As far as taxation, I think a mildly progressive tax system is both practical and moral — more so, in both cases, than a flat tax. It simply makes sense to tax everyone’s second $100,000 more heavily (NOT punitively, but a somewhat higher marginal rate) than their first. And their third $100,000 more heavily than that (these are not meant to reflect actual tax brackets….)

Why? Morally, because if you’re going to tax, it’s better to reduce the ability to buy a second car than a first. Practically, because that’s where the money is.

It’s that far too often each of those categories pays enough to qualify as their entire compensation.

Well, that’s very honest of you Sean. Must our tax system always remain income punitive (i.e. “progressive”)? Deferred income allows a way around that punishment in the same way that a flat tax would.

There are all sorts of conflicts of interest with CEOs. Heck, even straight salary can cause problems if the CEO thinks he needs to put short-term gains ahead of long-term gains in order to keep receiving it.

The obscene thing about executive compensation is not that it comes in various forms (salary, bonus, options, long-term compensation, perks, health bennies, pension bennies, etc. etc.). It’s that far too often each of those categories pays enough to qualify as their entire compensation. Small salary, compensated for by big bonuses and options if real targets are met? Fine. Big salary but limited options? Fine. Moderate salary and bonus, but hefty long-term compensation to encourage long-term thinking? Fine.

Giant salary, huge bonus for hitting easy-to-reach targets, gigantic unexpensed option grants at ridiculously low strike prices, long-term compensation that pays out handsomely even if performance is mediocre, huge severance package? Problem. All of it set by the CEO’s buddies? Root of the problem.

Still, that’s basically a problem for shareholders, not the government. But the government doesn’t need to encourage shenanigans by allowing much of that money to be socked away tax free for years.

The fundamentals of federal income tax requires 1) the recognition and 2) the realization of the income. It is not based on “when it is earned�. Why not? I work hard (�earn�) for income that I will not see for years � should I be taxed on that future income now or when I see the money…

That rather distorts the meaning of “when it is earned.” When the money flows to you, you should be taxed on it. Not before. Not after, except in narrow circumstances such as 401(k)s and the like.

Of those people, about 60% are teenagers or young adults (under the age 0f 25) with no dependents, who are likely students or in transition.

Minimum wage workers have dropped signigicantly as a percentage of the population over the past five years, and that trend is likely to continue considering that the country is hovering around max employment right now.

To me, this is really not such a big issue, so if the Dems want to raise it, fine; there won’t be much of an impact overall, at all. They should give their opponents something in return, though. If this is the major economic issue that concerns the democratic party, then they are truly inept.

Want to help them? Earned Income Tax credit. It doesn’t penalize employers and it encourages people to look for work to get this credit. And far less complicated than modifying the already bastardized complex tax code AGAIN for small businesses.

Stock options and bonuses? Fine with me. As long as they’re properly accounted for and taxed.

Really. That is fascinating. I personally don’t really like stock options as a means of compensation because of the executive’s ability to manipulate the price of that stock (perfectly legally) seems a natural conflict of interest, at odds with sound long-term business practices. He goes to work each day hedging his bet. The same with bonuses. Why do you insist on puttig Profit above People, Sean?

The fundamentals of federal income tax requires 1) the recognition and 2) the realization of the income. It is not based on “when it is earned”. Why not? I work hard (”earn”) for income that I will not see for years — should I be taxed on that future income now or when I see the money… I know, Sleipner…both.

Incidentally, who you’re really screwing is the 80% of Americans not in the tax brackets you help cheat out of paying their fair share for our society.

I’m not sure why it is “screwing” people to suggest that as a general rule, income should be taxed when it is earned, and exceptions should be narrow and few. Stock options and bonuses? Fine with me. As long as they’re properly accounted for and taxed.

The unintended consequenses of your class warfare Sean is: Actually bolstering the appeal of stock options and other means of compensation (bonuses, exc.)

But…thanks for the business — the more you try to screw the successful, the more they pay people like me to figure out how to unscrew them. Keep it coming — some day you’ll win and then no one will have to go to work. Yippy.

It’s a valuable, if minor, tool for separating out questionable spending for a separate vote, instead of attaching it to must-pass legislation.