I see that Obama is pushing a bill (and Hillary supports the same) that would place "CEO compensation packages under greater scrutiny." I'm not sure what that means. I didn't know the government had sick-um to say about executive compensation, that is unless the government was a duly elected member of the board of directors of the subject companies -- which I don't think was the case.
I'm not a CEO and I deplore CEOs getting outlandish pay packages unmerited by their performance, but I'm not supportive of letting the government get involved in setting compensation levels of CEOs. I am sure that once the government established a precedent of legislating the salaries of CEOs that it would be a short step to legislating that everyone gets paid about the same. This is thinnly veiled socialism and ought to be resisted. It just flat ain't the government's business. The economy does not belong to the federal government.
It would be nice if rank-and-file stockholders could place CEO's salaries under greater scrutiny. If my stock is tanking, but the CEO has just signed a 200 million dollar deal with a massive golden parachute package, I wouldnt be too happy.
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
The economy does not belong to the federal government.
I agree with everything you said, but government these days DOES fiddle with the economy more than ever. Bailing out mortgages and giving rebates back to the public also falls under the same category. If we truly had a free market society this kind of stuff should never be allowed.
The economy does not belong to the federal government.
I agree with everything you said, but government these days DOES fiddle with the economy more than ever. Bailing out mortgages and giving rebates back to the public also falls under the same category. If we truly had a free market society this kind of stuff should never be allowed.
Relative to the government bailing out either mortgages or businesses (Bear-Stearns) I'm against those things. People have to be allowed to be adults. If they make stupid decisions (buying a house that you can't afford by taking out a negatively amortized loan makes sense to whom?!!!), they should have to live with the consequences. I always have had to do this. In my own personal life, what I find is that my learning is never so immediate, never so well learned, never so implanted on my being as when I suffer sorely for my foolishness. I think this is essential to becoming an adult and becoming a human being for that matter. My mother used to say "look before you leap!" Isn't this what it really comes down to? And this applies not to the borrowers but to the big financial houses that get into bed with these sleazy, irregular, fantasy dealing bargains. Let them friggin' pay the price for their foolishness. I have heard it argued that without the bailout the whole system would collapse. Maybe so, maybe not. I'm guessing NOT. I think the result of letting big failures happen is big doses of reality instill more soundly learned lessons in people and the idiots who sold the snake oil get eliminated rather than encouraged to respin their scams in a different embodiment.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: Federal laws controling compensation?
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Alsatian
I see that Obama is pushing a bill (and Hillary supports the same) that would place "CEO compensation packages under greater scrutiny." I'm not sure what that means. I didn't know the government had sick-um to say about executive compensation, that is unless the government was a duly elected member of the board of directors of the subject companies -- which I don't think was the case.
I'm not a CEO and I deplore CEOs getting outlandish pay packages unmerited by their performance, but I'm not supportive of letting the government get involved in setting compensation levels of CEOs. I am sure that once the government established a precedent of legislating the salaries of CEOs that it would be a short step to legislating that everyone gets paid about the same. This is thinnly veiled socialism and ought to be resisted. It just flat ain't the government's business. The economy does not belong to the federal government.
Your thoughts?
I agree. We are a free market. If a person can earn millions with little work, so be it. Its all part of a free market.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
I love it whena politician calls for non-binding legislation...
So, Obama, shareholders should reserve the right tovote on executive compensation packages, but those votes really don't mean anything since said shareholders can'tveto or otherwise limitsuch packages?
His proposed bill is nothing more than a newspaper headline in an election year.
I love it whena politician calls for non-binding legislation...
So, Obama, shareholders should reserve the right tovote on executive compensation packages, but those votes really don't mean anything since said shareholders can'tveto or otherwise limitsuch packages?
His proposed bill is nothing more than a newspaper headline in an election year.
Aught Six,
You are 100% correct! Obama & Hillary are trying to get voters to believe that they care about the"little people". This is just another load of crap delivered to your doorfrom D.C.[:'(]
MostC.E.O.'s that earn top dollar, work every day &really do desirve top dollar.
MostC.E.O.'s that earn top dollar, work every day &really do desirve top dollar.
I'm not sure I'm with you on that one. I would be interested in a study that would list the compensation of clearly successful and valuable CEOs of major corporations -- Andy Groves of Intel, Bill Gates of MicroSoft, Steven Jobs of Apple (I'm guessing he is the CEO, but maybe not), Scott McNeely of Sun, etc. -- and compare that compensation others who haven't really delivered or just deliver so-so. My guess is that Andy Groves, Bill Gates, Scott McNeely don't get anywhere near the pay and bonuses of some of these highly touted people pulling in $40 M year. Granted, Grove, Gates, McNeely make out like bandits on their stock ownership, but that is a different proposition I think. What is irritating to some people is when a CEO pockets $40 M/year and leads the company down hill. If Groves, Gates, McNeely did that in their respective companies, they would lose far more money in the decline of value of their stock holdings than they ever get in salary/bonuses.
The issue people have with CEO compensation is the decoupling of their rewards from the health of their respective companies or with the decoupling of their rewards from cost cutting in other areas of the company (does American Airlines executive compensation versus pilot/flight crew pay decreases come to mind for anyone?).
I don't think the government should be going in and setting limits and messing with the actual pay of the CEO's.......however there are things that I think they could do to "influence" how CEO's are paid. First off......lets get this straight, CEO pay should not even remotely be considered a "free market" system. CEO's are paid by Board members...most of whom are CEO's or high ranking executives (or past executives) themselves. Of course they always hire a "compensation consultant" but lets think about this for a minute, if I was an "independent compensation consultant" and I was hired by a bunch of executives to pay one of their peers......if I wanted to be hired again by these groups, it seems pretty logical that I would be ahead to give generous pay packages.
There are however things that the government could do to influence how pay is realized. First, they could jack up the taxes on fringe benefits that are not offered to most if not all employees. (If you get to use a company jet to go home on the weekends, you have to realize the cost and pay 50% tax on it rather than 35%, etc.) Also, it should be illegal for a company to pay taxes for only certain employees. Right now many CEO's make their salary and then the companies pay their taxes on that for them. That's horsecrap....if a company wants to pay income taxes for all employees then that's fine, but to pay taxes for people who obviously have the money to do pay them is rediculous.
Federal laws controling compensation?
