Senator Proposes Pay Cap: If You Make More Than 400K, You Make Too Much

[epchick]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

They aren't living above their means, not at all. Where did you get that idea?

If they can't eat, buy clothes, etc on their $400,000 paycheck (without bonuses, incentives etc) yet they are buying expensive houses, expensive cars--all which you couldn't really do on their paycheck alone. That is living about their means.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by epchick

If they can't eat, buy clothes, etc on their $400,000 paycheck (without bonuses, incentives etc) yet they are buying expensive houses, expensive cars--all which you couldn't really do on their paycheck alone. That is living about their means.

Again, who said that they couldn't eat? Giuliani said "less spending in restaurants, less shopping at department stores." These people are still making good money, and they're still shopping. They just wouldn't buy AS much as they would under normal circumstances.

The folks in finance that I know here all live within their means. The bonuses just allow them to inject even more money into the economy once a year or so.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Again, who said that they couldn't eat? Giuliani said "less spending in restaurants, less shopping at department stores." These people are still making good money, and they're still shopping. They just wouldn't buy AS much as they would under normal circumstances.

The folks in finance that I know here all live within their means. The bonuses just allow them to inject even more money into the economy once a year or so.

Well most people are spending less, but they don't get a yearly bonus. Why should it be different for these people, especially when the head honchos asked for money to keep them afloat?

The way I read it, it sounded as if Guiliani meant to say it as a do-or-die scenario. That if these people don't get their bonuses the economy is gonna go down even more, and that unemployment is gonna skyrocket.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by epchick

Well most people are spending less, but they don't get a yearly bonus. Why should it be different for these people, especially when the head honchos asked for money to keep them afloat?

The way I read it, it sounded as if Guiliani meant to say it as a do-or-die scenario. That if these people don't get their bonuses the economy is gonna go down even more, and that unemployment is gonna skyrocket.

I read it more as Giuliani talking about the trickle-down scenario that Munchkin described (I think, quite accurately).