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.
CEO salaries and pay are usually set by the Board of Directors, not the CEO. These are legal, contractual agreements with stipulations, conditions, etc... The situation is more complex than you make it out to be.
That is part of the problem, the Board of Directors amount to little more than a rubber stamp for exorbitant salaries and parachutes, very difficult for stockholders to have an impact and make a change. Large pension funds can make a difference as was the case with CalPers taking issue with the CEO compensation at Citibank of $15M in spite of poor performance.
The CEO of Wels Fargo whose massive bank appropriated customers' information to create millions of bogus accounts responded to questions at a senate hearing by saying he lacked the appropriate expertise.
There you go folks. Many CEOs are nothing but crooks in white shirts ripping off their employees with low wages and ripping off the shareholders of their company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Companies constantly cut back on employee benefits and operating costs. Meanwhile, CEO salaries go through the roof. It is as if the CEOs are using the company to only enrich themselves. There has been a long history of companies going down while the CEO bails (retires) with a multi-million dollar golden parachute.
the CEO of a company is the top manager, not a lawyer, not an accountant, he is a manager. his responsibility is the bottom line for the company, how much money did the company make last week/month/quarter/year? his responsibility also extends to how the company is managed and the way the company does business ultimately. he might suggest that the company needs to increase the number of accounts, but he then lets others do their jobs, and it is the others that caused the problems, and they likely kept it from the CEO.
so before you start bashing CEOs, you first need to learn a lot of things from how their contracts are structured, who sets the contract terms, the requirements for the CEO position in various companies, the responsibilities of the CEO in each company, etc. in other words you need to learn a lot about business and how it operates before making erroneous, and libelous, blanket statements like you have.
That is part of the problem, the Board of Directors amount to little more than a rubber stamp for exorbitant salaries and parachutes, very difficult for stockholders to have an impact and make a change. Large pension funds can make a difference as was the case with CalPers taking issue with the CEO compensation at Citibank of $15M in spite of poor performance.
CEO's set the rules for setting their "compensation". How convenient for them but not as much for us.
One of the things we could do is consider "bonuses" and similar to be "extraordinary income" and tax it at 99+%. Then that income would probably go to dividends or reinvestment instead of making their thievery even more profitable.
CEO's set the rules for setting their "compensation". How convenient for them but not as much for us.
One of the things we could do is consider "bonuses" and similar to be "extraordinary income" and tax it at 99+%. Then that income would probably go to dividends or reinvestment instead of making their thievery even more profitable.
they dont set the rules for ANYTHING regarding their compensation, that is done by the board of directors.
It is really convenient that executives of one company sit on the boards of several other companies and these cross fertilized boards make similar rules about executive compensation. It is really difficult to accept that our business system is inherently corrupt and compensates the executives before the stockholders. These executives are not stupid but are completely amoral. The Donald is one of the more flamboyant examples.
It is really convenient that executives of one company sit on the boards of several other companies and these cross fertilized boards make similar rules about executive compensation. It is really difficult to accept that our business system is inherently corrupt and compensates the executives before the stockholders. These executives are not stupid but are completely amoral. The Donald is one of the more flamboyant examples.
you have never worked two or three jobs? even at competing companies?
It is really convenient that executives of one company sit on the boards of several other companies and these cross fertilized boards make similar rules about executive compensation. It is really difficult to accept that our business system is inherently corrupt and compensates the executives before the stockholders. These executives are not stupid but are completely amoral. The Donald is one of the more flamboyant examples.
I know that Trump is the convenient boogie man because of the elections, but its a horriby flawed example in this case, and I'm not a Trump supporter. Trump started his business with his own money. A family business is just that, a tiny minority of the major Fortune 500 company CEOs are the founders of their companies.
One of the things we could do is consider "bonuses" and similar to be "extraordinary income" and tax it at 99+%.
It wouldn't be very extraordinary, nor would it be much of an incentive, if the government got to take 99% of it and the person being bonused got 1/100th of it. Why should the largest enterprise in the world get to funnel even more into its gaping maw?
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.