Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What do you guys think about super models earning an average of 40-70 million dollars a year?

Posted 6 years ago on March 3, 2012, 8:32 p.m. EST by etruism (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

And what about Hollywood actors and pornstars?

There are people that are relatively more overpaid than bankers. Economies rely on talented investors to allocate money effectively so that the markets are efficient (noted the system like any other has problems).

I think it is more shameful that super models and some pornstars bring home pay on par of top bankers. If Wallstreet pay is going to be regulated, then in fairness, these other occupations should be as well.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

Pornstars work HARD for their money.

[-] 0 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 6 years ago

Why is pornography legal while prostitution isn't? Well prostitution in the sense that one sells themselves for anything other than sex, like in pornography.

I have no problem with pornography or prostitution. My mother and entire family are all prostitutes and pornstars, which still provides us with lots of interesting social contacts as well as financial resources.

Everyone likes to thrash the mattress, just like eating, and often do both at the same time.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 6 years ago

How much are you getting paid to troll here?

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

That's right! Everyone who disagrees is paid! Let's not answer the question, that will teach him!

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

LOL I love when they trow that one out.

Why would anyone be paid to post on this site with less than 100 people posting per day. Especially when their minds are made up.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

I actually got a sneak peek at the Koch brother's Great To-Do List of World Tyranny. At number seven from the top, was "Pay people to troll Occupywallst.org and change the mind of Shooz -- our biggest problem."

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

why don't they just pay shooz off ?

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

The man is a ideological statue of strength. He can't be bought.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago


[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 6 years ago

Hey,where do i sign up? I've been dong this for free!

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

There are sign-up forms at your mom's house.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 6 years ago

Fuck you Juan you stupid fuck.How sad that you feel the need to bring someones Mother into the discussion. My Mother had 4 brothers and I'd lay money that even at 67 she could kick your sorry arse. You simple fucking pimple on the ass of humanity.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

You're right, I am sorry. Forgive me?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 6 years ago


[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

Group hug! Mmmmm smell the patchouli!

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 6 years ago

The question is bogus, and in no small part because it is based on a fallacy.

Gisele Bündchen's net worth is around $150 million. Hedge funder John Paulson stole $4.9 billion in 2010.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

No, it's not flawed, because it does not compare a specific person to a specific person. What I think he is getting at is, how much should salaries be capped at? Howard Stern's contract with satallite radio got him 100 million per year. Is this too much?

[-] 2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

I think the government should nationalize his job and then his pay would be acceptable.

I am also sure that the porn industry should be taken over by the government. I'm currently on set filming "the little boys of bathroom stall morse code".

I think it will make buukoo money to divide up amongst the DNC.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

Well, some times the little boys need to make sacrifices to serve the greater good. What kind of money are we talking here? If the greater good can be served, why not abuse children? If you're a Democrat, that is.

[-] 2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

We're taking the chance that the actual number will have zero's behind it and are really rippnem new ones.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 6 years ago

Is Howard Stern a porn star or a model?

Because it's general - does not compare a specific person to a specific person - does not make it any more accurate. Look it up. Generally, the bankers make far more.

It's a bogus question posed by a troll. And you are fool for taking it seriously.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

Look at it this way- If high salaries are unfair, they should be capped at a dollar amount, regardless of profession. It does not matter one iota what the average for the profession is. I will ignore the original question and pose a new one to you: Is it unfair or unreasonable that Howard Stern makes 100,000,000 dollars per year?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 6 years ago

90% tax rate on income over $1,000,000. 0% tax rate on income under $50,000. Progressive rates in between. Problem solved. No cap required.

What does any of this have to do with pron stars, models or Howard Stern?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

Idk about that. The working poor already don't pay taxes and this has been used over the years to justify everything from feeling sorry for the "Job Creators" having to pay higher rates to simply ignoring the working class because it's easy to say we add nothing to society. I am for a flat tax, but a minimum wage that allows everyone to pay their bills and taxes. This is the only true path to ending the disenfranchisement of the working class.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 6 years ago

The "working poor" pay FICA directly (40% of all federal tax revenue). They also pay sales, property and use taxes. Because their income is so low, these taxes are disproportionately high. Also a definition for working poor is necessary to have constructive dialogue. I'd define working poor as income below $50k, though it varies by locality.


[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 6 years ago

Every time I see one of your posts, "How much are you getting paid to troll here?" I laugh my ass off. YOU absolutely HATE,,,, HATE,,, HATE the word, "P-A-I-D" because that would mean someone is working and your HATE,,, HATE,, HATE,,, "W-O-R-K". Even if a guy got paid to be a troll he would be paying income tax and those income taxes would go toward the failed social programs you LOVE. You were dropped on your head during the abortion.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

But Trashy / "etruism", you are the one being paid, tax free and off shore by that Montreal based 'Cartel Of Canadian Corporations' who are so fearful of the Vancouver based 'Adbusters'.

You are living it up in your 'neo-feudalist', Balinese tropical exile doing your masters' bidding and actively trying to subvert this forum with your 'Multiply Disordered Personalities'.

So, WTF d'you think that you know about "work" or raising a family or for that matter ... about 'Care, Compassion & Comradeship'' even, let alone 'Love' ?!

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

When media will not share truth, but shares everything else, where does the blame belong if these peoples behaviors and paychecks are disproportionate.

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 6 years ago

Actors and porn-stars done receive bailouts or govt subsidies or a capital gains tax rate... or other ridiculous breaks to give them more money...

Its not people making more money that ticks me off... its the fact that they are being given unfair breaks to help them keep more of it despite the fact that their own 'effort' expended is next to nothing...

Pay regulation is not the solution at all.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

they should be taxed 70%

[-] 1 points by invient (360) 6 years ago

Ill tell you what... let a banker get drilled in the ass a few times... then come back and let me know which one works harder.

[-] 1 points by Truth4Life (43) 6 years ago

I would not compare them with Wall Street. The better comparison is with professional athletes. A great many people say these athletes are overpaid. If they are, then certainly super models and actors are overpaid as well.

Yeah, I'll go along with the notion that they are overpaid. But let's apply that standard across the board. As for Wall Street overpaid, yes they are. What's worse is all the subsidization they get. This while they claim to be such independent agents who exist outside of government oversight. Such phoniness is only too plainly visible.

[-] 0 points by incomeforall (64) 6 years ago

We only want to control the money of people we don't like, banksters CEOs and such, we like pornstars and baseball players!

It's like hating on the oil company subsidies, they are the same deductions that any other company gets but we hate the oil companies so we call them subsidies to help demonize them, see?

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 6 years ago

Yes, Americans only know their wants, not needs.

"We only want to control the money of people we don't like, banksters CEOs and such, we like pornstars and baseball players!"

Our instincts have been exploited. Free speech is abridged and sharing needs, things vital for survival cannot be effectively done.

We need to discuss Article V and getting people past the misinformation and manipulation. WIth unity around Article V, we will get what we need. No other proposals show any promise of invoking the needed authority.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

I large amount of money is spent on entertainment by the people

Rush- Tom Sawyer

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

They do more actual work than any asshole on WallStreet.

Are you just jealous because you think you're a troll star?

I've seen better, more original trolls elsewhere.

You need to come up with some original material.

This crap is just old hat now.

[-] 2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

See that is the problem with most of you.

More than half of all protesting have money invested in the stock market and wall street.

It would seem, since you mostly lack enough faith in yourselves to work your own money, that you're angry because wall streeters aren't working hard enough for you.... ie... paying you enough of what they loot off the actual production of workers.

So the paper magicians are screwing you. Get smart and start enlightening people to remove all their money from the stock markets and teach them how to handle it themselves.

You see, I work my own and don't hand it over.

I also work way too hard for it to hand it over to rock/sports/celebrity stars as it would seem that those of us who do work our own, place an entirely different value on our money than those who feel their investments with the money changers on wall street should comfortably sustain them.

I don't recall any of your crybabies explaining to the masses why they should remove their money from wall street ink pen bandits and responsibly handle it themselves.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Still not original material. Still filled with the usual FALSE assumptions.

Then you go ahead and build your entire argument on those assumptions, and expect a response to those assumptions.

Toss in a few invectives, and you think you are correct?

You're not.


In your World we might as well just hand the country over to the highest bidder.

Place your bets and go hide under the bed.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 6 years ago

Seriously though, where do people who are 100% against Wall St in any way whatsoever invest their savings/retirement funds? It must be invested somewhere. Gold? Or do you just let it sit in a savings account? I really am curious because I cannot think of many good investments that don't involve big banks to at least some extent.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

What I don't understand is how folks like yourself, still haven't figured out how poorly WallStreet has treated the USA.

Why you think they are more important than people that actually invent, design and build things.

Why you think it's OK for them to suck incredible amounts of value from what we still build, as long as they give you a kickback.

You think like Tory.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 6 years ago

You didn't answer my question. Obviously Wall St is corrupt and motivated solely by profit and nothing else. And that is wrong. I get that. But where else do you suggest someone invest their savings that does not involve big banks in someway. Other than precious metals or a savings account at a credit union (which probably doesn't even keep up with inflation) your options are limited.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Your options are limited by WallStreet.

My cash is in a credit union.

Why is you think that every dollar must be somehow "invested"?

WallStreet and it's commodities cohorts are the prime engines of inflation.

To regulate them, is to regulate "real" inflation.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 6 years ago

Well until that happens, I would rather get the 8% my portfolio has averaged over the past 20 years than essentially lose money by having it in a savings account that doesn't even keep up with inflation. This is not me being greedy, it is me doing what is best for my family given my options.

As bad as Wall St. is, most American's are not going to swear off big banks anytime soon simply because the alternatives are not great. People can debate the causes of inflation until they are blue in the face and they are probably all right to some extent. But the bottom line is that inflation is real, it has been happening for a long time, and if you don't "invest" your money in something, it loses value over time.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Give your all your money to WallStreet and create even more inflation.

Market tip: If Ecat takes off, be prepared to your money in nickle. WallStreet will attempt to corner the market.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 6 years ago

It is a case of what is best for the collective is not best for the individual. What is best for my family on the individual level is to invest our money on 'Wall St'. It is a hard sell to convince millions of people not to do what is best for their individual family.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Why do you feel feeding the inflation machine, is best for your family?

The best thing to do for your family would be to ....

Occupy WallStreet!

Not feed it.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 6 years ago

Because that is what is growing our savings and doing so much faster than anything that does not involve Wall St.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Then you should let WallStreet make all the decisions for the USA.

After all, if you think inflation is good for your family, it must be good for everything.

Personally? I've invested in my daughters education.

The rewards are not monetary, but I feel they don't contribute to inflation, and are better "investment" for my family.

I find it saddening that feel inflation is a good thing, as long as you think you're getting a cut of the vig.

Perhaps your local mafia could bring you an even better return.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 6 years ago

But that would be illegal.

The actions of my family are not going to have any influence on inflation or any other economic measure. People can only play the hand they are dealt. And I think most people would like to have something monetary in nature when they retire. You know, to live on.

I think if we just remove the massive influence that big money has in our political system, a lot of other problems will go along with it. There is nothing inherently wrong with investing in stocks and bonds and real estate.

A lot of what comes out of Occupy is sort of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It will never get a lot of people on board when they expect people to do things that are against their individual interests. I would say if you asked most middle class Americans, they would say that they would like to retire with as large of a nest egg as possible to live on. And that isn't greed speaking, it just basic survival instincts.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

How in the World is inflation a basic survival instinct?

You've skirted the inflation issue in every response so far.

Just so we are clear, I'm talking about consumer purchasing inflation, not money supply inflation. They both count, but I feel the former every day, and that's the one WallStreet influences most..

The only thing we agree on, is get the money out of the political process.

I feel it's just as important to remove all constitutional "rights" from created entities too.


[-] 1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

I understand you think like neither rational, logical or an actualized human beings think.

9-10 trillion out in one whack and the very thieves of which this movement is allegedly against, would be left simmering in their own juices and friendless.

But it's ok, I enjoy watching and will try not to laugh too hard when the known bandits, that more than half of all Americans trust with their life savings, extract that chunk of change they've been relentlessly been after for years now.

They've already gotten the lion's share of it.

From your vantage point under your wife's death bed, watch and see how quickly they rob you even blinder.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Are you capable of doing anything besides assuming?

Just what is it you feel you're bringing to the table?

Is it the name calling? The repetitions of invectives pounded relentlessly into your head by the so called "right" wing?

Your position is anything but clear.

You might need to clean the spooge out of your head, as a form of mind maintenance......

[-] 1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 6 years ago

Everyone watching is well aware of your MO.

To your table? Crow, enjoy.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 6 years ago

porn stars may need the cash to finance their medical bills when they get aids.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 6 years ago

I do think this is a legit question.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

seriously... you can come up with a better joke than that right?


[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

if they're democrats, it o.k.