Executive wage limits may be extended to all US companies

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
So, CEO's of multi billion dollar companies can't make as much as Pro Football players. Yep, makes perfect sense.

If they do this then they better include athletes and hollywood. They make far more than most executives. But we all know that won't happen as hollywood and most athletes are in the back pocket of the Dems.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: her209
Title needs to be corrected. Should read:

Executive wage limits may be extended to all US companies that take bailout money

This.

It is not socialism. It is placing rules and regulations on how these people spend our tax dollars in order to ensure that we are not paying for their vacations and luxuries.


Why is this a problem for anyone? The same people whining about it in this thread are the same people who were the most enraged when many execs in many banks were abusing their bailout funds. We cried. They listened. Now we are seeing regs. This is a GOOD thing.

 

[dmw16]

Salary caps on all CEOs, not gonna happen. All these people beating the fear drum.

The media's coverage ticks me off more and more. Trying to terrify people.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Just think of how much this will save all those poor rich people on their taxes.

I guess one could say that every cloud has it's silver lining.

That is what I was thinking. Just like a tax on the rich, only different.

The transition back to a "trickle up" economy isn't going to be pretty or easy.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I back it for those who receive bail out money but those who don't, well the Government has no business dictating how much their CEO's should make.

For ALL employees who benefit from it? Why limit it to CEO's? Why not the IT guy who is making 80k a year who would have otherwise lost his job if not for the bailout? Maybe cap his salary at 40k?

 

[BoomerD]

If the companies and CEO's don't want to agree to this, they should feel free to refuse the bailout funds, and/or return any bailout funds they've already received. (please include ursury-rate interest since your credit rating will probably go into the crapper...that's a tactic they use on their customers)

 

[idiotekniQues]

I guess Nixon was the greatest Socialist president of recent history then

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I back it for those who receive bail out money but those who don't, well the Government has no business dictating how much their CEO's should make.

For ALL employees who benefit from it? Why limit it to CEO's? Why not the IT guy who is making 80k a year who would have otherwise lost his job if not for the bailout? Maybe cap his salary at 40k?

Because IT guys actually have to WORK for a living?

Besides, it is a matter of scale. The vast majority of workers at these places make nowhere near what the CEOs and board members make. Complaining about an $80k IT manager is small potatoes compared to these other guys that drove the company into the ground, putting everyone else's jobs (and the whole economy) in jeopardy.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I back it for those who receive bail out money but those who don't, well the Government has no business dictating how much their CEO's should make.

For ALL employees who benefit from it? Why limit it to CEO's? Why not the IT guy who is making 80k a year who would have otherwise lost his job if not for the bailout? Maybe cap his salary at 40k?

Because IT guys actually have to WORK for a living?

Besides, it is a matter of scale. The vast majority of workers at these places make nowhere near what the CEOs and board members make. Complaining about an $80k IT manager is small potatoes compared to these other guys that drove the company into the ground, putting everyone else's jobs (and the whole economy) in jeopardy.

ROFLMFAO!

You mean like posting in these forums much of the paid work day?

 

[SAWYER]

Yeah really, the tech crowd is the laziest around.

 

[theeedude]

What we need are much more progressive tax rates. Then this will be a moot point.

 

[MovingTarget]

Here's another idea.....an oldie but a goodie....

I'm the chief executive of a publicly traded company and, like my peers, I'm very highly paid. The difference between salaries like mine and those of average Americans creates a lot of tension, and I'd like to offer a suggestion:

President Obama should celebrate our success, rather than trying to shame us or cap our pay. But he should also take half of our huge earnings in taxes, instead of the current one-third.

Then, the next time a chief executive earns an eye-popping amount of money, we can cheer that half of it is going to pay for our soldiers, schools, and security. Higher taxes on huge pay days can finance opportunity for the next generation of Americans.

On the compensation cap as proposed by Obama:

It's a terrible idea. We all want the taxpayers' money returned, and capping compensation (for) bailout recipients will just make it that much harder for those boards to hire and hold on to the executives who can lead their companies to compete and thrive.

Perhaps a starting place for "tax, not shame" would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn, but I don't see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job, anyway.

- Reed Hastings, CEO of NetFlix


From the article's author:

That last clause is beyond contestation. The thrill of being the boss is a huge motivation. The gluttons being outed on Wall Street are a class unto themselves.

Silicon Valley marches to a different beat. You'll find the occasional carpetbaggers--during the dot-com bubble, they were all over the place--but most hung out a shingle in order to create something new and exciting.

Don't get me wrong. Many of these folks take home enormous compensation packages. But we're talking about real bonuses in return for real performance. I think that Obama's jumping mad because the financial fat cats were taking home real bonuses for fictional profits. There's a big difference.

I could get behind this. It would, of course, spell the death of the legacy of "Reaganomics" and provide a more just/equitable solution than simply capping pay, because it does reward good performance.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I back it for those who receive bail out money but those who don't, well the Government has no business dictating how much their CEO's should make.

For ALL employees who benefit from it? Why limit it to CEO's? Why not the IT guy who is making 80k a year who would have otherwise lost his job if not for the bailout? Maybe cap his salary at 40k?

Because IT guys actually have to WORK for a living?

Besides, it is a matter of scale. The vast majority of workers at these places make nowhere near what the CEOs and board members make. Complaining about an $80k IT manager is small potatoes compared to these other guys that drove the company into the ground, putting everyone else's jobs (and the whole economy) in jeopardy.

ROFLMFAO!

You mean like posting in these forums much of the paid work day?

Meh, I'm out of IT altogether now. However, when I was still in it, nobody in the IT department would dare get caught neffing at work. We had everything locked down for the other employees, but we ourselves could vpn to our own networks at home if we wished. Nobody did so for fear of losing their jobs...

However, some people/companies...this is perfectly acceptable as you do have some downtime. We however, did not... I will say this though, comparing the average board member vs. the average IT staff member, even the neffers in the latter group actually did more work on a bad day!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: her209
Title needs to be corrected. Should read:

Executive wage limits may be extended to all US companies that take bailout money

His title looks just fine too me. See the below quotes lifted from the OP. I see 'all US companies" several times.

I don't see anything about this being limited to companies that do business with the federal government either.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include ALL U.S. companies.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last month that he might try to extend to ALL U.S. companies a restriction that prohibits bailout banks from taking a tax deduction of more than $500,000 in pay for each executive.

Mr. Geithner said he would consider ?extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally.?

Fern

 

[TechHead87]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
It is all stuff that can be reversed when the GOP regains power. The pendulum will never stop swinging.

This is not true. The people that vote democrat are producing (babies) faster than the people that vote Republican. Further, when the baby boomers die, it won't even be close.

Don't forget it is only a matter of time before the Dems give Amnesty to 20-40 million illegal?s most of home will become democrats.

By the time Obama leaves office the US will likely be a one party nation and that by no stretch of the imagination will be a good thing.

You do realize that in the next 40 to 50 years, we will also be a part of a 'one-world government', don't you?

May as well KNOW that the bomb is coming.....

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Is Barnery Frank the biggest idiot in Congress, or is he only trying to be?

I applaud the map for telling us the truth behind their agenda. The others who side beside him don't have the balls to say it like it is.

 

[noni]

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last month that he might try to extend to ALL U.S. companies a restriction that prohibits bailout banks from taking a tax deduction of more than $500,000 in pay for each executive.

Sorry about going off topic but this made me cringe after I realized what I was reading.
I refused to accept the truth in that quote thinking maybe it was a typo.

I'm not talking about the proposed idea by Geithner to extend that restriction to all companies.
I'm saying I was a little bit shocked to see there was a law in place for claiming a tax deduction
for top 5 executives' compensation over 1,000,000.

Then, after reading that companies were able to deduct all compensation until Clinton changed it,
really made me scratch my head.

I know companies want to compensate their executives for meeting performance goals and also to attract better executives,
but, I'm sorry, the fed's attempt at regulating CEO total compensation that started during Clinton's presidency and the revived
push today is just ridiculous.

First of all, the way they refer to it (tax deduction) made it totally confusing for me thinking they'll somehow
have a lower tax liability after using that deduction After hours of reading rofl I realized that
the tax deduction is in fact a compensation limit and if you read my first reaction above you'll see how confused I was lol.

First, everywhere I've looked the proposed 500,000 limit is referred to as a tax deduction, it needs to be called ceo pay limit or something similar because
that's what it is. Any compensation paid to the CEO is salary expense and falls under general business expense from what I gathered so it'll always
be friggin deductible. Grrrr I'm either alone in this or am I missing something?

To return back to the topic, nowthat I learned that Clinton's cap on executives' pay had the opposite effect,
I can only be very sceptical about this new proposal and think that a similar law is doomed for failure, because you can't limit
how much the board is paying them, but you can make a new law that gives the shareholders power to decide what compensation package
is appropriate.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Nothing like trying to ruin your country like imposing wage limits on skilled manpower. The Democrats jealousy of free markets is going to be shining through in the next few months I bet. Its going to be interesting to see if this passes.

You make it sound as though our nation's economy is thriving and doing real well with the current system of unlimited CEO compensation. Even CEOs who have run their companies into the ground and cost their shareholders money have made out like bandits.

To hear some people tell it, these CEOs are like NFL quarterback superstars and they're completely irreplaceable. Perhaps the very best ones are, but the vast majority are probably pretty replaceable with MBAs and JDs who'd gladly do their jobs for a piddly $1 million or $500,000/year.