Evading Taxes by Renouncing Citizenship? Really?

I think that, for some, being a citizen of the United States is all about greedy entitlement and has little to do with being a responsible member of our society. Sadly it seems that the richer you are the more ways that you have to hide your income from paying taxes - and some go even farther. Consider what David Gerwitz writes in his ZDNet article titled
"Why Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin is a schmuck". Here are a few excerpts:

"Writing this article without profanity has been almost physically impossible. But we’re a family site, here at ZDNet, so I’ll just let you insert whatever invectives come to mind.

In this case, I’m talking about Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook, who — in order to avoid paying taxes on his multi-billion dollar IPO windfall — is renouncing his United States citizenship.

There’s a truth about life that’s often difficult to accept. Justice doesn’t always happen. Some people, usually because of their great wealth, get away with doing reprehensible things. It’s not fair, and it’s not right, but it’s what happens."
...
"What he’s done is played a system and gained tremendously for it. A case could be made that that’s fair. One of the first things they teach you in B-school is to pay the least amount of taxes you can within the bounds of the law, and even the IRS accepts this as a reasonable strategy.

But going so far as to renounce the incredible gift of citizenship we gave to this man, and by doing so, saved him from kidnap gangs in his native country — that’s below reprehensible.

Justice would be to take away his stock benefits if he renounces his citizenship. Justice would be to block him from raking in all that cash if he’s not willing to pay his fair share. But justice doesn't work that way.

Instead, Saverin is running away to Singapore, a very small country with a very low crime rate."
...
"By not paying his fair share of taxes in the United States, he’s essentially stealing from all of the rest of us taxpayers who supported his education and his business venture. If it weren’t legal, it’d be a crime."

I think that people like Saverin and people who hide their money offshore give wealthy people a bad name. Thankfully the USA is filled with generous philanthropists who do wonderful charitable things with their money. And in that I rejoice.

---

K Street :: the Rodeo Drive of Influence Peddling

Congresswoman and presidential wannabe Michele Bachmann recently said this:

"Gingrich has built a multi-million-dollar business from his perch on K Street,
the Rodeo Drive of influence peddling in Washington, D.C."

Got me thinking about the great 60 Minutes episode where Jack Abramoff, a contrite former lobbyist, blasted the Lobbying Industry. Here are a few quotes from his "Capital Punishment" book complements of the Huffington Post ...

"As a lobbyist, I thought it only natural and right that my clients should reward those members who saved them such substantial sums with generous contributions," he writes. "This quid pro quo became one of hallmarks of our lobbying efforts."

He also describes wooing congressional staffers -- particularly chiefs of staff -- with the lure of future employment. "After a number of meetings with them, possibly including meals or rounds of golf, I would say a few magic words: 'When you are done working for the Congressman, you should come work for me at my firm.'

"With that, assuming the staffer had any interest in leaving Capitol Hill for K Street -- and almost 90 percent of them do, I would own him and, consequently, that entire office. No rules had been broken, at least not yet. No one even knew what was happening, but suddenly, every move that staffer made, he made with his future at my firm in mind."

Abramoff points out that he was "not alone in this method" and that "it continues today, unabated by reform campaigns or public ire at the Congress."

Sadly there are few candidates running that are blasting this sort of activity. Says a lot about the systematic corruption that exists in our government. Even Bachmann is supported by and gets mega-bucks from Super PACs.

---

Does God need a Lobbyist?

Many of us in the religious sector decry the systematic abuses of lobbyists in Washington, DC. With that backdrop I read with interest a post titled Lobbying for the Faithful. Here are a few interesting bits from it:

"The number of organizations engaged in religious lobbying or religion-related advocacy in Washington, D.C., has increased roughly fivefold in the past four decades, from fewer than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 today."
...
"Efforts by religious groups to influence U.S. public policy are a multimillion-dollar endeavor, with combined annual expenditures conservatively estimated at more than $390 million."

Do you think that religious folks should be using lobbyists and spending millions of dollars trying to influence public policy. I have my doubts.

At least some folks are doing better these days ...

Guess how much money this Viacom CEO made in 2010? Guess it is not surprising since the median payout for top executives at 200 big companies last year was $10.8 million. Average American workers took home $752 a week in late 2010, up a mere 0.5 percent from 2009. After inflation, workers were actually making less.

Medicare, Healthcare, Lobbyists and Casinos

Ann and I sat around our breakfast table this morning talking about a conversation that she recently had with a friend about Medicare. Of course Ann is a bit of an quazi-expert on the topic since our health insurance company dumped her when she became disabled - that is what insurance companies do when a person goes on a procedure like hemodialysis or is disabled by illness or accident. Their lobbyists made it happen years ago.

Our conversation reminded me of this comment that I left on a friends blog when his insurance company reneged on a $7,000 payment they had made for a medical procedure:

• Insurance companies have the same business model as our local casinos. Rarely does anyone ever beat the house because the proverbial deck is stacked against clients of these companies.
• I do not know why so many Americans advocate for companies that do not have products or services and act so badly when someone makes a claim.

The insurance industry has a very strong lobby in Washington, DC. They have been lobbying for the government to relieve them of the difficult cases for many years. They have already gotten legislation passed to exempt them from covering senior citizens, the disabled and many costly procedures (like hemodialysis ) and they do not want to cover people with preexisting conditions. They are a bit like the people who run the casinos in Vegas..

So when I read about lawmakers wanting to privatize Medicare I wonder what the insurance lobby thinks about that since seniors are not really a demographic that these companies are aggressively pursuing. Will lawmakers also opt to dump the disabled from Medicare roles? I am wondering what insurance companies will even insure such people. Color me confused.

Entitled Lawmakers

I think that most people really are suspicious of our leaders in congress.. news about the perks they get from lobbyists.. the pensions they receive after working for just a few years.. I mean really - who else gets these kinds of perks. Even so, this Associated Press article grossed me out even more. Here is an excerpt from it:

California lawmakers enjoy a perk that seems like a luxurious amenity in a state that has been slashing billions of dollars from its budget: taxpayer-provided cars. The state purchases cars for lawmakers to drive around their districts and the capital under a decades-old program, spending more than $5 million for the latest suite of vehicles that includes a $55,000 Cadillac sedan and a $52,000 Lexus hybrid.

It is so utterly revolting that "public servants" would act this way. I mean really, how do they sleep at night? They act like they are entitled to the perks of kings and queens. Ugh!

WikiLeaks

I originally posted this in July. With all of the hubbub in the news I thought that I'd repost.

The controversial website WikiLeaks publishes and comments on leaked documents alleging government and corporate misdeeds.

In this video founder Julian Assange talks about how the site operates, what it has accomplished and what drives him.

I think that people are a bit fascinated by whistle-blowers. Movies like this year's The Informant (see my review of it here) and others like The Insider and The Rain Maker speak to this fascination. There is just something about liars and weasels being exposed.

The video shown in this 20 minute interview is troubling and makes me want to erase it from my memory - I would rather not know about this aspect of war. That said I think that it is not a bad thing to expose the good, bad and ugly of wars, governments and corporations. Predictably Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not appear to share my view when he said:

"Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing. But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."

Interesting that he does not know of any damage that has already been done.

What do you think? About the video? About WikiLeaks.org? About whistle-blowers?

Are Small Business Owners Wealthy Fat Cats?

For years I have friends and others tell me that the majority of people who would be affected by a tax on the rich are small business owners. In response to Stephen Hayes comments (of a similar nature) on "This Week", the ABC Sunday morning news show, Politifact said:

It's certainly more politically palatable to urge lower taxes for mom-and-pop business owners than for Wall Street fat cats. But is it true that most of the rich are small business owners?
...
It's impossible to know how many of these high earners are what most people think of as small business owners. One indication, however, might be if these wealthy taxpayers reported that most of their income was from this business-type income. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center analyzed IRS data in March 2009, looking to see how many wealthy tax filers could say that half of their income or more came from business income. The center found that, among the wealthiest filers -- the top 1 percent -- only 25 percent earned more than half their income from business-type income. The percentages for non-wage income were even smaller among taxpayers earning less.
...
There's one final point we want to clarify here for our readers, because we've been asked about this before: If you are a small business owner yourself, you would have to be a whiz running a very profitable small business to get hit with a tax increase under the plan Obama supports. You would have to report total income of more than $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples) after all your business expenses were deducted. You may remember this being a key point during the Joe the Plumber debate during the 2008 campaign when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher said to then candidate Obama, "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan's going to tax me more, isn't it?" Back then, the Tax Policy Center analyzed all taxpayers, of any income level, who report these types of business income. They found only about 2 percent of them would see tax increases if the government increased the rates on the top earners. So the vast majority of possible small business owners would not see a tax increase if the Bush tax cuts expire for those in the top incomes.

I think that there is a concerted effort to categorize wealthy fat cats as the small business owners who provide jobs for people. Not sure that I agree. I am thankful for the small business owners that I personally know. Most of them do not drive expensive cars or live lavish lifestyles. So I guess I agree with Politifact and don't buy the idea that the richest folks in our country are small business owners.

What do you think? The whole taxing philosophy aside, do you know small business owners that would be considered a a part of the elite wealthy in our country? Politifact seems to think that it is a mixed bag at best.

Main Street needs a Lobbyist

The news is rife with articles of bailouts these days. All sorts of industries are getting government assistance, tax breaks or tax incentives. This LA Times article titled Corporate welfare and California's budget deficit says:

For all the hand-wringing by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger about how there's almost nothing left to cut in the state budget except services to children, the aged and the destitute, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year on handouts to business. That's despite the lack of evidence that some of these programs keep employers in the state, lure employers from out of state or are cost-effective in any general way. The governor is asking the Legislature to take such draconian steps as eliminating CalWORKS, the state's principal family welfare program (serving 1.1 million children), and downsizing child care and mental health programs

Seems that there are real choices to be made these days about what kind of welfare our governments will support. Consider this excerpt from a piece titled Imperium Watch: Are the Unemployed Pawns?:

And nobody has ever explained why Republicans who supported the outrageous levels of deficit the Bush administration ran up on off-budget wars and tax breaks for the rich now scream "Deficit" when people need extended benefits to keep from having to live on the street. Meanwhile, unemployment checks help the economy because they're spent quickly and close to home, in businesses that hire workers and pay taxes.

The article speaks to the hesitancy of some, who once supported corporate bailouts, to now extend unemployment benefits for people struggling to find work. It reminds me that Main Street needs a lobbyist.. Wall Street has a lot of them.. those other industries shown in the cartoon have more than their share of bribers.. I mean lobbyists. It is sad that this need exists. It is sad that money talks so loudly in governments both state and federal. It is sad that our elected officials are not our most vocal advocates.

Another Health Insurance Horror Story

I think that this note, from a gal in a NMO online group that Ann and I belong to, accurately describes the what happens when health insurance companies run the show:

My insurance initially denied my first rituxan treatment (despite verbally confirming they WOULD pay). I went without rituxan for 3 years after that and I feel it was the biggest mistake I have made. My neuro did not advocate for me and I (stupidly) did not advocate for him to advocate for me (does that make sense?). Finally, after a really bad episode that landed me paralyzed from waist down, I decided to fight.

I asked my neuro to write a pointed and explicit letter detailing why I needed the drug and what would happen if I didn't get it, I wrote a letter detailing the same thing and how I had run out of options, I gathered info papers on NMO from the web (from doctors with respected credentials) showing that rituxan is effective for treatment of NMO, and my husband contacted the insurance liason from his company who acted as an advocate between us and the insurance company.

Believe me, I was ready to go to court-- that is how strongly I felt about it. Fortunately, they approved the request right away after receiving all that info. Please don't give up too soon. I just wish I hadn't--it has cost me a lot of mobility.

BTW, the insurance companies do not pay $20K for the infusions (that's what they want you to pay). The insurance companies negotiate a rate that is much less than that (still more than you would want/be able to pay). In my case, the rituxan (that they wouldn't pay for) was actually cheaper than the IVIG treatments they would pay for. Now doesn't that make sense?

A few lessons that we can glean from her experience:

1. Insurance companies do not have our best interests in mind.
2. We are responsible for our own treatment.
3. Doctors are often reactive and not proactive with insurance.
4. Bad stuff can happen if we cede treatment options to insurance companies.
5. We need to vigorously fight claim denials.
6. Computer programs routinely reject claims based on inaccurate information.
7. Share information with other people.. it may really help.

I hope that things will get better after some of the new health care reforms are actualized but I think that these lessons may be even more important in the future.

Do you have any insurance company stories? Ever been denied coverage?

Scrooge the Libertarian

---

As I reflected about yesterday's post, Libertarians and the Poor, I kept thinking about Ebenezer Scrooge, that character from Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol". Here are a few of his Libertarian thoughts about the poor. This first exchange is with a man asking to donate to a fund that would help the poor:

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.

Interesting how Scrooge felt that prisons and workhouses were a good place to care for the poor in his community. I think that this is not so subtle attitude of some Libertarians. This conversation with his dead partner, Jacob Marley, speaks to where Scrooge's heart is:

Ebenezer: But it was only that you were an honest man of business!
Jacob Marley: BUSINESS? Mankind was my business! Their common welfare was my business!

From the grave Marley speaks to Scrooge's obligations to others. When I think about that I remember Cain's response to God after he murdered his brother: "Am I my brother's keeper?" The answer was yes then and I think that it still is. Here is the view that Scrooge had about getting off for holidays:

Ebenezer: I suppose you'll be wanting the whole day tomorrow.
Bob Cratchit: If quite convenient, sir.
Ebenezer: Every Christmas you say the same thing. And every Christmas it's just as inconvenient as the Christmas before. Good night.

Maybe this is the attitude that employers would have if it were not for unions? Possibly we would all be working six or seven day work weeks? Amazing how Scrooge begrudged Cratchit a day off with his family. Possibly these passages tell us why:

Spirit of Christmas Past: And as your business prospered, Ebenezer Scrooge, a golden idol took possession of your heart, as Alice said it would.

Ebenezer Scrooge: What reason have you got to be merry? You're poor enough.
Fred: What reason have you got to be miserable? You're rich enough.
Ebenezer Scrooge: There is no such thing as rich enough; only poor enough.

Maybe that is a picture of where many corporations have gone - after the golden idol at the cost of their loyal Bob Cratchit employees. Maybe our modern day Scrooge CEOs also believe that, for themselves anyway, "There is no such thing as rich enough"?

I do hope that one day Libertarian type folks learn the lessons that Dickens' story did and one day with say with Scrooge:

I will start anew. I will make amends and I will make quite certain that the story ends on a note of hope on a strong amen and I'll thank the world and remember when was able to begin again!

Now before you get too mad at me.. especially if you have Libertarian leanings.. remember that the point I am trying to make is that we have an obligation to love our neighbors and care for those who are not as fortunate as we are. I long for the day that the private sector puts governmental welfare programs out of business. Until then lets not be Scrooges. ツ

---

Dialysis, Disability and Weasels

With all of the talk in the United States about reforming healthcare I thought that I would take a few minutes and share about my experience with one segment of it. In 1990 my first wife Ellen was hospitalized for 10 weeks with heart and kidney (renal) failure. It was at that time when I was introduced to the world of hemodialysis. Here are a few words about the process from the wiki:

In medicine, hemodialysis is a method for removing waste products such as creatinine and urea, as well as free water from the blood when the kidneys are in renal failure. ... The hemodialysis machine pumps the patient's blood and the dialysate through the dialyzer. ... The dialyzer is composed of thousands of tiny synthetic hollow fibers. The fiber wall acts as the semipermeable membrane. Blood flows through the fibers, dialysis solution flows around the outside the fibers, and water and wastes move between these two solutions. The cleansed blood is then returned via the circuit back to the body.

Ellen was introduced to this life-saving procedure in the hospital and had several operations to install a (sort of) permanent catheter in her upper body. This catheter was used three times a week in the dialysis process to clean her blood - the process took about four hours and was a bit of a nuisance.. albeit a lifesaving one.

Ellen eventually was released from the hospital to the care of a dialysis clinic where she received treatment three days a week in an environment similar to the above photo. Since she was weak we had to employ a specialized taxi service to transport her to and from the clinic.. the driver "Hub" was a God-send during the next four years.. he caringly and faithfully got Ellen to the clinic in his van.. I still remember him with much fondness and gratitude.

It was during this time that I was told that my insurance company would not be covering my wife's dialysis after the first year. It seems that in 1972 the US Congress created a government-sponsored entitlement for endstage renal disease. What this effectively did was transition the responsibility for insurance coverage from the private sector to Medicare. My top-dollar weaselly insurance company had been bailed out by the government and I now had to deal with Medicare for all of Ellen's medical coverage.

Looking back I am glad that Medicare was there for my wife when weaselly private insurance bailed on her. I guess this is a pretty normal phenomenon - when a person is disabled and begins to receive disability payments from Social Security medical insurance coverage is transferred from weaselly private companies to Medicare. After all we cannot expect private weaselly insurance companies to make good on their promise to cover us when things go wrong. Or maybe have we just gotten used to the conduct of weasels?

So I am wondering - Do you have any stories to share in this vein?

---

Influence Peddling

This clip from a Politico article titled Lobbyists on pace for record year is a bit disconcerting:

Washington’s influence industry is on track to shatter last year’s record $3.3 billion spent to lobby Congress and the rest of the federal government — and that’s with a down economy and about 1,500 fewer registered lobbyists in town, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Given that information the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to roll back campaign-finance reform is doubly troubling. According to this wiki entry:

Influence peddling is the illegal practice of using one's influence in government or connections with persons in authority to obtain favors or preferential treatment for another, usually in return for payment.

I wonder if anyone really questions whether influence peddling exists in our nation's capital.. or possibly it is just the cynical few (like yours truly) who see government as a breeding ground for the marketing and peddling of influence. I wonder if those "conservative" justices on the high court have a clue about this sort of influence in DC? If so why would they overturn legislation that limited this sort of influence?

I wish that I could be naive on this but I just cannot.

Pensions up for Greedy Weasels

With the country experiencing record levels of unemployment this Wall Street Journal article titled Pensions for Executives on Rise (Arcane Techniques, Generous Formulas Boost Payouts as Share Prices Fall) caught my attention. Here are a few clips from it:

Pensions for top executives rose an average of 19% in 2008, with more than 200 executives seeing pensions increase more than 50%, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
...
Executive pensions rose even as the share prices at the companies declined an average of 37% in 2008 and many firms froze employee pensions and suspended retirement-plan contributions.

The article goes on to detail the great deals of execs at Merck, Connoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and other benevolent entities. I know that some folks feel that corporate executives are entitled to lavish benefits like these pensions.. heck.. folks in our congress get great lifetime pensions after just a few years of "service".. but I mean really.. what is it going to take to change the executive weasel compensation culture in Corporate America?

And in a related NY Times article titled 23 Private College Presidents Made More Than $1 Million reported "The presidents of the nation’s major private research universities were paid a median compensation of $627,750 in the 2007-8 fiscal year — a 5.5 percent increase from the previous year".. hmmm.. a few academic weasels?

Why do we love Insurance Execs?

Yesterday morning I caught New York Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner advocate for a public health insurance option on Morning Joe.. you can catch the 13 minute video of the conversation here. In the course of the conversation the congressman compared the director of Medicare's $150,000 salary to the mega-millions that insurance company execs make as they collect premiums from us and supervise the disbursement of payments to doctors and hospitals. Curious guy that I am.. I googled a bit and found these numbers:

Aetna CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil / 5-year:57.8 mil

Caremark Rx CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil / 5-year: 93.6 mil

Cigna CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil / 5-year:62.8 mil

PacifiCare Health CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil / 5-year: 8.5 mil

United Health Group CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil / 5-year: 342 mil

Well Choice CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil / 5-year: 10.7 mil

WellPoint CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil / 5-year: 46.8 mil

So I was just wondering.. why is it that we love these guys so much? What have they done to merit all this advocacy that they are getting? Are they part of the solution or part of the problem?

Social Security Weasels

This in from a San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner piece titled
Federal government employees soak the taxpayer on a spa retreat for $700,000:

Security Administration federal employees dance the taxpayers’ money away to the tune of $700,000.

The 700 Federal government employees were flown in from all over the country to stay at the 4-star Waldorf Astoria Spa Hotel in Phoenix, Arizona. The “stress relief” getaway was meant to sooth government employees psyches and was also attended by the Commissioner of the Social Security.

Many taxpayers feel the Social Security employees could have had these meetings at their offices and teleconferenced.

At a time of severe recession, when families are losing their homes and jobs, is this the change we can believe in?

The Social Security Administration claims they chose the cheapest contract. I doubt you’ll find a taxpayer who thinks a bankrupt federal agency should be taking $700,000 vacations on their dime.

Anybody out there feel that employees of the Social Security Administration should be having meetings like this one? These folks need to apologize to GM, AGI (the other swanky junket guys) and all of those other bailed out corporations.

I am tossing this one in my Weasels file.

Spitzer on Fixing Wall Street

An interesting twelve minute Morning Joe clip featuring former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer explaining why the New York Fed is run by CEOs who "have failed America" and the need to change their focus away from bonuses before Wall Street can recover.

I Support the Wealthy!

Did anyone see yesterday's issue of Parade magazine that touted the yearly earnings of a variety of people and occupations? I guess it is no surprise that a 35 year old Houston hedge-fund manager topped their list with $1.5 billion in annual compensation.

Ann and I were discussing the list yesterday and reflecting on the enormous amounts that celebrities and sports figures are compensated.

We Americans have a weird obsession with these folks and seem strangely unaware about our part in their compensation. I am part of the problem.. I watch the professional sports games on TV and go to the movies that many of these outrageously compensated people are showcased in.

All that said I have to say that I am proud that I can no longer be blamed for the outrageous salary of El Rushbo Limbaugh who made $38 million.. I also didn't support NY Yankee Alex Rodriquez's $34 million.. or contribute to Barbie's $3.3 billion income.. or take a GMAC loan to cover their CEO's $11.6 million.. also did not spend anything on the music of Jay Z ($82m) or Beyonce ($80m).. did not pay to watch a Tyler Perry ($125m) movie or buy one of John Grisham's ($25m) books.. and I did not watch Kelly Ripa ($8m) talk to Regis (who did not make their list).

I did watch Tina Fey last year and helped her earn $4.6 million.. oh well.. guess I only support a few rich people.. maybe it is good for the economy?

Which rich people do you support?

AIG: Rich Man Angst

The following are a few excerpts from a letter of resignation sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

"I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down."
...
"The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it."

"On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients."

You can view the entire letter (published by the NY Times) here. I had mixed emotions as I read Mr. DeSantis' letter.. at first I started to enter into his angst and began to resonate with his feelings. Then I realized that I was reading the narcissistic thoughts of a very very wealthy man. He does not see himself as a part of the problem at all because he was not involved in the precise part of AIG that caused their downfall. His million dollar plus payment seemed an appropriate compensation for him even though his company as a whole failed and had to be bailed out by the US taxpayer.

His complaint would have been so much more genuine if his annual compensation was not so extravagant. I mean really.. are we to feel sorry for this man who has probably bankrolled mega-millions over the past few years? I think that his letter is sadly representative of the problem. What do you think?

Are you excessively compensated?

The average CEO of an S&P 500 company made $13.51 million in total compensation in 2005, according to executive compensation watchdog Executive Pay Watch. That sounds like a lot, but is it really? What constitutes "excessive"? And what does it mean to be "compensated"? Are you excessively compensated? Take our quiz below and find out. Count every "yes" answer as one point.

1. Are you compensated financially for your work?
2. Are you eligible for performance-related bonuses?
3. Do you receive any non-financial compensation (i.e., positive feedback, hard candy)?
4. Is there a first-aid kit somewhere in your place of employment?
5. Does your employer provide "holidays" such as Independence Day, Thanksgiving, and weekends?
6. Do you bank personal frequent-flier miles when flying at your company's expense?
7. Has another employee ever fixed your malfunctioning software, free of charge?
8. Have you ever expensed a meal that included extraneous items such as soup or pie?
9. Are you allowed to work from home during sick days?
10. Do you now make more than you did at one point in time?

SCORE

0-5: You are excessively compensated. Your compensation package most closely resembles Big Lots CEO Steven Fishman and popular actor Shavar Ross (a.k.a. Dudley on Diff'rent Strokes)

6-8: You are excessively overcompensated. Your compensation package most closely resembles former Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli and former American Idol runner-up Clay Aiken.

9-10: You are in the top 20% of excessive overcompensation. Your compensation package most closely resembles former Tyco CEO Dennis Koszlowski and 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney.

---

Don't argue your results with me.. check out the Motley Fools instead :)