Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The money would be better spent paying dividends or outstanding loans. 1.7 million equals almost $4,700 per normal work day. $700 should be adequate. These outlandish salaries should be trimmed with a progressive income tax. That way even the small stockholders would benefit.
A progressive income tax (which we have) won't help. It will just increase the compensation as companies pay more because more goes to taxes.
Let me understand this: you think it's scandalous that this guy is earning 9 million a year? For the CEO of one of the largest corporations on earth, that's peanuts. At 9 million he's probably one of the lowest-paid Fortune 100 CEOs.
The money would be better spent paying dividends or outstanding loans. 1.7 million equals almost $4,700 per normal work day. $700 should be adequate. These outlandish salaries should be trimmed with a progressive income tax. That way even the small stockholders would benefit.
That is a very populist view. However, I think it is a little shortsighted. Let's take GM, as just an example, since it is now owned by the American People. We all are the stockholders and we want someone that can turn that company around and try to get it back towards a strong economic engine, which in turn will drive many other side industries, and municipalities (been to Detroit lately?). We certainly do not want the company to fail after all we have invested a lot in it. To do that the company will need as its helm, the best and the brightest, so to speak. We bring this person in and he is doing a bang-up job, things are turning around. I would think that the last thing we would want to do is to cut the salary like you are suggesting. But the populist says, "After all we bailed out this company, so we're going to pay the CEO the same as the guy slapping on bumper bolts, after all it's fair, and that rich CEO doesn't need it anyway." I am sure large cap companies would see what this person was doing for GM (assuming, like I said he is turning it around) and make him offers that would make your prescribed cut look like peanuts. The new CEO doesn't have to work for GM, even though the stock options are an incentive to stay; he would just take another offer. There is a demand for "the best and the brightest." A lot of other companies want to turn around, as well, and will pay dearly for it, with probably their own stock options. And you are left with a company with dividends on shares that have just plummeted. Big whoop. As a shareholder, forget the dividends; get the value of the shares up. The dividends will be in the form of a growing economy. Now we have a company with a gov't imposed salary cap, especially at what you’re suggesting, whom do you think we are going to get to run this company? Eventually it may get to the guy putting on the bumper bolts. Now he may be the best and the brightest at attaching bumpers, but probably not in running a huge company.
These B&TB are a commodity, just like the sports players, and the free market will determine their worth.
Let me understand this: you think it's scandalous that this guy is earning 9 million a year? For the CEO of one of the largest corporations on earth, that's peanuts. At 9 million he's probably one of the lowest-paid Fortune 100 CEOs.
Yeah, this is a guy pushed into the board position by the government with no special qualifications to actually run this company. This is a dysfunctional corporation that was bailed out and still loses money.
Meanwhile President Obama moved to rein in the pay of executives whose companies get taxpayer bailout money -- putting a $500,000 cap on annual compensation.
I see this is nothing more than the connected people taking care of the connected people.
Yeah, this is a guy pushed into the board position by the government with no special qualifications to actually run this company. This is a dysfunctional corporation that was bailed out and still loses money.
Meanwhile President Obama moved to rein in the pay of executives whose companies get taxpayer bailout money -- putting a $500,000 cap on annual compensation.
I see this is nothing more than the connected people taking care of the connected people.
Well, in that case. I guess we started with the bumper bolt guy. Not that there is anything wrong with them If I was a CEO of one of those companies that got bailed out and had a salary cap imposed, I would be looking someplace else, but then again, it probably doesn't look good on a resume.
Yeah, this is a guy pushed into the board position by the government with no special qualifications to actually run this company. This is a dysfunctional corporation that was bailed out and still loses money.
Meanwhile President Obama moved to rein in the pay of executives whose companies get taxpayer bailout money -- putting a $500,000 cap on annual compensation.
I see this is nothing more than the connected people taking care of the connected people.
So he's been in the job less than a year and he hasn't turned GM around yet. What do you expect? They have been screwed up for decades and it can't be fixed overnight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I was a CEO of one of those companies that got bailed out and had a salary cap imposed, I would be looking someplace else, but then again, it probably doesn't look good on a resume.
