The "pie chart" shows 10% salary (taxed at 44% ordinary Income) and 90% in Annual Incentive and "Performance Share Units" taxed at 15% capital gains tax rates thanks to a "tax Loophole" corporate executives have enjoyed for over 30 years.
Before I was forced out along with 150,000 others older workers, the pay raises were miserable. Barely above inflation if I even got one." But, I noticed the corporate executives were buying back the company stock from the profits, boosting the stock price(with less shares) yet the employees, especially the long-term employees were getting nothing.
So, with a 90% "tax incentive sweetheart deal" for IBM's 4000 employees to be paid in "Performance Share Units" aka stock (taxed at 15%) and "Stock Price Boosting" schemes, we, the non-corporate executives were not getting compensated for the longer hours, on call 24/7, and reduced benefits. If you read the details in the annual report on how "PSU" units are administered "quarterly reviews" to make sure, the 90% PSU compensation meets the end of year compensation level of $18 million for the CEO. In other words, the stock value (# of shares times price) will match the compensation target established at the beginning of the year regardless of stock price at the end of the year).
This tax loophole has been hiding in plain sight. Not only IBM but in every corporation in America that compensates with company stock.
Now you might have IBM and other stock in your 401K, in mutual funds or in annuities and IRA's and think that having corporate executives paid 90% in stock you hold is a good incentive and will boost your 401K or IRA value. But let me remind you, when you cash in any proceeds from an IRA or 401K, the tax rate is as high as 44%, NOT 15%.
Recently I read a book, Winner take all Politics where the author disclosed just who are the most wealthiest 0.1% of American households; about 140,000 households of the 140 million. Nearly 50% of those 140,000, about 70,000, are former and current corporate executives. 19% of the 140,000 households are Wall Street bankers. What do they have in common? Taxed at 15% with compensation schemes like "PSU", stock buybacks, and other ruses that qualifies their income to be taxed at 15%. While the non-corporate executives (the 99%) are taxed at ordinary income tax rates of 39% federal and 5% state - 44%.
As Leona Helmsley stated "Only the little people pay taxes". She was right. But is it right? I THINK not.
I remember sitting across my kitchen table with a future congressman wanting my vote in the primary who said a priority for her term was lowering the capital gains taxes from 20% to 15%. I told her I did not know of that many people who had a capital gains tax problem, and she told me "lowering the capital gains taxes to 15% will create jobs". She was right; with the 60,000 plants closed in the USA in the last decade, IBM "downsizing from 150,000 to less than 90,000 in the USA today, the jobs were created OFFSHORE in India, China, Brazil, Russia, and Vietnam and there is a tax Incentive for corporations to shut down plants in the USA and get a check from the IRS that has been blocked by Congress and still not repealed.
Our country is faced with a revenue problem. The spin is we have a spending problem, which is true; with price fixing nationwide of health care costs, with IBM computer networks at 7% annually doubling the cost every 9 or 10 years along with medical bill bankruptcies of one million families every year.
But the real problem are the tax avoidance schemes of corporate executives being paid in stock taxed at 15% when converted to cash like the neat quaint name of "Performance Share Units" of the 4000 IBM corporate executives with 90% of their annual guaranteed compensation taxed at 15%.
Look no further than Washington DC of why the 1% are taxed at 15%. While the rest of us, the 99%, are taxed at 44% and carrying the tax burden of the country. Nice tax loophole.
So, as I contemplate attending the stockholders meeting in Huntsville, AL, I wonder what I would say to the new CEO. I think I will have to THINK about that.
Starting with the April 1st payment, I'm now being charged $788 per month for the same plan. That's for me and my wife. I imagine after the six months up, to continue coverage through the retiree health plan, which IBM has put in s a separate risk pool (i.e. much higher risk since it's all old people), that my monthly cost for the high-deductible plan will go to around $1300/month.
Isn't that something? $1,300 a month and you still pay the first $5,500 i medical costs yourself?
I'm very interested to see what the health care exchanges will be offering this Fall...and, what kind of subsidy there will be for those of us on a meager IBM pension.
Ah, I remember the presentations back in the 70's and 80's on "foils" where we were told we'd have lifetime retiree medical! Between the pension ripoff, and the retiree medical ripoff, IBM"s going back on their promises has cost me tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars!
Under the TMP, my understanding is that you should have been paying the same price that you paid as an employee. You said that is $56 per month. Was that for self-only coverage and did not include your wife?
As an employee, you paid about 20% of the cost of the medical premiums, while IBM paid the other 80%. So the full cost of the premium would have been $56 x 5, or $280 per month.
Now that the TMP has ended, you should be paying the full $280 per month for the next 6 months. So I'm not sure how it jumped to $550 per month, unless perhaps you went from self-only coverage to self+1 when the TMP ended.
Either that, or my assumption about IBM paying 80% of the cost for employees is wrong.
When you eventually switch to the FHA, the premiums should be $1116 per month (not including the vision or dental plan).
Retiree-only plans are exempt from the PPACA, so the protections of the PPACA DO NOT APPLY to retiree-only plans. See Ellen Schultz's WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704011904575538231154919018.html. Excerpt: Thanks to a little-noticed clause in a 1996 law, retiree-only health plans are exempt from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that went into effect last month.
Now if you have evidence that people who have access to employer-provided retiree medical plans can go to the exchanges and be eligible for subsidies, please post it. madinpok and I have not been able to find any evidence that this is the case.
I'm not saying you can't. I'm just saying I can't find evidence that you can. I think people are making an assumption here that so far has not been backed up with evidence.
If anyone has info, please post it. I'm sure all of us would like an alternative to the FHA rates.
Also, even if you can access the exchanges, remember that insurance companies can charge older people 3 three times what they can charge a younger person.
Again, I'm not saying you can't access the exchanges. I just haven't seen any evidence that you can.
Retiree-plans are exempt from the PPACA -- so the definition of "affordable" is defined by a law that your retiree plan is exempt from. What's the definition of "affordable" for a retiree plan?
Also, go back and read the Q+A from the article I posted. The question was about someone who "WORKS" for a company (present tense). If didn't say anything about a retiree who WORKED for a company.
Please provide proof that if you have access to a retiree plan you will still be able to go to the exchanges. As I repeatedly have stated, madinpok and I have found no evidence for this to be the case.
There is a very good reason for them to keep you from the exchanges. If you go to the exchanges, you are (possibly eligible) for subsidies. A big part of the PPACA debate was its cost. If they wanted to keep down the cost, a good way to do it would be to keep retirees who have access to (not necessarily affordable) retiree plans.
Look, team. You know I've tried to get people's attention on this issue for years. I'm on your side. I'm just not convinced it's going to be an option for pre-Medicare retirees.
Of course, IBM could do what 3M did to its retirees and just give them some money to go out to the exchange. It could just fold the retiree plan altogether. I will bet we will be hearing something rather soon. (I'm not privy to IBM's plans -- just recalling that the FHA was announced around April or May, 1999 -- wasn't it?)
If you think it would be an "outrage"..what would you expect from a law that was heavily lobbied for by the insurance companies and corporations? Who was representing your interest in the PPACA negotiations?
I called both Blue-Cross-Anthem and CVS. I was informed that if you get something like (god forbid) cancer the monthly drug cost could easily be $3, $4 or $5k. As you all know, anyone, any age can get cancer.
HD plans are just another way of transferring risk to the patient and therefore are lucrative for insurance companies. If companies force their customers/employees onto these plans, it will solve little. When illness strikes and their benefits run out, they will show up at emergency rooms and yes, we all pay.
IMO, HD plans should be outlawed or at least plans with low caps on services. So, fsarnie, do you feel lucky, well do yah?? Good luck with your HDHP.
Yahoo! IBM Pension and Retirement Issues message board: "Re: ITYS" by "firstname.lastname@example.org". Full excerpt: I do feel lucky, thank you. I was "lucky" enough to take care of my health and I was "lucky" enough to take a risk and save the money necessary to take care of my own healthcare expenses. This allows me to not be forced into any ridiculous plan that does not cover me in the event of a catastrophic health event.
And not everyone has the opportunity you apparently had to save enough money to pay the deductibles required for these plans out of pocket - yet you sneer at those who don't have that kind of money saved up.
As has already been explained to you - YES - these plans ARE a good fit for a few people; and apparently you're one of those for whom they're a good fit. That does not mean, as you claimed, that they'd be a good fit for most/all people. That does not mean, as you claimed, that people for whom they aren't a good fit can simply get an adequate and affordable plan on the private market if their employer changes over to a plan where a high deductible plan is the only option.
You are lucky, in fact, to have good health. Lucky to have had a good enough job that it afforded you the ability to save money. Lucky that you were raised in a family that had sufficient means to give your body a good start in life. Lucky that you haven't yet run into a carcinogen that's infected your lungs or your digestive tract, for example. Lucky that you didn't inherit any life-threatening chronic illnesses. It IS good that you've made good choices along the way - not everyone is as future-thinking as you apparently are, but that doesn't mean that those who make bad choices in their life deserve to be bankrupted by healthcare costs.
Of course I can't find them now, but just recently the prices per person for the Mid Level FHA plan were posted. Wasn't it around $700./mo. a person? Recall that most of us have $60K or less in our funny money scrip company 'bucket'.
So $16,800 for two a year works out to 3.57 years. IF I started NOW (which I can't), the funny money scrip BS FHA would end 6 months into my finally going on Medicare, dog help me when that happens.
IN the meantime, IF I got a pre-existing condition, COULD I get BACK on my SO's medical plan? Oh, I COULD trust the politicians not to have re-written the law that says I can't be denied from returning, although no one can predict the price, now can they? And of course I trust politicians, now don't I? HAH! Just like I trust IBM.
So, to summarize. The High Deductible plan is useless, the Mid Level plan will run out just as I am on Medicare, so the bottom line is:
I will never use the useless funny money BS scrip company 'bucket' that IBM so generously set up for me, after they changed the rules in 1999 and screwed me and all the other Choicers (sans the First), in lieu of my promised (NOT in writing) lifetime retiree medical when I was hired because...yes, they are...IBM is evil.
Oh, and yes, we shoulda had a contract. Too late, folks, IBM wins. Again.
I do not have any history on the FHA medical plan cost increases over the past several years. I am just now eligible to view these plans (Fidelity) and their cost (wow wee). So, assuming PPACA (Obamacare) does not affect our FHA medical benefits (big if), can anyone please provide some recent history on the approximate year-over-year percent cost increase on any of the FHA plans? Thank you.
|IBM High Deductible PPO w/HSA||$480.26||$593.54||$593.54||$632.13||$632.13||$637.63|
|IBM High Deductible PPO||$554.35||$514.21||$514.21||$547.64||$547.64||$550.28|
|IBM Medium Deductible PPO||$574.36||$614.97||$614.97||$654.95||$654.95||$661.23|
|IBM Low Deductible PPO||$673.02||$773.97||$773.97||$824.29||$824.29||$904.53|
Well, that data sure is interesting. Over the 5 years, two of the FHA plans increased about 15%, 2 others about 32+% and one actually decreased. It appears the High Ded PPO is the way to go but I need to examine the risk, there must be a catch.
The rep at Fidelity wished me "good luck" at estimating year-over year future cost increases. She said that IBM is always negotiating, re-negotiating the plans, adding/deleting various coverage's. So that doing any comparison or cost analysis is rarely an apples to apples comparison...therefore fruitless (no pun intended).
Really nice the way IBM shifted the medical cost risk to us (FHA) and does nothing to provide any cost estimating or guarantees. Yeah, I know, what planet am I on.
Looking at how the premiums have changed over the years, it is pretty clear that IBM is trying to get more and more people to go with the high deductible plan. That is the best deal for IBM, since it shifts more risk to you. The premium cost may make it look like a good deal for you, too - as long as you don't get sick, that is.
One of the big downsides of the high deductible plan is that it has limited prescription drug benefits. So, if you require a lot of medications, or get cancer or something that requires expensive drugs, it could cost you a bundle.
To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, "Are you feeling lucky?"
Example retiree IBM plan is the Aetna Traditional Choice Plan A or Plan B - these are secondary to Medicare when bill paying. You need to sign up for Medicare A & B, and Part D if you want prescription coverage. Because you buy the Medicare plans, the IBM premium is low compared to pre-retiree plans.
The rising demand comes as the Senate moves closer to a broad immigration bill that would, among other things, revamp a series of work-visa programs. Last week, the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce agreed on a new low-wage-visa program, a major breakthrough in talks. The Senate bill also includes a proposal to increase the number of H-1B visas granted each year. ...
U.S. high-tech companies for years have called on Congress to increase the cap on visas for skilled foreigners. Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg is co-founding a political-advocacy group composed of technology leaders to push for federal immigration changes, among other issues. ...
At a Duke University conference last week, a senior International Business Machines Corp. official said the company fills many important positions with foreign graduates of U.S. universities. Still, IBM struggles to secure visas for all the workers it requires, said Nicole Hedrick, global immigration chief. "We have all these positions we cannot fill," she said.
Cons: No interest in keeping good people - inability to provide adequate tools and support, mindset of "go, there are many people waiting for your position"
Incompetent lower management - people who are not organized with no real leading background keep being appointed managers causing a lot of chaos and stress by not being able to handle the responsibility and organization of work.
IBM tools - for most applications that are already available, IBM has an alternative that is in most cases slower, more chaotic and much less user friendly, not offering the same functionality as the original. (there are exceptions of course)
Slow to react to problems and changes due to huge bureaucratic load.
Shift from customer-centric approach to bureaucratic process-centric approach, which impacts the morale of employees and shows a bad image.
Advice to Senior Management: Do what you proclaim on all the promoting materials - start promoting creativity and skill, embrace new ideas and start to show some effort to try and keep experienced people instead of constantly hiring new people.
Start caring about the customer instead of ever trying to be "covered" by insisting on following procedures where they are actually keeping people from helping the customer right away.
Try to promote capable people into managerial positions, instead of using some of those positions as a "dumpster" for incompetent people.
Push towards completing projects and applications not only into a workable state, but mostly to a state where they are easy to use, comprehend and friendly.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, recently told NPR that more H-1B visas can't help but be good for the country.
"We need to continue to attract some of the best and brightest people in the world to come and join us in world-leading [research and development] efforts," Smith said.
But that "best-and-brightest" argument doesn't quite match up with reality — especially when you look at which companies are using the most H-1Bs.
Who Is Using the Visas? If you scroll through the government's visa data, you notice something surprising. The biggest employer of foreign tech workers is not Microsoft — not by a long shot. Nor is it Google, Facebook or any other name-brand tech company. The biggest users of H-1Bs are consulting companies, or as Ron Hira calls them, "offshore-outsourcing firms."
"The top 10 recipients in [the] last fiscal year were all offshore-outsourcers. And they got 40,000 of the 85,000 visas — which is astonishing," he says.
Hira's a professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology. He's also the son of Indian immigrants and has a personal interest in questions of labor flow across borders.
For the past decade, he's been studying how consulting firms use temporary work visas to help American companies cut costs. He says they use the visas to supply cheaper workers here, but also to smooth the transfer of American jobs to information-technology centers overseas.
"What these firms have done is exploit the loopholes in the H-1B program to bring in on-site workers to learn the jobs [of] the Americans to then ship it back offshore," he says. "And also to bring in on-site workers who are cheaper on the H-1B and undercut American workers right here."
The biggest user of H-1B last year was Cognizant, a firm based in New Jersey. The company got 9,000 new visas. Following close behind were Infosys, Wipro and Tata ‑‑ all Indian firms. They're not household names, but they loom large in tech places like the Seattle suburbs. ...
Sawade is active in the labor organization WashTech, so he gets complaints from IT workers around the country. The H-1B consultancies are especially big in banking, insurance and pretty much any industry that runs on big computer systems maintained by aging, increasingly expensive American tech workers.
He laughs at the notion that a cost-cutting insurance company somewhere is in dire need of hotshot foreign programmers with specialized skills. Because the businesses require current employees to train the new hires from India, he says.
"And maybe the people from India aren't necessarily there to replace them — at least not right away. They're just learning the job," Sawade says.
Learning the job, he says, so the consulting firm can eventually provide the same service from somewhere cheaper.
At issue is a little-known loophole in President Obama's landmark legislation that enables health insurers to extend existing policies for nearly all of 2014. This runs contrary to the widespread belief that all health insurance must immediately comply with new federal rules starting Jan. 1, when most provisions of the law take effect.
"Insurers are onto this, and the big question is how many will try to game the system," said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor and health policy expert at Washington and Lee University.
Some of the nation's biggest health insurers are looking to take advantage of this delay, and Arkansas officials are encouraging companies to do this by resetting customers' renewal dates for the end of December. There's also concern that some insurers and agents could rush to sell more individual policies before year-end so they could be extended in 2014.
Some policy experts are expressing concern about this practice for fear that insurers will focus on renewing younger and healthier policyholders and hold them out of the broader insurance pool next year. Their absence could leave a sicker and older population in new government insurance exchanges, driving up medical costs and premiums there.
The looming shift has nothing to do with Obamacare or even the widely held belief that certain types of health plans will encourage people to give up costly bad habits like smoking. It is about profit. ...
There were many reasons why I left my job in the insurance industry, but near the top of the list was the expectation that I be, for all practical purposes, a snake oil salesman. If I were still in the business, I would be part of an industry-wide campaign to persuade employers, policy makers and the general public that high-deductible plans are the new silver bullet.
Not only will HDHPs reduce health care costs, according to the campaign propaganda, forcing people into them will cause them to lead healthier lifestyles.
That’s the hype. And the hype is necessary to obscure the real reason insurers and employers are herding more and more of us into HDHPs: they’re perfect vehicles to shift more of the cost of care from them to us.
Even in 2008, the last year I worked for an insurance company, my colleagues in the sales division were encouraging employers to go “total replacement,” which means eliminating all choices except high-deductible plans. Insurers have long used proprietary “studies” supposedly proving that making people pay more out of pocket for medical care will “incentivize” them to lead healthier lives.
HDHP plans DO put healthcare decisions back into the hands of the consumer. Healthcare insurance should only be necessary in the case of major health problems such as accidents or LT illnesses.
I have home insurance to cover major disasters. I don't have it to cover leaky sinks or other maintenance issues. This is how insurance is intended to work.
Where is the downside?
Also, if you have a chronic illness, you can be really screwed because many plans have caps on lifetime coverage, number of doctor visits, and hospitalization costs.
If you are young and really healthy, these plans might be for you. On the other hand, many folks do not have a choice, because this is the only plan that their employer offers (I know someone in this case) or it is the only AFFORDABLE plan that is offered. Certainly not for everyone.
Here's another few studies, all of which suggest that some will forego needed care in fear of paying for care. Now, these high-deductible plans DO cut some relatively unnecessary visits to the ER, for example. They serve a good purpose for SOME - but again, MY issue is that the article below was saying that some employers might have high-deductible plans as their only option - and that option won't fit all people. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11606-011-1970-8.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR562z4/analysis-of-high-deductible-health-plans.html#spending2. There is a clear subset of employees whose behavior can be modified in a cost-efficient way to cut the amount of unnecessary medical care they've been taking advantage of - but there's an even larger group who will be greatly disadvantaged if their only option is a high deductible plan, and some of those people will not get the care they really need because of the cost - and that deferral of care would, in some cases, lead to greater costs in the future when needed treatment isn't gotten in a timely fashion because they can't afford it.
Let me briefly share with you a rather amazing personal experience of overcharging by a Harvard-affiliated hospital here in the Boston area. It’s not a huge matter, but it is so outrageous and almost funny in a way that I thought you might have an interest in using it, maybe in something you are otherwise working on.
The hospital did a single toenail clipping. The bill is $1,206.
To avoid misunderstandings, this was not a surgical intervention. It was the same kind of clipping that you do yourself every week, except that only a small piece of only one nail was clipped.
The whole encounter, including the prior doctor consultation, took about 15 minutes.
Admittedly, the tiny piece of toenail was sent in for lab analysis, because the doctor thought there might be some infection. (There wasn’t.) But the lab charges, although extremely high, were only part of the issue.
Here is how the charges broke down in detail. (From Brigham and Women’s, the dermatology department, dating from March 5, 2013.)
- Office Visit — $248.00
- Biopsy — $182.00
- Treatment Room — $328.00
- AMB Clinic — $117.00
- Pathology Lab — $165.00
- Laboratory Services — $166.00
- Total — $1206.
I called the billing department of course, and they say that everything seems correctly coded. The billing person agreed personally that the numbers are outrageous but says there is nothing they can do about it. I then called the department of dermatology and spoke to two separate people there, who both also agreed that the charges are ridiculous, but they emphasized that there is nothing they can do, either. I have a call in to the Patient Relations department, and they have promised to return my call within two working days, but frankly I’m not holding my breath for any redress or mitigation from them.
My story isn’t as immediately shocking as the toenail, but it’s more of a Chinese water-torture each month when I have to pay the bill.
I was diagnosed back in 2005 as needing an oxygen concentrator when I sleep – probably for the rest of my life, which I’m hoping will be another 30 years or so based on my family history. Due to the way my insurance is set up through OPM (at first it was Blue Cross/Blue Shield, now it’s Kaiser Permanente Northwest), I do not have an option to buy the concentrator flat out – I have to rent it through a medical equipment company, and Apria is the one they go through.
For the same oxygen concentrator that I would be able to buy online for around $700 (my particular model is the Invacare Perfecto2 – available online with free shipping from Active Forever for $706.30 as of this afternoon), Apria charges $137.13 per month – I am charged a copay of 20%, or $27.42. So far, over the past 7 years, they’ve gotten well over $10,000 out of me and my insurance companies (the price has increased some – when I first started, I was paying around $19 per month).
When I tried to talk to my insurance company about just buying the machine, I was told that it was against policy because renting it assured that someone would “monitor the equipment”. Right. Monitoring the equipment is apparently code for someone coming in twice a year to switch out a little 1 inch filter – at $1,645.56 per year, that’s over $800 per filter. (Yeah, I priced them too – $13.41 each.)
"But dependency on government has never been bad for the rich. The pretense of the laissez-faire people is that only the poor are dependent on government, while the rich take care of themselves. This argument manages to ignore all of modern history, which shows a consistent record of laissez-faire for the poor, but enormous government intervention for the rich." From Economic Justice: The American Class System, from the book Declarations of Independence by Howard Zinn.
The Social Security idea, called the chained consumer price index or "chained CPI," isn't new. Obama has floated it before, as have bipartisan groups seeking ways to curb a risky buildup of national debt. ...
After 30 years of retirement a Social Security beneficiary’s annual income would be $1,400 less under chained CPI than under the current gauge, says the National Committee To Preserve, Social Security & Medicare.
Tax avoidance from corporations and wealthy individuals has a cost for individual taxpayers and small businesses, according to a new report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. According to U.S. PIRG, tax dodging cost individual taxpayers $1,026 and each small business $3,067 in 2012.
Those costs don’t necessarily come from higher taxes; instead, they often come in the form of higher budget deficits or, as they are now, from substantial cuts to public programs and services that benefit middle- and low-income families. “This is a real loss and it’s putting great pressure on the budget and all kinds of investments and programs that the federal government needs to continue to fund,” Michigan Sen. Carl Levin (D) said on a conference call unveiling the report today. Levin has authored legislation calling for the closure of tax loopholes that incentivize the offshoring of profits. “It’s time to close the loopholes, reduce the deficit to protect these important investments in our future, and to bring some fairness back to the tax code,” Levin said.
“Not only does the current cost of living adjustment formula not keep up with inflation for seniors, it does not accurately account for the large health care cost increases faced by seniors and people with disabilities. The chained CPI would further underestimate the cost of living adjustments for seniors. We need a higher COLA, one that accurately reflects beneficiaries’ costs, not a lower one.
“Our members are very upset that the President is willing to compromise on this issue of Social Security, one that certainly does not belong in budget discussions since Social Security by law cannot contribute to the federal deficit.
“Our 4 million members are watching closely and remaining hopeful that Washington finds a way to do the right thing – that certainly doesn’t mean wrongly balancing the budget on the backs of our seniors.”
Sanders insisted Friday that the budget would "hurt a lot of people,” and noted earlier this week that it marked a reversal from Obama's 2008 position.
“In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told the American people that he would not cut Social Security," he said. "Having him go back on his word will only add to the rampant political cynicism that our country is experiencing today.”
An Early Warning “In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security has so far been untouched. That may soon change,” The New York Times warned in a Sunday editorial that foreshadowed the White House push to cut benefits. “You are right to sound the alarm bells about President Obama’s effort to cut Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans through a chained consumer price index,” Sanders said in a letter to the editor published on Tuesday. “Yes, we must move forward on deficit reduction, but it must not be done on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country." Sanders also urged the president to get behind legislation to raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, extending the life of Social Security for generations to come without the need to cut benefits or raise taxes on the middle class. It was, after all, an Obama proposal made during the 2008 campaign that Sanders used as the basis for the new bill to strengthen Social Security.
Dodd-Frank rules? Securities and Exchange Commission lawyers? Leave them behind. And let yourself sink into the buttery leather seat of your corporate jet as it soars through the clouds.
That’s what Steve Wynn did. As chief executive of Wynn Resorts, he sat back and enjoyed more than a million dollars’ worth of personal travel last year on his company’s private jet.
It gets better: in December, the company took delivery of the first G650 jet to roll off Gulfstream’s assembly line. A $65 million wonder, the plane can whisk Mr. Wynn from Las Vegas, where Wynn Resorts has its headquarters, to New York, where he owns a $70 million penthouse overlooking Central Park, and it should make 2013 another busy year aloft for him. (Wynn Resorts declined to comment.) ...
For the 100 highest-paid C.E.O.’s among American companies with revenue of more than $5 billion, the typical 2012 perks package was worth $320,635, up 18.7 percent from 2011, according to an analysis by Equilar for The Times. By contrast, median total pay among the 100 C.E.O.’s rose just 2.8 percent, to more than $14 million. ...
Besides the jump in perks, overall cash compensation also made a comeback, rising 19.7 percent, to $5.7 million. Cash bonuses jumped 25 percent. ...
Even though unemployment remains high by historical standards and the top 1 percent of earners face higher taxes, executives and boards may figure that the popular outrage that followed the financial crisis and the recession has cooled a bit.
This site is designed to allow IBM Employees to communicate and share methods of protecting their rights through the establishment of an IBM Employees Labor Union. Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act states it is a violation for Employers to spy on union gatherings, or pretend to spy. For the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act, notice is given that this site and all of its content, messages, communications, or other content is considered to be a union gathering.