Obamas Executive Pay Caps

Real question:

Who really is worth any money and doesn't have a bloated ego and misaligned priorities?


*Snicker*


To respond to your question, no, I haven't because any job that I held where I didn't give a shit "Delivering pizzas, retail". I was paid the minimum.

And when I actually cared, I did well enough of a job to be reimbursed for my efforts.
 
So... if all the managers quit their jobs because they don't get paid enough, that means a lot of unemployed former top earners and a lot of job vacancies in the high wage positions to be filled by former mid wage employees, right?

It's win-win. The truth is most managers don't appreciate their jobs much and get paid way too much anyway. If they leave, it's their own damn problem.
 
Ashmo said:
It's win-win. The truth is most managers don't appreciate their jobs much and get paid way too much anyway. If they leave, it's their own damn problem.
Click to expand...

Except that, places like New York City rely on the tax income from those executives for substantial portions of thier budget. There's a reason that NYC is having to shut down subway lines and cut services.

I understand the logic, that if they're getting taxpayer money they shouldn't be able to just pocket it themselves. However, I don't think they should be getting any taxpayer money (or debt, since we're just borrowing it all) in the first place. And now that the government owns, what, 6% of some of these companies, they get to dictate to them as to what they can do? This is ridiculous. I hope most of the banks eventually just give the Government the finger and dump the bailout money. That's not going to happen for all of them, but I hope some do. We have to stop this insanity.
 
LogisticEarth said:
Except that, places like New York City rely on the tax income from those executives for substantial portions of their budget.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I highly doubt that the rich are part of a "substantial" part of a city's budget. Unless you can back that up with actual figures, I would be hesitant to believe it.

The majority of taxes comes from the middle class since there are more people in the middle class, than the top 1% who are way beyond that.
 
Sicblades said:
Are you serious? I highly doubt that the rich are part of a "substantial" part of a city's budget. Unless you can back that up with actual figures, I would be hesitant to believe it.
Click to expand...

Here's a quick and dirty example:
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D960QHQ80

They really are. The upper level tax brackets pay a much higher percentage than lower ones. It's not the majority of taxes, but it certainly is substantial. If, for example: You have a large firm with 100 executives. They get paid $2 million a year in salary, which is $200 million dollars. Then they get an $8 million bonus, which is $800 million dollars. A total of $1 billion in executive compensation. An outrage, right?

BUT

Lets say we tax that at about 50%, between federal taxes, state taxes, local city taxes, and miscellaneous stuff. That means that thier salaries bring in $100 million in tax revenue, and the "evil bonuses" bring in $400 million. Eliminating bonsues and limiting thier salaries to $500 thousand will cut out most of that tax income. Look at this:

"Evil" Bonus culture for 100 executives:
Salary @ 2 Million/year = $100 million in tax revenue
Bonus @ 8 Million/year = $400 million in tax revenue
Total tax revenue (at 50% tax rate): $500 million

"Good" Restricted compensation for 100 executives:
Salary @ $500 thousand/year = $25 Million in tax revenue
Bonus @ $0/year = $0 in tax revenue
Total tax revenue (at 50% tax rate): $25 million

So you lose $475 million in income taxes. For one firm, giving out a billion dollars. That's a 95% drop in tax revenue for that income bracket. This is of course simplified, but it gives you an idea. $475 million is a drop in the bucket for the Federal government but for a city, even if they only get 10% of that, it can add up and eventually be crippling.
 
You can't "lose" money you never had in the first place. I'm certain that NYC didn't make their budget based on bonuses for executives, that would be just downright stupid. Then again, I wouldn't be all that surprised if they did.

Sure, your example works well, but how many "executives" are there per low-middle income people? I don't know how your taxes work in the US, but I seriously, seriously doubt that you rely on the rich to balance budgets.
 
Logistic, your logic is incredibly flawed. These companies where the taxes are going to the government, are now paying these executives $9.5 million less each by your logic. So from your grand totals, they're paying $950 million less to executives, so the government is not able to tax that money. However, what do you think these companies are doing with that money? They're not just burning it. That money is now used for other purposes and so is being given to OTHER people who will then be taxed for it.

Because of the percentages, it will be taxed less, but it will be taxed more than 0%
 
SimpleMinded said:
However, what do you think these companies are doing with that money? They're not just burning it. That money is now used for other purposes and so is being given to OTHER people who will then be taxed for it.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point here. Certain states and cities have structured thier tax revenues around these fairly consistantly large bonuses. It's all based around the income taxes. I can tell you one thing these companies aren't going to do with the leftover bonus money: Give raises to the rest of thier workers. That's not going to happen, so it's not going to go into income taxes. Even if it did, it would be widely dispersed, and you'd still end up with severe shortfalls in the regions that depend on that income.

My point isn't that these executives deserve that money, my point is that dictating what they should get with the wave of a hand is going to have drastic consequences, it's certainly not a win-win situation. It's why planned economies don't work. If you read the article that I posted, you'll see certain states and cities were already hurting before the federal government got involved. This will exacerbate that problem.

My objection to this is, basically, it's a totalitarian decision made on morale grounds rather than rational grounds. Or if it's "rational", it's based on flawed and simplistic logic, and not going to fix anything.
 
It'll be interesting to see what comes out without enough hush money going around.

Logistic - the taxes the states are "losing" is federal money given to the company, why not cut out the ~70% going to the asshole executive and just give it directly to the state? Which is what's going to happen anyway.
 
yes, i probably get paid too little for the work i do. most people are in the same situation though, i think.

but for now i'm happy enough with what i've got, and that's what matters, i think.
Ashmo said:
So... if all the managers quit their jobs because they don't get paid enough, that means a lot of unemployed former top earners and a lot of job vacancies in the high wage positions to be filled by former mid wage employees, right?
Click to expand...
while i agree in theory, in practise that's a problem.

there's such a thing sadly as being promoted past your abilities.

it's not because you're a great programmer that you'd make a good IT manager for instance. sadly, a lot of companies don't seem to grasp that.
 
TyloniusFunk said:
Logistic - the taxes the states are "losing" is federal money given to the company, why not cut out the ~70% going to the asshole executive and just give it directly to the state? Which is what's going to happen anyway.
Click to expand...

It's not entirely federal money though. These companies are not 100% funded by the government, nor are they owned by it...yet. If we cut out the executives, why not just cut out the whole company altogether? I think this is just a huge overstep of government authority. The whole mess is entirely unconstitutional, and I hope it all fails.
 
When I looked at this thread title, I thought that an associate of Obama's paid for sth in bottle caps, which would be pretty cool.

Other than that, total meh.
 
TyloniusFunk said:
LogisticEarth said:
The whole mess is entirely unconstitutional, and I hope it all fails.
Click to expand...

U.S. Constitution

Ok. Where?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Where? Go read Article I, Section 8 on the powers enumerated to Congress. Go read Article II, Section 2 on the powers of the President.

Nowhere does it give them the authority to buy stock in public banks, nowhere does it give them power to bail out failing buisnesses, nowhere does it give them power to dictate salaries or bonuses.

They're exceeding thier power by leaps and bounds here.
 
I.8. "To coin money, regulate the value thereof"

...and the banks requested a bailout, thereby granting the government whatever authorities are granted to majority shareholders in addition to whatever stipulations the government demands.

By your argument, Federal Minimum Wage should be unconstitutional.
 
TyloniusFunk said:
I.8. "To coin money, regulate the value thereof"
Click to expand...

Hoo boy that's a stretch. Congress has the power to coin money and determine currency value, not use that currency to buy up private assests. You're also ignoring the fact that it was the President and not Congress that implemented the restrictions. Even futher, it's NOT Congress doling out the money. It's the Federal Reserve and Treasury. The latter is part of the EXECUTIVE branch, and the former isn't even technically part of the government, but a quasi-private group of bankers. Are you really telling me you can infer all that from the power to "coin money and regulate it's value"?

...and the banks requested a bailout, thereby granting the government whatever authorities are granted to majority shareholders.
Click to expand...

Except they don't have a majority of the shares yet. The only ones they nationalized so far have been Fannie and Freddie Mac, which were create as government monopolies to begin with, and AIG. Last I checked, Bank of America, which was the worst off, was only 6% owned by the government. It's not "if we have controlling shares", it's "if you took bailout money".

By your argument, Federal Minimum Wage should be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It is. That is something that, under the Constitution, should be handled at the State level. Where local constituients have more control. I really dont' see the problem with that. Wages are more of a local issue than a national one, as costs of living vary wildly across the country. But that's another topic.
 
Maybe, instead of making vague assertions of constitutionality, you should offer an objective and rational reason why any human is worth more than $500k a year.
 
TyloniusFunk said:
Executives may quit banks that fall under the new $500,000 pay limits, he warned.

"I don't think the issue is a dollar amount. It's being paid what you're worth… Would you be willing to work for less than what you think you're worth?" Talbott asked.

Quick informal poll: Anyone here NOT work for less than they're worth?
Click to expand...

I'm gona get lazy and just say,

Yes I do get paid more than I'm worth.
I have a "part-time" seasonal job where I get 14 dollars an hour.

Its worth about 10. But it's a small company on a big project and my brother works there. That and the guy who set my salary is a fucking loon with lots of ideas and little comprehension.

Of course that only lasts til the end of the month then I'm going to get paid far less than I deserve. But you know, serving Uncle Sam is worth it. The rest of you hippies can go fuck yourselves.
 
TyloniusFunk said:
Maybe, instead of making vague assertions of constitutionality, you should offer an objective and rational reason why any human is worth more than $500k a year.
Click to expand...

I don't have to justify why anyone is worth $500k a year. I'm not going to determine the worth of humans or thier work in some company I don't own. It's not my place because it's not my company. If they want to blow a lot of money on executive pay, so be it. Obviously it doesn't garuntee them good buisness decisions, and if they go under, they should be allowed to fail. The government had no authority to prop them up or nationalize them, we have no authority to set pay limits for private interests, and the President CERTAINLY doesn't have any authority to just wave his hand and dictate wages and salaries.

I'm not the one making "vauge assertions about constitutionality", here. Claiming that the power to "coin money and regulate it's value" gives them the power to do all this is a HUGE leap of logic. Especially, when you read the whole passage:

The US Constitution said:
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
Click to expand...

It becomes very clear that it's about simply providing a standardized currency for the country. Not meddling in the finance industry.

We've been stepping all over the Constitution for decades now, and things have been getting progressively worse. Think about it, maybe, just maybe what the government is doing is defying the Constitution, and what they're doing is illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top