“Surely we can agree that corporations don’t need taxpayers to subsidize massive CEO pay............

[marmar]

[font size="4"] — pay that’s grown nearly 1000 percent since 1978.”[/font]




Rep. Barbara Lee, introducing legislation that denies corporations tax deductions on executive pay over $500,000 or 25 times worker pay, March 4, 2015

http://toomuchonline.org/#sthash.geuWlTpi.dpuf

[cyberswede]

1. I sure agree.

Thanks for the link - looks like some interesting articles on that site.

[blm]

2. NWO Republicans do not agree, and that their God, Mammon, deserves MORE sacrifices

to be made by the rest of us.

[hifiguy]

38. And the Turd Way crowd is cheering them on.

[Jon82]

58. Thanks for making me laugh

[abelenkpe]

3. K&R

[antigop]

4. it depends upon how "compensation" or "executive pay" is defined.

If the legislation definies it as just salary, then the executives will just get more in terms of stock options. The executives will still get 'theirs".

[erronis]

7. Yup - they have lots and lots of ways of hiding the money

Stock options and other deferred payments. Forgiven "loans". Probably the best is getting "paid" by an off-shore subsidiary into an acquiescent bank. Of course, cold cash works but 10,000,000 in 100's is hard to carry.

I also think that any large amount of compensation should only be paid out over a long period of time (5 years), if and only if the company does well.

[Jackpine Radical]

48. That's an interesting idea,

slowing down the payout. This would mean that the corporation would have to "do well" over a longer period than the next quarter, which is the timeframe CEOs are used to operating in.

At the very least, this would bring in a new wave of high-functioning psychopaths who can delay gratification to replace the current psychopathic CEOs who cannot. That's something of an improvement.

The biggest problem remains that any given corporation's well-being may not be consistent with society's well-being. The defense industry comes to mind, or the food industry, where much of the race to the top has consisted of finding new ways to save money of food ingredients regardless of the consequences to public health. Just look at the amount of sugar and salt in just about anything, and tell me these people have our interests at heart.

[Amimnoch]

8. My first thought as well! Based on pay this would affect less than 40% of the CEO's out there.

http://www1.salary.com/Chief-Executive-Officer-Salary.html

The rest would likely just scale their paycheck, and expand their LTIP stock options.. which is the meat and potatoes of their income anyway. Which means, by the time the lots mature they'll at most be in the 18.8% tax bracket (and with the loopholes, it's doubtful they'd pay that much).

[JDPriestly]

26. The website suggests placing employees, lower level employees i presume, on the board of

directors. That would permit some sunshine to be thrown on the actual executive compensation.

In addition, I think the point is that while the executive pay may be inordinately and undeservedly high, at the very least the US government should not give a company a tax deduction for that part of the pay of the CEO and I would add other very highly paid corporate managers that is in excess of a certain level or ratio with the pay of the lowest paid employee of the company.

Not allowing a tax deduction for certain types of pay or certain amounts or ratios of pay is a good idea. It doesn't really meddle in the pay structure of the company. It just collects a fair amount of taxes from the company's profits.

[antigop]

45. JD, this was tried before...under Bill Clinton... and it failed

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-11-26/how-bill-clinton-helped-boost-ceo-pay

It's why you have to be careful how you defined "compensation".

The companies find ways around laws and regulations.

[Dustlawyer]

27. Doesn't matter how they define it, it will never even get up for a vote!

[kairos12]

5. CEOS are the true takers.

[raouldukelives]

6. Nice sig. Very apropos.

Millions of corporate investors. Day in and day out selfishly enriching themselves at the expense of democracy, the American dream, the planets ecosystems and ensuring through their own actions nothing will be done to change it.

Sometimes I hear them squawking about how bad things have become, sometimes I wonder if they aren't one of the people who spend the only lifetime they have paying for it to be this way.
Snowflakes indeed.

[Enthusiast]

9. If you can't agree with that just where is your head?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. up their ass ... ?

[Enthusiast]

44. Apparently.

[ND-Dem]

10. kr

[antigop]

13. American Society’s Real Moochers: CEOs

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/01/americas-real-moochers-ceos/

Holiday bells are silent in the homes of America’s struggling working poor, even with gasoline prices at their lowest levels in years. These are people derided as moochers because their starvation wages force them to accept food stamps to feed their children.

On the other side of town, inside gated communities where guards demand photo ID even from Santa, CEOs’ Christmas plums are super-sugared with record-breaking corporate profits.

These are people somehow not derided as moochers, even though their million-dollar pay packages are propped up by tax breaks.

The parable of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol springs to mind as Wall Street banks and law firms hand out six- and seven-figure year-end bonuses while Wal-Mart and fast food workers protest wages so low that their holiday meals are food pantry dregs. It is CEOs, not the working poor, who deserve public scorn for their dependence on government handouts.

The Institute for Policy Studies issued a report last month that details the mooching of the nation’s top corporations and CEOs. It’s called “Fleecing Uncle Sam.” The findings are pretty galling.

[Andy823]

14. Sure we can agree

However as long as republicans are in control of one, or both branches of congress, how will we be able to do anything about it? Not to mention having a republican in the WH!

[elleng]

15. Barbara Lee is a winner,

and HAS been for a long time, speaking truth to power all along!

[d_legendary1]

16. You know who doesn't agree with you?

The executive making over $500,000 a year. Other than that I agree 100%

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. LOL ...

The executive making over $500,000 a year in wages ... really needs to appoint a better compensation committee chair!

[d_legendary1]

32. I'll say

The executive would fire the current one, higher a new one at a lower wage, and then give himself a well deserved raise.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. That's like ...

A small business owner, paying the individual tax rate, on business revenue!

He/she needs a better financial advisor.

[niyad]

17. absolutely agree.

[Initech]

18. Hey republicans! These are the real people mooching off your paycheck!

[Alkene]

19. The only member of congress to vote "No"...

on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

Representative Lee was right in 2001, and she's right now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. While I support efforts to rein in executive compensation ...

I am not convinced that it is government's role to do so, other than perhaps regulations that empower shareholders (e.g., giving shareholders the right to binding approval authority of executive compensation, along with the right to vote on compensation committee membership).

Also, as mentioned above, merely putting a cap on wages is problematic, as there are hundreds of pay schemes to get around any caps ... perhaps, if executive pay is broadly defined as "any compensation valued above ..."

[JDPriestly]

23. The suggestion is to require worker representation on the boards of directors.

Also, the point in the plan is that we should not permit tax deductions for paychecks over $500,000 per year. That makes sense. Neither of those policies would actually dictate a CEO's pay. They would simply provide an incentive for lower pay or at least not provide an incentive for extremely high pay.

I don't think either of those policies would "put a cap on wages."

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. Okay ...

I neglected to mention worker (rank and file) representation on Boards of Directors. I have been an advocate of this for a long time, as it really is "good governance".

However, the second part is a solution that doesn't address the problem! As has been mentioned above, the vast majority of executive compensation isn't in the form of a "paycheck" ... there are hundreds of compensation schemes that skirt the paycheck issue (primarily instituted for tax treatment purposes). For example, I read where Warren Buffett receives an annual "paycheck" of $1.00 and millions in compensation ... such a law would leave his compensation untouched.

[JDPriestly]

40. We probably need legislation that discourages huge stock options. They are bad for other

reasons, economic reasons. They encourage companies to buy back stock and thus create the illusion that the stock is worth more than it would be were it actually being sold in the marketplace to buyers who do not directly profit from the rise in the stock price unassociated with any increase in the value of the company in the actual economy.

I'm not sure I expressed that clearly so that it can be understood. But I hope so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. I agree ...

Plus, stock options for executives tend to distort the discussion making process where short term revenue boosts are favored over long term thinking.

[LondonReign2]

25. Of course you don't

Third Way disapproves of ANY regulation of business. Because "freedom", and "punishing success" and any other pro-corporate bullshit talking point that has been conjured up by the Koch's multitude of think tanks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. No ... Of course I don't because I know something about compensation schemes ...

Third Way disapproves of ANY regulation of business.

Assuming you are calling me {gasp} a 3rd Wayer, I don't disapprove of most regulation on business, as business has proven that it cannot/will not regulate itself. I do, however, have a big problem with simplistic, show pony regulation that does not address the problem it purports to address.

Now: "The sun has risen."

Take all the time you need to develop a REALLY, REALLY, real "progressive" non-response to that statement.

[LondonReign2]

49. Do you know soemthing about compensation schemes like you know something about statistics?

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. No. I actually know more about compensation plans ...

Than I know about statistics. My knowledge of statistics is from graduate level course work; whereas, my knowledge of compensation plans comes from graduate level coursework AND 25+ years of Human Resources work.

Now go away silly little Wikipedia informed boy..

[LondonReign2]

62. You deserve a refund

If what they supposedly taught you in grad school about statistics was that the word of two individuals on the internet on how they would vote in the future is more valid than the results of five exit polls, as you claimed, you sure didn't get your money's worth.

That's the nice thing about the internet, a person can claim to be an expert in all sorts of things. It's when they open their mouth prove themselves completely ignorant in a topic that their posing falls apart.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. I didn't claim that; but, your limited understanding ...

of statistics prevented you from understanding what I said.

Yes ... keep talking as you typically prove that exact point.

Now leave me alone.

[LondonReign2]

64. You claimed exactly that

That's OK; although internet statistics expert didn't work out so well for you, you now have a career as internet exec comp expert! Better luck on bluffing your way through your newest profession.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Post the link and all will see ...

what I said.

And, if they know anything about statistics they will understand what I said and that you didn't understand neither, what I said, nor what you linked to.

[calimary]

34. I always lean towards the over-arching notion that it IS INDEED up to government to step in when

"reasonable" sides cannot agree, and/or where there is a serious and ongoing grievance or rigging of the game or unjustifiable greed or or significant tilting of the playing field to the detriment of the majority. Then, it seems to me, the government needs to step in and bring some balance into the picture. When the grievances are SO RIDICULOUSLY LOPSIDED, seems to me that's the time when we need government to intervene - in the same way that we need government to step in when we have a major disaster or problem or over-arching issue that crosses state lines and affects millions of people: natural disasters like tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods; civil rights issues like the right to vote and the right to marry; and public health issues from vaccination facts to affordable insurance.

Just my opinion.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. Oh, I largely agree ...

That is the valid, and essential, role of government.

[calimary]

39. Seems to me it comes down to the basic premise of things that the individual cannot do for himself

or herself. Then, seems to me, you need a larger overarching entity to step in and handle it - whatever it is. I think the sticking point comes in what is believed to be something that the individual cannot handle individually. Whether it's the houses and businesses that just blew down across Tornado Alley and the individual affected cannot fix it or recover from it without larger help, or it's the inability to be able to afford even the mildest kinds of health care, or it's the inability to afford to be able to support a family - especially if you're on fixed income, you're a single-parent with a shit job or a job with shit pay, or some other such circumstances. Unfortunately, those of the "it's yer own damn fault - sucks to be YOU" camp (AKA republi-CONS and CONservatives) would default on the "Screw You, IGMFU" response. In which case, they better damn well NOT call themselves "Christians."

[bigbrother05]

21. Should apply to any making over $500K, no corporate deduction as a business expense

The ACA caps the "Cadillac" Med Plans deductions, so why not the "Rolls-Royce" compensation plans?

[father founding]

24. CEO play

The stockholders should be stuck with the whole tab for CEO pay.

[JDPriestly]

22. K&R.

[pansypoo53219]

28. HELL YEAH!

[daredtowork]

33. WTF - +1

Isn't it amazing what corporations get away with while they are busy pointing fingers at people on welfare.

[lark]

37. Yes, I and probably most on DU totally agree with her and support her bill.

However, ALL Repugs will vote against it, because they are there to represent the 1% and them only - screw the rest. The populist talk from the candidates is just hot air, typical Repug cant that never ever changes. Yes, vote for tax cuts for the rich to increase jobs, give corps. more tax breaks so your constituents can have jobs. Notice that no matter what the situation, the perscription to cure it never changes. Good times, reduce regulations and taxes for the top 1%- bad times, reduce regulatiaons and taxes for the top earners.

[rhett o rick]

41. Howz about Rep Lee being the first female President? Just sayin'. nm

[Dragonfli]

47. I think she would make a fine president, for what it's worth. /nt

[JEB]

51. She'd have my vote. nt

[Kablooie]

42. Boy is she out of tune with the Republicans.

theyd have to agree that their whole reason to exist wrong.
Tax benefits for the super rich Is the foundation of their philosophy.

[antigop]

46. How Bill Clinton Helped Boost CEO Pay

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-11-26/how-bill-clinton-helped-boost-ceo-pay

Bill Clinton had what he thought was a great idea to curb the soaring paychecks of the nation's executives. It was 1991, shortly after the launch of his Presidential campaign, and he had just read a best seller on corporate greed by compensation guru Graef Crystal.

Clinton's brainstorm: Use the tax code to curb excessive pay. Companies at the time were allowed to deduct all compensation to top executives. Clinton wanted to permit companies to write off amounts over $1 million only if executives hit specified performance goals. He called Crystal for his thoughts. "Utterly stupid," the consultant says he told the future President.

THE SHAME GAME

Now, 13 years after Clinton's plan became law, the results are clear: It didn't work. Over the law's first decade, average compensation for chief executives at companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index soared from $3.7 million to $9.1 million, according to a 2005 Harvard Law School study. The law contains so many obvious loopholes, says Crystal, that "in 10 minutes even Forrest Gump could think up five ways around it."

From the Internal Revenue Service to corporate boardrooms, Clinton's remedy has become the biggest inside joke in the long history of efforts to rein in executive pay. It has allowed companies to take deductions for executive pay tied to goals as vague as "individual achievement of personal commitments" (BellSouth Corp.(BLS) or improving "customer satisfaction" (Dell Inc. (DELL)). Energy giant AES Corp. (AES) for a time demanded that its top people maintain a workplace that was "fun."

"We were trying to shame companies into changing their behavior," says former Clinton senior adviser Bruce Reed. "And companies have been shameless in ignoring what we did." Or perhaps just astute in exploiting the flimsiness of Section 162(m) of the IRS code, as the measure is formally known. Reed acknowledges that the Clinton team deliberately watered down the proposal to make it more palatable by, for example, not applying the performance requirement to the award of stock options. Clinton did not return calls for comment.

[Godot51]

50. Money... god...

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not money, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not money, it profiteth me nothing.

Money suffereth long, and is kind; money envieth not; money vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

… And now abideth faith, hope, money, these three; but the greatest of these is money.

I Corinthians xiii (adapted)

George Orwell

[cstanleytech]

53. Hell the company should be denied "any" tax deductions if there is a massive gap in pay vs the

regular workers.
For example, Walmart. They shouldnt be getting "any" and I mean any tax breaks until they stop fucking over the workers.

[Thespian2]

54. Really?

And I thought we should willingly give the greedy bastards another Jet or Yacht or...whatever would make them happy.

[midnight]

55. Yes. I agree with this proposal. But don't stop there. Let's make sure that we bring up the pay of

those working for less than 22.00 dollars an hour and make it minimum wage.

[Michigan-Arizona]

56. K&R n/t

[countryjake]

57. K&R!

[woo me with science]

59. K&R

[Hotler]

60. How about zero deductions for executive pay. n/t

[FourScore]

61. I have always loved Rep Barbara Lee. n/t