Jack Fleming has been with the B.A.A. since 1992 and was COO from 2017-22. He succeeds Tom Grilk, who stepped down as B.A.A. president/CEO in April. https://t.co/2fTVdbuRJ6
Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax fil...
What's weird to me is that folks here have beef with a dude making 3 million bucks a year, but they don't have beef with billionaires.
Probably some level of guilt and shame over the significant majority of their income derived from someone else's (i.e. parents', spouse's) hard work and smarts rather than their own.
BAA has been a failure and Jack has been a big part of the problem. Promoting Jack is proof that they want to continue to be lazy and accomplish nothing.
Their pro group has been abysmal. They host one cross country race and zero track races. They have very few road events.
Boston is arguably the biggest running city in the country, BAA has the potential to be HUGE but Jack is not the guy to get them there.
This is hilarious, Jack Fleming probably hasn’t said three words to Rojo ever. And this has to be the first time the BAA has been held up as a paragon of efficacy on this board. Outside of putting on a ballyhooed marathon, they don’t get much right. Their elite program is worse at talent development than that apartment the jobros shared with three others in Flagstaff.
The BAA could not have gazed any harder at their own navel in order to make this choice.
This organization manages to find ways to hold itself back at every turn, and now they have promoted from within the Boston bubble—again. Maybe Jack can at least bring them into the current century, a place Tom Grilk was not familiar with.
The BAA could not have gazed any harder at their own navel in order to make this choice.
This organization manages to find ways to hold itself back at every turn, and now they have promoted from within the Boston bubble—again. Maybe Jack can at least bring them into the current century, a place Tom Grilk was not familiar with.
This is a very disappointing hire. Their "5 month national search" for this job was either phony and just for show, or it resulted in every other qualified person turning the job down.
Jack has nothing new to offer. BAA will continue to let down the city of Boston.
As a side note - it should be illegal for a non-profit to pay any employee more than $75,000 per year. None of those executives making over 100k for the BAA work even a 20 hour workweek.
What's weird to me is that folks here have beef with a dude making 3 million bucks a year, but they don't have beef with billionaires.
If you invented a company like Tesla that revolutionized cars and sold more than 3 million cars, then I could understand how someone could make a billion dollars. Or if you invented computers and sold a billion of them. How would you want to prevent that person from becoming a billionaire?
What's weird to me is that folks here have beef with a dude making 3 million bucks a year, but they don't have beef with billionaires.
If you invented a company like Tesla that revolutionized cars and sold more than 3 million cars, then I could understand how someone could make a billion dollars. Or if you invented computers and sold a billion of them. How would you want to prevent that person from becoming a billionaire?
That’s not how most people become billionaires—most people who are billionaires become that way through generations of asset appreciation. Assets whose value usually appreciates proportionally with how much they’ve exploited the labor generating that value.
But if I were to accept your implicit premise that billionaires earn their great wealth through great contributions to society, I would say they could still earn great wealth and esteem, but be prevented from becoming billionaires, by a substantially more progressive income tax with much higher marginal rates on the top brackets; a wealth tax; and an estate tax that doesn’t allow for massive, tax-free, inter-generational transfer of wealth (which, in many cases, also resets gains on certain types of assets).
If you invented a company like Tesla that revolutionized cars and sold more than 3 million cars, then I could understand how someone could make a billion dollars. Or if you invented computers and sold a billion of them. How would you want to prevent that person from becoming a billionaire?
That’s not how most people become billionaires—most people who are billionaires become that way through generations of asset appreciation. Assets whose value usually appreciates proportionally with how much they’ve exploited the labor generating that value.
But if I were to accept your implicit premise that billionaires earn their great wealth through great contributions to society, I would say they could still earn great wealth and esteem, but be prevented from becoming billionaires, by a substantially more progressive income tax with much higher marginal rates on the top brackets; a wealth tax; and an estate tax that doesn’t allow for massive, tax-free, inter-generational transfer of wealth (which, in many cases, also resets gains on certain types of assets).
Yeah and somehow you're going to keep my billions of dollars here, in the US, being wealth taxed, and stolen from my estate upon death, and not become Venezuela. Sure. I'd peace out to Monaco so fast your head would spin.
If you invented a company like Tesla that revolutionized cars and sold more than 3 million cars, then I could understand how someone could make a billion dollars. Or if you invented computers and sold a billion of them. How would you want to prevent that person from becoming a billionaire?
That’s not how most people become billionaires—most people who are billionaires become that way through generations of asset appreciation. Assets whose value usually appreciates proportionally with how much they’ve exploited the labor generating that value.
But if I were to accept your implicit premise that billionaires earn their great wealth through great contributions to society, I would say they could still earn great wealth and esteem, but be prevented from becoming billionaires, by a substantially more progressive income tax with much higher marginal rates on the top brackets; a wealth tax; and an estate tax that doesn’t allow for massive, tax-free, inter-generational transfer of wealth (which, in many cases, also resets gains on certain types of assets).
And the government is going to spend that money better than the billionaire might? We just sent 100 billion to Ukraine and that money benefits no americans.
Before you convince me to tax all billionaires so much, you'd have to convince me that the government is going to spend that wisely on AMERICANS.
Meanwhile the people who want to raise taxes (democrats) have been in power most of the last 12 years and we still have no federal minimum wage, no universal health care, no student loan relief, we are in several endless wars abroad. They haven't even codified Roe.
And I'm a democrat but since they aren't even trying to deliver what they've promised, they shouldn't raise taxes by a penny. It's a con.
If you invented a company like Tesla that revolutionized cars and sold more than 3 million cars, then I could understand how someone could make a billion dollars. Or if you invented computers and sold a billion of them. How would you want to prevent that person from becoming a billionaire?
That’s not how most people become billionaires—most people who are billionaires become that way through generations of asset appreciation. Assets whose value usually appreciates proportionally with how much they’ve exploited the labor generating that value.
But if I were to accept your implicit premise that billionaires earn their great wealth through great contributions to society, I would say they could still earn great wealth and esteem, but be prevented from becoming billionaires, by a substantially more progressive income tax with much higher marginal rates on the top brackets; a wealth tax; and an estate tax that doesn’t allow for massive, tax-free, inter-generational transfer of wealth (which, in many cases, also resets gains on certain types of assets).
What exactly is the point of preventing someone from becoming a billionaire? Why would you want to penalize someone who is generating wealth that did not exist before by providing a taxable good or service that also generates tax revenues? Raising taxes on someone just because he or she makes a lot of money just gives him/her incentive to either: (1) stop being productive or (2) take their wealth out of the country and invest it somewhere that does not penalize success.
That’s not how most people become billionaires—most people who are billionaires become that way through generations of asset appreciation. Assets whose value usually appreciates proportionally with how much they’ve exploited the labor generating that value.
But if I were to accept your implicit premise that billionaires earn their great wealth through great contributions to society, I would say they could still earn great wealth and esteem, but be prevented from becoming billionaires, by a substantially more progressive income tax with much higher marginal rates on the top brackets; a wealth tax; and an estate tax that doesn’t allow for massive, tax-free, inter-generational transfer of wealth (which, in many cases, also resets gains on certain types of assets).
What exactly is the point of preventing someone from becoming a billionaire? Why would you want to penalize someone who is generating wealth that did not exist before by providing a taxable good or service that also generates tax revenues? Raising taxes on someone just because he or she makes a lot of money just gives him/her incentive to either: (1) stop being productive or (2) take their wealth out of the country and invest it somewhere that does not penalize success.
