Government should not set a cap on CEO pay. That's a slippery slope.
However, stockholders should be given the right the approve CEO compensation (including golden parachutes) and performance goals, and corporations should not be allowed to deduct compensation over a certain level, say $1 million per year. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing the bloated pay scales of these charlatans.
So now we live in a country where the government can tell me I make too much? Really? More than half the people in this poll agree with that?
Where am I?
If this poll asked me if there should be limitations on CEOs who are getting taxpayer bailouts, then that's just fine, but who are any of you to say what a person can make?
Is it Jealousy? I'm serious. Anyone of you who voted yes could go off and make a fortune if you so desired. It isn't easy, but it can happen. Would you want the government, after you have worked so hard, to be able to come in and say, "Look you have enough, so no more for you. Oh and it's your patriotic duty to now pay even more in taxes so that we can spend your money how we feel is best." Really?
I swear the logic in this town is so backwards sometimes.
I don't believe anyone or any government should have the right to set limits on private business when it comes to CEO pay but I do believe that shareholders of public companies need to have the ability to approve or deny certain compensation standards. ie pay,bonus stock options etc.
I believe gov't needs to stay out of private business. On that note, if it's a company that is being bailed out by the government then something should be done. If you ask for the government's help to save your company, you should not be able to make a sky high amount of money. The step of asking for government help is taking the 'private' out of private business.
I am about 90% sure that the United States of America died with Reagan's Presidency. He said we were "last best hope" for the human condition and since then we have failed mankind. At this point I am hopeful for a turn around in 2010 and 2012 but I don't know how far up the rope, that is already hanging over the cliff, we can be pulled up.
If I knew what this nation would become, I would not have served.
If a company, like GM, takes federal bail out money, then the feds get to set the rules, including salary for all. That includes the workers and management.
But if a company, like Ford, didn't take bail out money, then the feds have no business getting into salaries. If a stock holder does not like the compensation packages offered management, then they can sell the stock.
I do think the feds have a role in making sure publicly owned companies disclose that type of information in a understandable format in the annual statements.
The United States did not die with Ronald McReagan, although he tried his very best to kill the middle class.
Reagan was a senile old man pretending to be a President. Corporate America and the Industrial Military complex ran the country under Reagan's guise, exactly the same way they did with George W Bush, another horrible failure and front man for the same group of crooks that Reagan carried water for. I don't have one drop of praise or respect for either man. In fact I am filled with rightous bitter animus towards them both. It's probably self rightous animus, I'll admit. But, I didn't like them then and I don't like them now, altough Reagan is a little better because he is already deceased and can do no further harm. Despite Republican's deepest wishes, the old befuddled idiot will not rise from the dead to rule again. Probama, Gobama, Yo'Mama! God I miss Jimmy Carter, now there was a man I could respect and I still do.
Yes, you're right, it died with Reagan's election and his ascension to God-hood afterward. Most overrated President ever... and one of the worst. He did so much irreperable damage to this country it's funny that people hold him in such high regard. A disaster on every single front... the most criminal administration of all time... traded guns to Iranian terrorists that were holding our entire embassy staff hostage in Lebanon... used that money to fund terrorists in Nicaragua to try and overthrow a popular revolution... Gave chemical weapons and military know-how to one Saddam Hussein... allowed Manuel Noriega to plague our streets with drugs and guns... almost started World War 3 on several occassions by giving the hard-left in the USSR a reason to overthrow Gorbachev by stoking them, a man who was working his hardest to actually make peace with the US despite Reagan's best efforts otherwise... raised taxes more than any president in American history... revoked the Fairness Doctrine...
Took down the Soviet Union? Took down the Berlin Wall? Yeah, ok... Germany didn't want to re-unify itself and hadn't been trying for 20 years, Poland and Hungary falling had nothing to do with it either... him saying "tear down this wall" 3 years earlier pushed it over the edge, they just ignored him and waited til after he wasn't President and made a speech about how the Soviet Union would be around for a long time to come to act on his words... maybe in Bizarro World. And the Soviet Union fell in 91, so maybe if he was President in 1991 and personally led the coup d'etat that saw Gorbie get kidnapped; and then personally told Boris Yeltsen to stand in front of, and on top of, a tank coming to take Moscow in defiance of the coup - a move that made him so popular in Russia he was named President of the Soviet Union, a position created by Gorbachev to take power away from the CPSU to allow Glastnost and Parastroika to evolve.
There's some real revisionist history going on with Reagan... a man that was incredibly unpopular throughout his entire presidency... a man whose actual history totally contradicts everything said about him some 20 years after. He was a B-list actor playing the part of a President, with a script written by neo-fascists. Oh, I almost forgot... here's another big one - remember that little war in Afghanistan that the Soviet Union fought? Who was the guy that Reagan funded, trained, and provided weapons to in an organized effort to beat the USSR in that country... He was some type of Islamic spiritual leader, they were all called the Mujahadeen at the time, and funded by the Reagan Doctrine... I think the leader's name was Osama bin Laden. Now where have I heard that name before....??? hmmmmmmm....
And you just proved to me how little you know about history, the Fairness Doctrine and Jimmy Carter. I already knew you didn't know anything about Political Science... thanks for expanding.
Tony, you restore my faith in America and obviously you were an adult who lived through the horror that was Ronald Reagan. He gets credit for one thing and one thing only, homelessness in America. I hope he enjoys burning in hell, too bad it doesn't really exist. I wish it did, because he earned his place at the right hand of Satan. At least Obama acts like he has a soul, Reagan never even tried to pretend.
The government has already taken control of some jobs by regulating the number of hours you can work. Pilot, truck driver, air traffic controller etc.... Yet doctors, police, etc.. can work as many hours as they please. The first set is restricted for public safety. The others don't have anything to do with public safety if they're over tired? The last change in truck driver hours restrictions cost me over $10,000 a year. Restrictions make some law abiding people in those positions start choosing to be criminals. Make it fair, restrict everyone to how many hours a week they work or restrict no one.
The 17th annual executive compensation survey looks at how CEOs laid off thousands while raking in millions. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2010
"American workers, by contrast, are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s. Back in those years, precious few top executives made over 30 times what their workers made. In 2009, we calculate in the 17th annual Executive Excess, CEOs of major U.S. corporations averaged 263 times the average compensation of American workers. CEOs are clearly not hurting."
Yet we hear more people vilifying the unemployed and the displaced for not having the gumption to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Or the blame is placed on the unions for negotiating living wages.
The trickle down theory is actually trickle up in reality. If it keeps going the United States will lose the middle class all together.
So what does that amount to though Lorie? Justification?
Who gets to decide the number? You? A Democrat? A Republican? A committee? Who?
As far as blaming unions for "living wages", that's a tired line. Most people blame unions for demanding benefits that are so far removed from reality. Pensions, guaranteed raises regardless of performance and "living wages" that in some areas (especially government) that are out pacing their private counterparts.
We're losing the middle class because we are taxing the middle class more and more to pay for all types of social programs. Programs mind you that have little to no controls in place to stop fraud. Instead of backing off we add more, create new regulations that cause companies to lose profits and yes lay off workers. So we create more programs to off set those.
Do CEOs make a lot? Yes. Is that any of your business? No, not if you're not a shareholder. The government (unless the company is on taxpayer dollars) doesn't have a right to tell me what is too much. Plain and Simple.
Why is it even about politics, Phil? The question asked is "Should there be a cap on how much money CEOs can make?" Not should the government cap how much money CEOs make. Not should any arbitrary person on the streets cap how much money CEOs make. It's a rather simple question. Should there, or shouldn't there, be a cap in your personal opinion? For example, I believe there should be... and the controlling shareholders of any given company should sit down and identify within their corporate resolution how much, perhaps in % of revenue terms, a CEO of their company should make. If it's smart business to curtail costs at the low end, it is even smarter business to curtail it at the top. Think about how much CEOs make in a severance package alone in larger companies, can it even be considered healthy business to replace your CEO if replacing them means you are sending them packing with $100 million, then replacing them with someone equally compensated?
Read the thread Tony. It became about politics straight away. I responded to that.
I personally feel that there should not be unless the individual company's shareholders and/or Board wish it to be so. If you don't have a stake in the company then no one, including the government should have a say. The only stipulation I will place on that is if the company is on taxpayer bailout, then fine.
I agree with Phil's last comment and would add that there should be no taxpayer bail-out companies. What a private company decides to do is private business and needs to stay that way.
Since this thread did go political, I'll add that the rich are definitely getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting it right where the sun don't shine. More regulation is not the answer, in fact it is more the problem. Huge multi-billion dollar corporations and the fat cats who run them hire teams of lawyers and accountants to maneuver them around regulation. The CEO's and the corporations themselves fund politicians who'll help put more rules in place to keep anyone without the resources (lawyers, accountants, pols in their pockets) out of competition. The answer is less regulation, more competition, less corporate welfare and cleaning out the campaign finance cesspool. These big-time CEOs make huge amounts of money because THEY CAN.
Government should not set a
Government should not set a cap on CEO pay. That's a slippery slope.
However, stockholders should be given the right the approve CEO compensation (including golden parachutes) and performance goals, and corporations should not be allowed to deduct compensation over a certain level, say $1 million per year. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing the bloated pay scales of these charlatans.
I agree with you Dennis. The
I agree with you Dennis. The back dating of stock options should be illegal also.
When have the proxy votes of
When have the proxy votes of shareholders ever gone against the wishes of the board?
That seems like a toothless measure to me.
That said, I don't favor government interference.
So now we live in a country
So now we live in a country where the government can tell me I make too much? Really? More than half the people in this poll agree with that?
Where am I?
If this poll asked me if there should be limitations on CEOs who are getting taxpayer bailouts, then that's just fine, but who are any of you to say what a person can make?
Is it Jealousy? I'm serious. Anyone of you who voted yes could go off and make a fortune if you so desired. It isn't easy, but it can happen. Would you want the government, after you have worked so hard, to be able to come in and say, "Look you have enough, so no more for you. Oh and it's your patriotic duty to now pay even more in taxes so that we can spend your money how we feel is best." Really?
I swear the logic in this town is so backwards sometimes.
I don't believe anyone or any
I don't believe anyone or any government should have the right to set limits on private business when it comes to CEO pay but I do believe that shareholders of public companies need to have the ability to approve or deny certain compensation standards. ie pay,bonus stock options etc.
I believe gov't needs to stay
I believe gov't needs to stay out of private business. On that note, if it's a company that is being bailed out by the government then something should be done. If you ask for the government's help to save your company, you should not be able to make a sky high amount of money. The step of asking for government help is taking the 'private' out of private business.
Phil, I am about 90% sure
Phil,
I am about 90% sure that the United States of America died with Reagan's Presidency. He said we were "last best hope" for the human condition and since then we have failed mankind. At this point I am hopeful for a turn around in 2010 and 2012 but I don't know how far up the rope, that is already hanging over the cliff, we can be pulled up.
If I knew what this nation would become, I would not have served.
Howard, no one
Howard,
no one
Peter,didn't tip toe around
Peter,didn't tip toe around
third world nations
If a company, like GM, takes
If a company, like GM, takes federal bail out money, then the feds get to set the rules, including salary for all. That includes the workers and management.
But if a company, like Ford, didn't take bail out money, then the feds have no business getting into salaries. If a stock holder does not like the compensation packages offered management, then they can sell the stock.
I do think the feds have a role in making sure publicly owned companies disclose that type of information in a understandable format in the annual statements.
The United States did not die
The United States did not die with Ronald McReagan, although he tried his very best to kill the middle class.
Reagan was a senile old man pretending to be a President. Corporate America and the Industrial Military complex ran the country under Reagan's guise, exactly the same way they did with George W Bush, another horrible failure and front man for the same group of crooks that Reagan carried water for. I don't have one drop of praise or respect for either man. In fact I am filled with rightous bitter animus towards them both. It's probably self rightous animus, I'll admit. But, I didn't like them then and I don't like them now, altough Reagan is a little better because he is already deceased and can do no further harm. Despite Republican's deepest wishes, the old befuddled idiot will not rise from the dead to rule again. Probama, Gobama, Yo'Mama! God I miss Jimmy Carter, now there was a man I could respect and I still do.
Yes, you're right, it died
Yes, you're right, it died with Reagan's election and his ascension to God-hood afterward. Most overrated President ever... and one of the worst. He did so much irreperable damage to this country it's funny that people hold him in such high regard. A disaster on every single front... the most criminal administration of all time... traded guns to Iranian terrorists that were holding our entire embassy staff hostage in Lebanon... used that money to fund terrorists in Nicaragua to try and overthrow a popular revolution... Gave chemical weapons and military know-how to one Saddam Hussein... allowed Manuel Noriega to plague our streets with drugs and guns... almost started World War 3 on several occassions by giving the hard-left in the USSR a reason to overthrow Gorbachev by stoking them, a man who was working his hardest to actually make peace with the US despite Reagan's best efforts otherwise... raised taxes more than any president in American history... revoked the Fairness Doctrine...
Took down the Soviet Union? Took down the Berlin Wall? Yeah, ok... Germany didn't want to re-unify itself and hadn't been trying for 20 years, Poland and Hungary falling had nothing to do with it either... him saying "tear down this wall" 3 years earlier pushed it over the edge, they just ignored him and waited til after he wasn't President and made a speech about how the Soviet Union would be around for a long time to come to act on his words... maybe in Bizarro World. And the Soviet Union fell in 91, so maybe if he was President in 1991 and personally led the coup d'etat that saw Gorbie get kidnapped; and then personally told Boris Yeltsen to stand in front of, and on top of, a tank coming to take Moscow in defiance of the coup - a move that made him so popular in Russia he was named President of the Soviet Union, a position created by Gorbachev to take power away from the CPSU to allow Glastnost and Parastroika to evolve.
There's some real revisionist history going on with Reagan... a man that was incredibly unpopular throughout his entire presidency... a man whose actual history totally contradicts everything said about him some 20 years after. He was a B-list actor playing the part of a President, with a script written by neo-fascists. Oh, I almost forgot... here's another big one - remember that little war in Afghanistan that the Soviet Union fought? Who was the guy that Reagan funded, trained, and provided weapons to in an organized effort to beat the USSR in that country... He was some type of Islamic spiritual leader, they were all called the Mujahadeen at the time, and funded by the Reagan Doctrine... I think the leader's name was Osama bin Laden. Now where have I heard that name before....??? hmmmmmmm....
Yeah... great president all right...
revoked the Fairness
revoked the Fairness Doctrine...
God I miss Jimmy Carter, now there was a man I could respect and I still do.
Yeah you both just proved to me how little you truly care about freedom and liberty
And you just proved to me how
And you just proved to me how little you know about history, the Fairness Doctrine and Jimmy Carter. I already knew you didn't know anything about Political Science... thanks for expanding.
Tony, you restore my faith in
Tony, you restore my faith in America and obviously you were an adult who lived through the horror that was Ronald Reagan. He gets credit for one thing and one thing only, homelessness in America. I hope he enjoys burning in hell, too bad it doesn't really exist. I wish it did, because he earned his place at the right hand of Satan. At least Obama acts like he has a soul, Reagan never even tried to pretend.
The government has already
The government has already taken control of some jobs by regulating the number of hours you can work. Pilot, truck driver, air traffic controller etc.... Yet doctors, police, etc.. can work as many hours as they please. The first set is restricted for public safety. The others don't have anything to do with public safety if they're over tired? The last change in truck driver hours restrictions cost me over $10,000 a year. Restrictions make some law abiding people in those positions start choosing to be criminals. Make it fair, restrict everyone to how many hours a week they work or restrict no one.
All good points "Comrade"
All good points "Comrade" Richardson. I find it interesting how history can have so many different interpretations.
The 17th annual executive
The 17th annual executive compensation survey looks at how CEOs laid off thousands while raking in millions. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2010
"American workers, by contrast, are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s. Back in those years, precious few top executives made over 30 times what their workers made. In 2009, we calculate in the 17th annual Executive Excess, CEOs of major U.S. corporations averaged 263 times the average compensation of American workers. CEOs are clearly not hurting."
Yet we hear more people vilifying the unemployed and the displaced for not having the gumption to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Or the blame is placed on the unions for negotiating living wages.
The trickle down theory is actually trickle up in reality. If it keeps going the United States will lose the middle class all together.
So what does that amount to
So what does that amount to though Lorie? Justification?
Who gets to decide the number? You? A Democrat? A Republican? A committee? Who?
As far as blaming unions for "living wages", that's a tired line. Most people blame unions for demanding benefits that are so far removed from reality. Pensions, guaranteed raises regardless of performance and "living wages" that in some areas (especially government) that are out pacing their private counterparts.
We're losing the middle class because we are taxing the middle class more and more to pay for all types of social programs. Programs mind you that have little to no controls in place to stop fraud. Instead of backing off we add more, create new regulations that cause companies to lose profits and yes lay off workers. So we create more programs to off set those.
Do CEOs make a lot? Yes. Is that any of your business? No, not if you're not a shareholder. The government (unless the company is on taxpayer dollars) doesn't have a right to tell me what is too much. Plain and Simple.
Why is it even about
Why is it even about politics, Phil? The question asked is "Should there be a cap on how much money CEOs can make?" Not should the government cap how much money CEOs make. Not should any arbitrary person on the streets cap how much money CEOs make. It's a rather simple question. Should there, or shouldn't there, be a cap in your personal opinion? For example, I believe there should be... and the controlling shareholders of any given company should sit down and identify within their corporate resolution how much, perhaps in % of revenue terms, a CEO of their company should make. If it's smart business to curtail costs at the low end, it is even smarter business to curtail it at the top. Think about how much CEOs make in a severance package alone in larger companies, can it even be considered healthy business to replace your CEO if replacing them means you are sending them packing with $100 million, then replacing them with someone equally compensated?
Read the thread Tony. It
Read the thread Tony. It became about politics straight away. I responded to that.
I personally feel that there should not be unless the individual company's shareholders and/or Board wish it to be so. If you don't have a stake in the company then no one, including the government should have a say. The only stipulation I will place on that is if the company is on taxpayer bailout, then fine.
I agree with Phil's last
I agree with Phil's last comment and would add that there should be no taxpayer bail-out companies. What a private company decides to do is private business and needs to stay that way.
Since this thread did go
Since this thread did go political, I'll add that the rich are definitely getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting it right where the sun don't shine. More regulation is not the answer, in fact it is more the problem. Huge multi-billion dollar corporations and the fat cats who run them hire teams of lawyers and accountants to maneuver them around regulation. The CEO's and the corporations themselves fund politicians who'll help put more rules in place to keep anyone without the resources (lawyers, accountants, pols in their pockets) out of competition. The answer is less regulation, more competition, less corporate welfare and cleaning out the campaign finance cesspool. These big-time CEOs make huge amounts of money because THEY CAN.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/elite-getting-richer.html