• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the government Limit Executive Compensation for Bailout recipients?

Should the government Limit Executive Compensation for Bailout recipients?

  • Total voters
    13
Phoenix

Phoenix

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
622
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama imposed tough new rules on Wednesday to rein in corporate pay, capping executive compensation at $500,000 a year for companies receiving taxpayer funds as he seeks to put the struggling U.S. economy onto a new foundation.
Click to expand...

Obama sets executive pay limits for bailout companies | Reuters

Normally against government interference, I support this move. There should be consequences for taking this money.
 
It sounds good on the surface, but what does it really mean?
 
I think CEOs will think twice before asking the government for money if it's going to affect their paycheck.
 
Overcompensation should have been somehow stopped many years ago, but for some reason, was not.
I like the idea of a 90% tax on overcompensation..
There was one back in '49, one that I read about in an old almanac..
The rich found an easy way around this, a legal tax evasion....Nothing was ever done about this.
The law-makers write the laws to benefit themselves - screw the poor people - without time or resources to fight this..
Some say that if a 90% tax were to be enforced, the rich SOBs would just move their corporations "off-shore".
So we need a law against this as well.
Then the corporations would just move legally to where the taxes are lowest..
To counter this, our tax rate should be the same as others- then the corporations would stay home where they belong...
So, a 90% tax rate should never be, as tempting as it may be....
 
I'll just say I agree with this...

...If a company is given a bail-out by the government(i.e. taxpayer money) then executive compensation should be limited. If shareholders want to pay their execs big bonuses for killing their business, thats none of my business. But there is no reason that the executive bonuses should be be handed out by the government, through the bail-out.
 
earthworm said:
Overcompensation should have been somehow stopped many years ago, but for some reason, was not.
I like the idea of a 90% tax on overcompensation..
Click to expand...
"Overcompensation"?

:roll:

"Greed" = wanting more than you "need"
"Need" = what a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.
 
Phoenix said:
Obama sets executive pay limits for bailout companies | Reuters

Normally against government interference, I support this move. There should be consequences for taking this money.
Click to expand...

I agree. Its no different than having stipulations for welfare. Welfare recipients should be under spending restrictions(no booze,smokes or illegal/recreational drugs) be required to be on birth control. Or if they started offering free college tuition it shouldn't be I used for idiotic courses that mostly do not aid in getting a job.I am watching these people on FOX talking/whining about how the government shouldn't limit or regulate pay,if these companies are getting bailed out by tax payers there should be all kind of strings attached to make sure that money is not being used for some golden parachute or some other frivolous nonsense that drove that company to beg us the tax payers for more help. Because as long as we don't impose any strings to be attached for receiving tax payer help they will use our money for golden parachutes, private jets and other nonsense.
 
WI Crippler said:
I'll just say I agree with this...

...If a company is given a bail-out by the government(i.e. taxpayer money) then executive compensation should be limited. If shareholders want to pay their execs big bonuses for killing their business, thats none of my business. But there is no reason that the executive bonuses should be be handed out by the government, through the bail-out.
Click to expand...

I agree that bonuses should not be paid with taxpayer money, but what if the executive's regular pay is above $500k?
 
Alex said:
I agree that bonuses should not be paid with taxpayer money, but what if the executive's regular pay is above $500k?
Click to expand...

Tough ****. Keep your damn hand out of the GOVCO cookie jar.
 
earthworm said:
Overcompensation should have been somehow stopped many years ago, but for some reason, was not.
I like the idea of a 90% tax on overcompensation..
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "Overcompensation" unless a person is paid more than contractually obligated.
 
While I hate the bailout and the big paychecks these people get, I feel doing this will cause more problems. These CEO's are obviously greedy so I think if they get a slash from millions of dollars to a couple hundred thousands, they are going to try and compensate that amount they are loosing other ways. Either from stealing from the workers 401ks or just outright stealing from the company, I think they will not take it lying over. And then what, after that, a slap on the wrist? I just don't know what to say about this, except it's something everyone should have seen right at the beginning the bailout was first proposed. But oh no, our whole country was going to collapse unless we did that right away.
 
Should the government Limit Executive Compensation for Bailout recipients?
Click to expand...

Abso-freakin-lutely. These executives pleaded with the government to bail them out and the government obliged them. Well guess what fat-cat, that's not the government's money, it's OUR money. WE will decide how much of a bonus your incompetent ass gets and if you don't like it...tough sh*t sweet heart. Maybe next time you'll think twice before running to the government.
 
Oh, almost forgot, plus one for B-rock.
 
If a company needs a bail out it's CEO should probably be fired. Of course there should be government limit on compensation for bail out recipients. They've driven their company into the ground and now want to press the reset button. No. Your rewards are done guys. You can get your compensation once your company pays back our bail out money.
 
I don't know. This is why we should never have gotten into the business of bailouts in the first place. The whole thing is ridiculous.
 
Yes, asking the taxpayers to socialize risk means that their free market worth is 500 grand by default.
 
I just don't know if we should cap their salary, but I am against bonuses being paid out using the bailout. Instead of paying bonuses with that money, how about paying some lower level employees so they can keep their jobs, and not end up on unemployment, effectivley doubling the damage you do to our country by paying bonuses to execs instead.
 
Just realized how completely useless this move by Obama is. It doesn't apply to any company that has ALREADY RECEIVED a bail out. BOA, Wachovia, AIG, Well Fargo, all can keep their salaries. More pandering to the camera by Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom