CEO pay...a tax on all of us?

[GBU56]

Just published in the Wall Street Journal. Interesting reading.

The more a company pays its Chief Executive Officer, the bigger the tax break it gets.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... primary_hs

[Night Strike]

Sounds like even more of a reason for the Flat Tax or Fair Tax.

[natty dread]

Flat tax = rich people get richer, poor people get fucked in the asshole.

Par for the course for NS of course.

[pimpdave]

NS isn't even rich. And I'm sure he's not on the management track at Monsanto.

[john9blue]

Just published in the Wall Street Journal. Interesting reading.

The more a company pays its Chief Executive Officer, the bigger the tax break it gets.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... primary_hs

sounds like the federal government screwed something up yet again...

[thegreekdog]

Just published in the Wall Street Journal. Interesting reading.

The more a company pays its Chief Executive Officer, the bigger the tax break it gets.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... primary_hs

This is not really new information, nor is it representative of a Republican tax plan. In a prior thread I posted the top 10 highest paid CEOs along with their relevant campaign contributions; there were an even number of Democrats and Republicans on that list. BBS has a potentially great thread dealing with crony capitalism.

[tzor]

Yes, there are current tax structures that result in not only corporate policies that "unfairly" inflate the income of CEOs but also hurt the corporations in the long term. There are "corporate lobbyists" who are really lobbying more for the corporate CEO than the corporation. But neither Republican nor Democratic plans are strongly pushing to tackle those issue. Democrats generally define a millionare as one making $250K or above and most CEOs that are abusing these rules are making far more than this.

The question, however, is how do you handle a CEO that runs a company to the ground, while making millions to someone like Tiger Woods who goes out and plays touraments in order to maintain a reputation that will continue to attract endorsements (which in turn bring in a lot of revenue for professional golf, clothing manufacturers and the sports entertainment industry)? Note one of the things the article complains about is the fact that the similiar tax deferral system of the common man (the 401K, which, iconically isn't available to everyone) is severaly capped while the CEO system is not.

Most conservative notions are a good starting point to address this fundamental issue. True conservatives are only a small fraction of the Republican Party. There may be a reason for that.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, there are current tax structures that result in not only corporate policies that "unfairly" inflate the income of CEOs but also hurt the corporations in the long term. There are "corporate lobbyists" who are really lobbying more for the corporate CEO than the corporation. But neither Republican nor Democratic plans are strongly pushing to tackle those issue. Democrats generally define a millionare as one making $250K or above and most CEOs that are abusing these rules are making far more than this.

The question, however, is how do you handle a CEO that runs a company to the ground, while making millions to someone like Tiger Woods who goes out and plays touraments in order to maintain a reputation that will continue to attract endorsements (which in turn bring in a lot of revenue for professional golf, clothing manufacturers and the sports entertainment industry)? Note one of the things the article complains about is the fact that the similiar tax deferral system of the common man (the 401K, which, iconically isn't available to everyone) is severaly capped while the CEO system is not.

Most conservative notions are a good starting point to address this fundamental issue. True conservatives are only a small fraction of the Republican Party. There may be a reason for that.

I admittedly do not understand or presume to understand why corporations pay their officers such high salaries and give such ridiculous benefits. I think it's corrupt to say the least. I know there is a market and that's what sets the dollars, but it still bothers me. The tax implications and deferral mechanisms are worse and more easily fixable if we had people in government who had any impetus to do it, but we don't have those people.

[GutTruck]

It used to be in Japan(I don't know if it still is)customary that the CEO pay is strictly tied to the performance of the company. If the company is performing poorly the CEO pay goes down. If it is performing well the opposite. Performance based pay is only fair as that is how most hourly employees are rewarded with pay increases(other than unions). If I perform well through the year my pay increase will reflect it. If I perform poorly I will either not have a job or will not get an increase in pay or a demotion. Why should CEO's not be bound by the same structure? Why should my CEO send a memo that the balance sheets need to grow and everyone needs to sacrifice for the good of the company and then take a 10 million bonus? If we keep rewarding CEO's for poor performance what is the incentive to perform any better?

[Army of GOD]

Just published in the Wall Street Journal. Interesting reading.

The more a company pays its Chief Executive Officer, the bigger the tax break it gets.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... primary_hs

This is not really new information, nor is it representative of a Republican tax plan. In a prior thread I posted the top 10 highest paid CEOs along with their relevant campaign contributions; there were an even number of Democrats and Republicans on that list. BBS has a potentially great thread dealing with crony capitalism.

funnily enough, I linked a friend of mine who thought only Republicans served top paid CEOs your post just a few days ago. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=171832&start=15#p3755698


In the website you used, did they give dollar amounts? That would be interesting.

[thegreekdog]

Yes the FEC gives dollar amounts; they are generally smallish (in rich people terms).