I want to know how much he pays in taxes

And some of us would be happy to make that in, say, 8 or so years. Amazing

I just read that Dick Cheney got 1.93 million dollars.
As his tax refund for the year.

Welcome to the new guilded age.

Take a look at his picture in the article! I mean, while it is perhaps cruel to mock personal appearance, it's amusing that he looks just like the sort of double-chinned obese capitalists depicted in early 20th century socialist cartoons. I thought the rich employed personal trainers these days.

Well that seals it, it's time for a career change.

The Times article says $144,573. Damn liberals, always lyying about decent God-fearing Merkins

:/

Chris

Now that is obscene.

When is the revolution?

I could easily get by on just half that.

The most shameful thing of all is what he does to get that money--he makes it by running a corporation that only manages to stay in business by a dual campaign of shoving its (carbon dioxide-derived) externalities to lower and middle classes and brown people and of running a well-oiled political campaign to put in power those who would overlook its perversion of the marketplace and discrediting those who wouldn't.

I want to know how much he pays in taxes.

My guess... $28 million, about 40%.

Now maybe he's good. Maybe he's real good. But is he so good that you couldn't hire say three guys and pay them a million dollars each to do his job? That would save the company about $60 million a year, let them return value to stockholders, that sort of thing.

Contrary to some studies, good looks have nothing to do with one's salary.

We shouldn't be surprised he's doing so well, United States policy is set up to benefit people exactly like him. He's the main reason we're in Iraq, after all.

Per day????

My, forget everything I've ever said about climate, energy, social inequalities, war, peace, resources, health and poor people. I want to be a big fat insanely rich CEO right now!!

Taxes? He doesn't pay taxes, taxes are for little people.

The Exxon CEO made $10.4 Billion in profit for the company just in the last quarter. I'm sure it was all ethically sound and not price gauging at all. So doesn't he deserve a few hundred million dollars in salary for his trouble???

Salaries are set based on what the individual is worth to the company, not on what a gaggle of envious morons think he needs.

The Exxon CEO made $10.4 Billion in profit for the company just in the last quarter.

Damn. That's amazing. I bet his fingers are sore from pumping all that gas.

Of course, if he was a truly great CEO, he'd increase profits even more by firing the 122,999 other people working for Exxon sitting around with their fingers up their butts.

How could someone possibly be worth that much to a company? Can't be because of the "service" he provides to them, since he isn't even at any particular risk if things go wrong. If he makes the "wrong" decision, what does he get? A golden parachute, a multimillion dollar severance, and he's off to his next position in a boardroom somewhere.

Nope, I wager it's because the people who are in charge of setting CEOs' salaries are all old, fat, rich white men interested primarily in retaining privilege for themselves. Contrary to the old saw, most of these guys didn't come from nothing; even Bill Gates had what basically amounts to a trust fund...

Salaries are set based on what the individual is worth to the company, not on what a gaggle of envious morons think he needs.

A sucker born every minute.

He doesn't pay taxes. Even if he legally reports everything, he can just donate so much money to charity that he doesn't have to pay anything if he doesn't want to.

But...but he used the word gaggle! Clearly we're all morons in comparison.

Money is no measure of worth to society or the world. If it was, he would be fined 190k per day for what he's doing to the economy and the environment. Hard to remember my sunday school years, but didn't Jesus throw the money-dudes out of the temple, and say alot of other bad things about money? Strange that christians aren't the least bothered by this kind of stuff now.

His salary might've been $190,915 per day (which equals $70 million in one year), but that's nothing compared to his retirement package: $400 million.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989&page=1

My guess... $28 million, about 40%.

Unlikely. Somehow, George W. Bush managed to get himself a 25% tax rate with nearly a million dollars in income... I imagine this guy's lawyers can do the same.

There is truth in what interrobang says generally, but it is hard to claim that Lee Raymond hasn't done a spectacular job for Exxon over a long period
http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5327939

"... is he so good that you couldn't hire say three guys and pay them a million dollars each to do his job? That would save the company about $60 million a year"

Yup, he's that good. Also, you can't have 3 guys doing a CEO's job; just doesn't work.

Nope, I wager it's because the people who are in charge of setting CEOs' salaries are all old, fat, rich white men interested primarily in retaining privilege for themselves.

Exactly. This was my biggest surprise when I started investing in stocks: stockholder votes are rarely anything more than confirmations of what the board of directors has already decided. We talk a good game about "democracy" and "freedom", but most of the public's money is in the hands of oligarchy.

Salaries are set based on what the individual is worth to the company

Yeah, and politicians are elected based on their character and ability to govern wisely.

Give me a break.

I just read that Dick Cheney got 1.93 million dollars.
As his tax refund for the year.

Posted by: Carlie | April 15, 2006 11:07 AM

Cheney made $8,819,006 in 2005, gave $6,869,655 to charity, and paid $529,636 on the remaining $1,961,157. While I hate his policies, he was more generous with his money than I would have been.

Yeah, but to what charities? Giving money to, say, the Christian Coalition shouldn't be considered a good deed...

Contrary to the old saw, most of these guys didn't come from nothing; even Bill Gates had what basically amounts to a trust fund...

A-yep. What's more is that Gates' dad will 'fess up to this.

Bill Gates Sr. (Microsoft Bill's dad) is the name partner of a prominent Seattle law firm. So Young Bill grew up rich -- his dad fronted him the dough to get the Altair built, and steered legal talent his way (why else do you think he didn't get his ass sued off by Apple for blatantly copying the look of the Mac OS for Windows 3.0?).

Bill Gates Sr. has also joined with Warren Buffett in urging an end to the class warfare being waged by the ultra-rich against everyone else.

Look at the Waltons, of Wal-Mart infamy. They make their money from driving American jobs overseas.

Most of that compensation ($69.7 million of it) was in stock.

He made much less than Yahoo CEO Terry Semel, who exercised over $200 million in Yahoo stock options last year, for total 2005 compensation of $230.6 million.

Raymond didn't even make the top ten list.

"How could someone possibly be worth that much to a company? Can't be because of the "service" he provides to them, since he isn't even at any particular risk if things go wrong. If he makes the "wrong" decision, what does he get? A golden parachute, a multimillion dollar severance, and he's off to his next position in a boardroom somewhere."

Since most of that compensation was in the form of stock options, if he made the wrong decisions his options would be underwater and not worth anything.

The thing about the people who will argue "CEO X deserves $Y million in compensation because corporation Z made $W billion last year" is that there is not even a tiny bit of attempt at cost control. Would corporation Z have made $W billion if a different CEO had run things, at a price less than $Y million?

The upper levels of corporate management have become an increasing spiral of ridiculous compensation. Everybody is in on the game, so CEO compensation is outpacing corporate profits (not to mention value to society) by an absurd amount.

I'm hoping at some point in the future, the idea that absurd wealth should only be a cause for shame will grow in popularity. Well, one can hope.

I rather doubt that Raymond had that big an influence on the stock value of the company.

Salaries are set based on what the individual is worth to the company, not on what a gaggle of envious morons think he needs.

Bullshit.
When Mattel took over Fisher-Price, some new Mattel execs proceeded to give us the "the company is not run for the employees" speech.

Fisher-Price had had an unparalleled reputation when it came to safety and responsiveness. These very same execs then stalled a recall, which could have resulted in kids' deaths, all so that the news wouldn't come out until after they had sold some stock.

Another exec, when told her position was being eliminated and offered a lateral move with no cut in pay, etc., refused the transfer and quit... and even though she quit, she got a severance package of several million dollars. She immediately went to Little-Tykes, accepting a huge offer from them, and violated her F-P non-disclosure agreement by helping Little Tykes get the jump on Fisher-Price's secret major new product line introduction.

And then there's Jill Barad, head of Mattel, who bought The Learning Company at an insanely inflated price, a company that was essentially worthless, and nearly banjkrupted the company in the process. It took over ten years for shareholders' value to recover from the hit that idiotic move caused. It also necessitated the closing of every domestic plant the company had, resulting in THOUSANDS of layoffs.

Her reward? She was forced to retire, but gets over a million dollars a year FOR LIFE from the company... plus had a multi-million dollar home loan from the company completely forgiven.

I was a lowly employee, and the moment I heard the announcement of the learning company deal, I knew it was a disaster... *I* was making $20k a year, and would have done a better job than she did, simply by saying no to this deal.
Screw up, nearly bankrupt the company, cost shareholders billions of dollars, and you are rewarded with millions of dollars!

And FP was one of the more responsibly managed companies out there.

No, it's bullshit. Wake up. It has nothing to do with reward for value - the system is set up to reward those who already have with even more.

How would it even be possible for Exxon-Mobil to NOT make absurd profits with oil at $60+ a barrel? Their costs to produce a barrel are essentially the same as they were a couple of years back, when it was $20. Raymond could have had Down's Syndrome and done just fine!

SHICK that's a lot of cash. Apparently, I'm working on the wrong end of this oil thing. Instead of trying to get the spilled poison out of the soil and water, I should be making this stuff.

At least it wasn't a severance package. It really pisses me off when one of these high hogs gets a gajillion dollars for the priviledge of being fired.

Yes, comrades! Down with capitalism!

Fighting strawmen sure is fun, isn't it, JMcH!

(why else do you think he didn't get his ass sued off by Apple for blatantly copying the look of the Mac OS for Windows 3.0?).

Maybe because Apple "stole" their interface design from Xerox/PARC, who got it from the public domain? The same reason that "Windows" can't be trademarked?

If you are going to hate Bill, at least get your facts straight. Bill Gayes never claimed to be Horatio Alger, but his particular talent (and timing) took him a LOT further than most lawyer's kids.

If y'all think Apple is lily-white and pure, then you haven't been around long enough.

Fighting strawmen sure is fun, isn't it, JMcH!

Well, if you jokers would stop building them...

JMcH is not even a debatable troll. So I refuse to feed it. *ignoring*

So now JMcH is calling us all commies. Sounds like he's using up his rather limited repertoire.

Man, the envy is thick in here.

Frankly, what the man gets paid is no concern of mine, and wouldn't be unless I was an Exxon shareholder.

I do happen to be a shareholder of the last company I worked for, whose CEO got several hundred million dollars in a share grant from three years ago, which matured about a month ago. Since this guy's been in charge of the company, it went from nearly vanishing to having a market capitalization of $56 billion as of today.

So, the company gained nearly $200 for every dollar spent on his compensaton. I'm fine with that, and I'm voting to keep him at this years' shareholder meeting.

-jcr

Graculus, lest you repeat that stupid canard about Apple and Xerox one more time, let me point out to you that Apple LICENSED Xerox's GUI technology, added to it immensely, and that Xerox was an early (pre-IPO) investor in Apple.

I've seen a Xerox Alto, and it was a long way from what Apple shipped in 1984.

-jcr

JM,

Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple. He didn't throw them out of the marketplace.

-jcr

I for one feel secure about how much ths guy is being paid, for several reasons:
1) No amount of money can make him anything but ugly.
2) In ten years people are going to be screaming bloody murder at him when
3) Having lots of money doesn't make one immune to heart disease. Especially when one's chin rivals one's belly.
4) I'm probably going to buy a hybrid this year and I don't go to Exxon.

Then again, I do have a problem with company owners taking so much for themselves at the expense of their other employees. Does anyone know of any CEOs that have refused a pay raise and instructed the company to give that money to the other employees?

Three guys can't do the job of one CEO? Why not? I chose three so they could vote and issues and not deadlock. Anyway, I just don't understand why U.S. companies aren't hiring Japanese CEOs. A lot of them are paid only a percentage of what U.S. CEOs are for running comparable sized companies. I think I see a market failure here. How can I exploit it? Maybe I can start up a stockholder consultancy firm - How to hire a Japanese CEO and save a fortune.

Inoculated Mind:

I agree that this guy is fat and ugly and will probably die of heart disease. He may be rich, but he's also stupid. Certainly he can afford a plastic surgeon and a personal chef and trainer.

As for his compensation: This was set by the company's board of directors. Since Exxon is making huge profits, it's hard to see how it is unjustified. It's not true that this compensation is necessarily "at the expense" of the other employees. If this CEO's good management contributed more than the amount of his compensation to the firm's profits, there is no reason for anyone to object to it.

I just thought I'd mention that oil companies aren't price gougeing. Even if oil companies were non profit organizations oil would cost nearly as much as it does now. There simply isn't enough cheaply available sweet crude left. I recommend buying a hybrid and insulating your home. (Although I would stop giving tax money to oil companies. They're not non profit charities you know.)

Ronald:

The oil companies have a very limited ability to set prices. The market sets the prices, not big oil. Of course, they will take advantage of higher prices if they can get them because of market conditions. They aren't idiots.

It would indeed be wise to take up some energy saving measures at this point.

Also, a fair amount of the price of gas is government taxes. In Europe it's much worse, however.

oops, I hate it when I forget to go back and finish things I started. #2 should read:
2) In ten years people are going to be screaming bloody murder at him when peak oil hits and gas prices are astronomical.

Mark, I agree with you in that I do not know enough about the company to say whether or not his salary is at the expense of other employees. I can only say that if I was in the same situation, I would cap my own salary and tell them to give the rest to the other workers. Maybe that's why I'm not rich, though.

Graculus, lest you repeat that stupid canard about Apple and Xerox one more time, let me point out to you that Apple LICENSED Xerox's GUI technology,
And MS liscenced Apple's stuff.

They "stole" Xerox's PARC to the same extent that MS "stole" Apple's GUI. That is the real canard. Capice?

Graculus: Apple payed XEROX. See East of Eden: The End of Innocence at Apple Computer. As for Microsoft, well, Apple did sue them and lost, for screwy reasons. Of course, Microsoft was also an early supporter of the Macintosh, with Excel being invented for early MacOS ...

As for this salary business, well, just look at the trends of wages. CEO and other elites have had their wages increase tremendously over the past 30 years. Real wages of most workers? At best they are stagnant.

We're a lot more capitalistic than Jesus anyway.

This whole concept of people getting "paid what they're worth" is such utter crap. Old people make more than young people, more than can be explained by the worth of their labor. Good-looking, tall people make more. And you think all the increase in the GDP in the last three decades is due to the top 1%? That's where the extra profit went.

(I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but it feels so good.)

As for Microsoft, well, Apple did sue them and lost, for screwy reasons.

I wouldn't call those reasons screwy". What was Apple's was covered by the liscence, and what wasn't covered wasn't Apple's. Pretty straightforward.

You realize that you are defending Apple's bid to claim all GUIs as their own, right?

Apple is just as evil as MS, they just have a fanatical fan-base.

Me, I couldn't care less, I've used all of them. Every OS sucks.

I'm told it was a fair degree of the functionality as well as look that Bill Gates stole, but I don't know the details. All I can get out of people I talk to are either clearly partisan speeches in support of Apple, or dissembling speeches in support of Microsoft that touch on its every perceived virtue but don't address the question being asked. Anyway, given that much of his success is due to what simplifies to an act of commercial piracy (Windows), the fact that MS now waxes moralistic about not-for-profit piracy of their programs arguably relegates whoever pulls the strings there to the "lifetime scumbag" category. Fucking hypocrites.

Wasnt Bill Gates's Mom the #2 at IBM when he got the DOS contract that allowed MS to become the dominant PC OS maker?

I'm told it was a fair degree of the functionality as well as look that Bill Gates stole, but I don't know the details.

Microsoft licensed part of the Apple GUI, just like Apple licensed from Xerox/PARC. That's what the case came down to.. the parts that were Apple's were covered by license.

Fucking hypocrites.

Back a couple of decades Apple convinced the US governemtn to threatene an economic boycott of Brazil because they did not toe Apple's line in regard to clone machines. Having Apple fans get all misty eyed over how wholesome and pure Apple is is hypocrisy of the first water.

Look, corporations are not moral agents. It is impossible for them to be good or bad. We can approve or disapprove of what a given corporation does, but that is irrelevant to the corporation.

If we're really sincere about ending poverty, we need to get serious and put an end to this kind of excessive and exclusive wealth. We need a major revolution in how the wealth of our world is distributed. It is precisely this kind of disproportinate wealth that REQUIRES that others live in poverty.

Except when someone is selling their own intellectual or material labour, profits are made through the selling of materials that someone has claimed as their own property, and protected as their own property through the use of force (corporations have tried to make rainwater private property for goodness sake!).

Capitalism and economies based on the exploitation and leveraging of "private property" may be consistent with our baser primate drive to dominate and exploit one another, but given our ability to make moral choices, why can't we recognize when we have "enough" and share the surplus of our good fortune and efforts with those in our world who, though accident of birth, haven't had the same fortunes, opportunities, and access to privilege?

Why can't we? 'Cause we're selfish and greedy, and we blame the poor and disenfranchised for their own predicament -- afterall, if we don't hold others responsible for their own misfortunes, how can we validate our own sense of entitlment?

Anyone remember Exxon Valdez? Exxon was fined billions but never paid a penny. No wonder they can afford to pay their CEO an astronomical salary.

BTW there is NO correlation between executive "compensation" and performance. The most outrageously overpaid execs are often the biggest cheney-ups. See for example Gary Smith of Ciena, my former boss. (link)

Back a couple of decades Apple convinced the US governemtn to threatene an economic boycott of Brazil because they did not toe Apple's line in regard to clone machines.

Wow.. I'm amazed at how casually you dismiss what the brazillians were doing as "not toeing the line". They were copying Apple's design, right down to the circuit board layout, the ROMS, the apps, and the operating system, with no license at all. Meanwhile, the socialists in charge in Brazil were collecting a 100% tariff on any computer equipment brought into the country, effectively pricing any foreign manufacturer out of the Brazillian market.

-jcr

we blame the poor and disenfranchised for their own predicament

Speak for yourself. I blame the kleptocrats of the third world for the plight of the people they rule. They strangle their economies to hand out favors to their cronies, and skim hundreds of millions from their foreign aid receipts to stash in their foreign bank accounts.

There's a reason why Singapore, South Korea, Costa Rica and Israel have vastly better standards of living than the countries around them; it's because their elections are on the up-and-up.

-jcr

They were copying Apple's design, right down to the circuit board layout, the ROMS, the apps, and the operating system, with no license at all.

So? What does that have to do with orange juice? The Brazillian government wasn't manufacturing the clones, and the Brazilian farmers had nothing to with it either.

They also killed the Orangepeel through similar (underhanded, IMO) tactics that ensured that they would never have to actually demonstrate that there was any infringement of copyright (the Orangepeel did not infringe patent).

Do you think for one minute that Apple cares about *you*?

They are a corportion. They are incapable of "good" or "bad", they are amoral. That's the nature of the beast. You and your money are just Purina Corporation Chow.

JRC: You demonstated my point exactly: the kleptocrats you speak of dominate and coerce the people living in the countries they govern, and you're blaming the citizens for not insisting on a better system (y'know, it's tough to plan and execute a revolution when you've got children to feed and a household to run).

If the elections in North America are "on the up and up", why are there still homeless and impoverished people in our communities? Why so many without health care coverage? Why so many of the working poor dependent on food banks? Why are you supporting governments that allow businesses to export North American jobs overseas rather than restricting this kind of behaviour and instead raising the minimum wage to a level that people could actually live on?

(Governments should set a "maximum wage", to prevent obscenities like the payout this Exxon jerk is getting).

Sorry, I meant "JCR". Forgive my transposing.

(Governments should set a "maximum wage", to prevent obscenities like the payout this Exxon jerk is getting).

Yes, that's the ticket! Prevent the abuse of power by granting even more power to a massive organization without true responsibility!