New Yorkers find themselves below the poverty line. That means a lot of children going to bed hungry, anxiously looking forward to the morning when they will be able to get something to eat in the form of a school "meal".

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/nyregion/one-in-five-new-york-city-residents-living-in-poverty.html

Naw, these kinds of IMMORAL compensation packages are not a problem. C'mon! That's so cynical, these people deserve this kind of pay.

$7.25 per hour is just too much to pay a worker trying to feed their children.

We live in a very disturbing time.

Sick f*ks!!

Apr. 18 2012 10:25 AM
Nick from UWS

Useless factoid: Vikram Pandit bought and lives in Tony Randall's former apartment in The Beresford, for which he spent $18 million.

Apr. 18 2012 10:25 AM
Lin Young from St Petersburg

I don't own Citi stock. But if I did own any bank stock I would definitely vote against increasing CEO pay, they are all earning way to much. No executive of any company should ever earn more then 30 times what the lowest paid worker at that company is earning. The income inequality in this country is dangerous. However, I do own IBM stock and am about to vote. Although there is nothing about CEO pay, there are 3 stockholder proposals and I'm voting in favor of all of them. One is on cumulative voting. The most important proposals are to review political contributions and disclose lobbying policies and practices. I do not believe that corporations should be treated like people. And perhaps the only way to roll back that unwise decision is through shareholder activim.

Apr. 18 2012 10:24 AM

@MC - You hide behind an old Dickens reference yet have the temerity to call the President of the United States a punk.

You see any problem with that, you old so and so.

Apr. 18 2012 10:24 AM
The Truth from Becky

Incredible

Apr. 18 2012 10:23 AM
John A.

I would appreciate a link to that George Romney quote, or at least the date.

Apr. 18 2012 10:22 AM

Occupy banking and KEEP Occupying Wall Street

Apr. 18 2012 10:17 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Yes, Brian, the punk in the White House (an economic illiterate and concerned only with his re-election) will indeed attempt to use this Citigroup example to deceive the public.
Shareholders have long had this ability and Barry had nothing to do with it.

Apr. 18 2012 10:17 AM
dsimon from Manhattan

On the Citigroup executive pay issue: it's not necessarily true that shareholders necessarily based their rejection on the lack of performance. Some of us think that executive pay is simply out of control. I'm going through proxy season, and I'm voting against the pay packages whenever I think they're excessive--which is just about all of them--regardless of performance.

These people get paid more just because all of their peers are getting paid more, and the amounts are outrageous. If all of their pay were halved, I doubt that corporate performance would suffer in the slightest. These would still be extremely desirable jobs with lots of competition for those positions.

Apr. 18 2012 10:16 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.