Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
More CEO Excessive pay
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 293135" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>ezmoney,</p><p> </p><p>The real danger of having the gov't set wage/salary values by points to a certain class of worker, in this cases high dollar CEO's, is dangerous. Why? OK, if a little bit is good a whole lot more is better or in other words, CEO's have gov't approved salary structure so now it's time for the trickle down effect and for gov't to regulate the rest of us. You're thinking the good gov't overseerer will side with you and take some of that excess monies and filter it down our way and yes that could happen. But who owns the lobbyist and pays the big bucks in campaign contributions? Who in the end is likely to get screwed and have their pay regulated down while the "better half" may not see the actual salary go up but rather a change in tax law granting such perks at tax exempt stock options of other means come into play.</p><p> </p><p>The 401k (actual IRS code section) that came into play in the 1978' (during a democrat WH and Congress I might add) was a tax means intended to allow a high paid executive a means of non-taxed salary deferrment to a future date. What this in effect did was allow a high paid executive defer into the future some portion of his pay in order to reduce himself/herself to a lower tax bracket or in other words, a tax shelter. The idea being in later years when he/she withdrew that money, they would no longer be making that high salary and again qualify for a lower tax rate. It was a tax shelter or tax dodge if you want to look at it that way. Of course, the 401k came to be a tool of the common man now as it also helps to reduce our tax bill while building a retirement savings. The point being, regulate away but they will find a way around and we might find ourselves with a reduced pay and those very CEO's you want to slam down may in fact reap an even higher reward in the way of stock vlaues or dividend checks and even those in the right situation can be deferred as it pertains to taxes.</p><p> </p><p>As for the CEO windfall as he parachuted out? Well contracts are written that list what we call cardinal sins and they call terms of the contract. Violate those terms and the contract is void and you would think not making money and making decisions that bankrupt a company would be in there but that is not true. A CEO is smart enough to know that market forces and even gov't public policy can radically alter the landscape so he/she would never sign to something they have little control over. Unless a specific term is identified as a violation, then any early contract termination by either party has certain specifics as to a buyout clause. End your cellphone contract early and you may have to pay an exit fee, or your cable or whatever. A football team owner decides the team record of 1-12 requires a new direction so the coach is released (fired) but no terms were violated so the coach still gets his pay. How many times have you heard this one and scratched your head? Me too! Countrywide, as goofy as it is, violated no terms of the contract so he still get the pay. Bob Nardelli of ex-Home Depot CEO fame got a $50mil parachute out of his job and all but about killing that company. You might say, they just have a better union at the contract tables that we do! </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>As for there being no gov't regulation and thus all this is the result? Seems like a convient way to look at it and a bit lazy and hey, I'm all about lazy too where I can but if you look across time and the actual gov't record, regulatory law and legislation passed over the years, you'll see real quickly this is not the case. We've not been in a free market for decades and in some respects I'd argue back to the early 1800's. Why then for pete's sake? Because the first rule of a free market is the moral acknowledgment of property rights and the acceptance of what was local custom to identify who owned that property to begin with. My point? The American Indians of that day as our genetic makeup of empire from our European roots overcame our baptism and birth into Individual rights of the Declaration of Independence and we crossed the first line to liberty and that is property rights. </p><p> </p><p>The old precept of the "sins of the father are visited upon the sons for 7 gnerations" and how true that truism has turned out to be in out case. It's called blowback by others.</p><p> </p><p>Nice little piece on the free market from a Catholic website:</p><p><a href="http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2111&Itemid=48" target="_blank">http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2111&Itemid=48</a></p><p> </p><p>I have nothing to do with organized religion so the link to a Catholic website is not an endorsement of Catholism nor do I offer any condemnation of those who are Catholic, Baptist or whatever. Knock ya'self out but I just found appreciated and the article none the less.</p><p> </p><p>Take care!</p><p> </p><p>BTW: You want to sign a "bust the union" card. My law firm will represent you for free!</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">"you know if I work this right I might can sell him beach front property in Kansas by the weekend too!"</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">As my hero Bugs Bunny would say, "Ain't I a stinker!"</span></p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 293135, member: 2189"] ezmoney, The real danger of having the gov't set wage/salary values by points to a certain class of worker, in this cases high dollar CEO's, is dangerous. Why? OK, if a little bit is good a whole lot more is better or in other words, CEO's have gov't approved salary structure so now it's time for the trickle down effect and for gov't to regulate the rest of us. You're thinking the good gov't overseerer will side with you and take some of that excess monies and filter it down our way and yes that could happen. But who owns the lobbyist and pays the big bucks in campaign contributions? Who in the end is likely to get screwed and have their pay regulated down while the "better half" may not see the actual salary go up but rather a change in tax law granting such perks at tax exempt stock options of other means come into play. The 401k (actual IRS code section) that came into play in the 1978' (during a democrat WH and Congress I might add) was a tax means intended to allow a high paid executive a means of non-taxed salary deferrment to a future date. What this in effect did was allow a high paid executive defer into the future some portion of his pay in order to reduce himself/herself to a lower tax bracket or in other words, a tax shelter. The idea being in later years when he/she withdrew that money, they would no longer be making that high salary and again qualify for a lower tax rate. It was a tax shelter or tax dodge if you want to look at it that way. Of course, the 401k came to be a tool of the common man now as it also helps to reduce our tax bill while building a retirement savings. The point being, regulate away but they will find a way around and we might find ourselves with a reduced pay and those very CEO's you want to slam down may in fact reap an even higher reward in the way of stock vlaues or dividend checks and even those in the right situation can be deferred as it pertains to taxes. As for the CEO windfall as he parachuted out? Well contracts are written that list what we call cardinal sins and they call terms of the contract. Violate those terms and the contract is void and you would think not making money and making decisions that bankrupt a company would be in there but that is not true. A CEO is smart enough to know that market forces and even gov't public policy can radically alter the landscape so he/she would never sign to something they have little control over. Unless a specific term is identified as a violation, then any early contract termination by either party has certain specifics as to a buyout clause. End your cellphone contract early and you may have to pay an exit fee, or your cable or whatever. A football team owner decides the team record of 1-12 requires a new direction so the coach is released (fired) but no terms were violated so the coach still gets his pay. How many times have you heard this one and scratched your head? Me too! Countrywide, as goofy as it is, violated no terms of the contract so he still get the pay. Bob Nardelli of ex-Home Depot CEO fame got a $50mil parachute out of his job and all but about killing that company. You might say, they just have a better union at the contract tables that we do! :happy-very: As for there being no gov't regulation and thus all this is the result? Seems like a convient way to look at it and a bit lazy and hey, I'm all about lazy too where I can but if you look across time and the actual gov't record, regulatory law and legislation passed over the years, you'll see real quickly this is not the case. We've not been in a free market for decades and in some respects I'd argue back to the early 1800's. Why then for pete's sake? Because the first rule of a free market is the moral acknowledgment of property rights and the acceptance of what was local custom to identify who owned that property to begin with. My point? The American Indians of that day as our genetic makeup of empire from our European roots overcame our baptism and birth into Individual rights of the Declaration of Independence and we crossed the first line to liberty and that is property rights. The old precept of the "sins of the father are visited upon the sons for 7 gnerations" and how true that truism has turned out to be in out case. It's called blowback by others. Nice little piece on the free market from a Catholic website: [URL]http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2111&Itemid=48[/URL] I have nothing to do with organized religion so the link to a Catholic website is not an endorsement of Catholism nor do I offer any condemnation of those who are Catholic, Baptist or whatever. Knock ya'self out but I just found appreciated and the article none the less. Take care! BTW: You want to sign a "bust the union" card. My law firm will represent you for free! [SIZE=1]"you know if I work this right I might can sell him beach front property in Kansas by the weekend too!"[/SIZE] [SIZE=1]As my hero Bugs Bunny would say, "Ain't I a stinker!"[/SIZE] :happy-very: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
More CEO Excessive pay
Top