• 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!

House votes to restrict Wall Street pay

Baralis

Baralis

DP Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,400
Reaction score
1,552
Location
MO
Political Leaning
Independent
House votes to restrict Wall Street pay - Economy in Turmoil- msnbc.com

The House bill includes Obama’s suggestions to give shareholders a nonbinding vote on compensation packages and prohibit directors on compensation committees from having financial ties to the company and its executives
Click to expand...

Obama said giving shareholders a “say on pay” and diminishing management influence on pay packages would go far in curbing the lavish pay seen at some banks.
Click to expand...

Something that has come out of the Obama administraion that I agree with. I believe this is long over due. The system has been corrupt for a long while now. I have always believed the share holders should have the final say on bonues and exec pay.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
I don't think it's the government business what a company pays anyone. This is just populist class warfare codifide.
Click to expand...

My god, I think I actually agree with you! :shock:

I do believe that the government should have a say in the companies it bailed out, being as they are essentially shareholders (whether or not this was a good idea is not the point here) but certainly not corporations who are still standing without government aid. As much as I hate the path that corporate America has gone, it certainly isn't the governments job to dictate this.
 
Midwest Lib said:
My god, I think I actually agree with you! :shock:

I do believe that the government should have a say in the companies it bailed out, being as they are essentially shareholders (whether or not this was a good idea is not the point here) but certainly not corporations who are still standing without government aid. As much as I hate the path that corporate America has gone, it certainly isn't the governments job to dictate this.
Click to expand...

Companies make mistakes, people can bee greedy bastards... however, that's life, you cannot legislate "fairness" into life, and regulating pay is just one more yoke upon the freedom of America.

Oh and while I DISLIKE government as shareholder... as long as they have a stake really they do have say in pay, but they SHOULD NOT BE BALE TO BACK THAT WITH THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT. The influence should be as any other shareholder.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Companies make mistakes, people can bee greedy bastards... however, that's life, you cannot legislate "fairness" into life, and regulating pay is just one more yoke upon the freedom of America.

Oh and while I DISLIKE government as shareholder... as long as they have a stake really they do have say in pay, but they SHOULD NOT BE BALE TO BACK THAT WITH THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT. The influence should be as any other shareholder.
Click to expand...

Twice in one day I agree with you! I think I need to sit down! :2razz:

In all honesty though, I think if the government is to regulate in any capacity it should focus more on anti-trust legislature. It blows my mind that it has been admitted that much of the financial crisis has been because corporations that were "too big to fail" did just that. As you said, companies DO make mistakes, and people ARE greedy, but if one person's greed or one company's mistakes causes the entire nation to suffer economically, then that seems to be where the concern should lay. Government regulation of pay is not the answer.
 
Really I think the Congress needs to be sent a copy of the 1st Adm and learn it. talk about a clear violation I hope this goes to the Supreme Court.
 
MrVicchio said:
I don't think it's the government business what a company pays anyone. This is just populist class warfare codifide.
Click to expand...

Depending on how it is written I do not see it this way at all. I see it not as granting the government powers to dictate what someone makes but instead its shareholders which imo is the way it should be.
 
Midwest Lib said:
Twice in one day I agree with you! I think I need to sit down! :2razz:

In all honesty though, I think if the government is to regulate in any capacity it should focus more on anti-trust legislature. It blows my mind that it has been admitted that much of the financial crisis has been because corporations that were "too big to fail" did just that. As you said, companies DO make mistakes, and people ARE greedy, but if one person's greed or one company's mistakes causes the entire nation to suffer economically, then that seems to be where the concern should lay. Government regulation of pay is not the answer.
Click to expand...

The problem with that line of thinking is that it belies the myth that the economy will not recover or self correct without the "government" saving it.

History has shown this not to be true. Government almost invariably causes more problems then were at the outset. Tis better to have a hard fast fall and subsequent recovery then this crap we're getting now.
 
Baralis said:
Depending on how it is written I do not see it this way at all. I see it not as granting the government powers to dictate what someone makes but instead its shareholders which imo is the way it should be.
Click to expand...

Is this government telling a business how it must operate?

Yes it is.

That's my big problem with it.
 
MrVicchio said:
Is this government telling a business how it must operate?

Yes it is.

That's my big problem with it.
Click to expand...

The government has to have some oversight and I belive in this case it is warranted. As the current system stands there are no real checks and balances and can be easily corrupted.
 
Baralis said:
The government has to have some oversight and I belive in this case it is warranted. As the current system stands there are no real checks and balances and can be easily corrupted.
Click to expand...

The only problem there is that the government tends to be just as easily corrupted...
 
Baralis said:
Something that has come out of the Obama administraion that I agree with. I believe this is long over due. The system has been corrupt for a long while now. I have always believed the share holders should have the final say on bonues and exec pay.
Click to expand...

Even if it's illegal?
 
apdst said:
Even if it's illegal?
Click to expand...

Im not sure it is illegal, if it is then yes I would be against it. I see some of you are against this and aside from the goverment stepping in what reason do you have? I am curious why you believe that the shareholders or those that own a segment of a company shouldnt have the majority say when it comes to employee incomes.
 
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The requirement that directors on a compensation committee have no financial ties to the company has merit--there really is no substitute for keeping Caesar's wife above suspicion.

Giving a shareholders a non-binding vote is about an empty a gesture as can be had. Because it is non-binding, most shareholders won't even bother (and the small investors are not likely to follow corporate governance issues that closely to begin with.

The rest of the bill seems fairly anemic at first glance. The only interesting bit besides the independence of the compensation committee is the section with new regulations for covered financial institutions dealing with risk management, et cetera. Sounds great at first--until you remember that the whole securitization mess was first pitched as a risk management mechanism, as were Credit Default Swaps.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Really I think the Congress needs to be sent a copy of the 1st Adm and learn it. talk about a clear violation I hope this goes to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Where's the First Amendment violation? Please elaborate.

(serious question....I'm curious how you got that)
 
Baralis said:
House votes to restrict Wall Street pay - Economy in Turmoil- msnbc.com





Something that has come out of the Obama administraion that I agree with. I believe this is long over due. The system has been corrupt for a long while now. I have always believed the share holders should have the final say on bonues and exec pay.
Click to expand...

Ain't fascism just wonnerful?

The ONLY purpose Congress acheives by depriving the owners of private companies their Fifth Amendment rights is the satisfaction of an empty populist campaign promise to punish those evil CEO's and their "outrageous" pay packages.

Nothing more.

What this move will accomplish is new and creative ways to compensate top executives that maybe aren't at public. Don't ask me how, just know that's what happens when government interferes.
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
Im not sure it is illegal, if it is then yes I would be against it. I see some of you are against this and aside from the goverment stepping in what reason do you have? I am curious why you believe that the shareholders or those that own a segment of a company shouldnt have the majority say when it comes to employee incomes.
Click to expand...

The government mandating this into law kinda goes against the whole, "free market", thing. Wouldn't you say?

The shareholders do have a say. Every year, they elect board members and trust those board members to make decisions that will increase the value of their shares. If paying out large salaries and bonuses by the board members rubs the shareholders raw, then the shareholders are well within their rights to elect board members who are against hat practice; not the government.
 
apdst said:
The government mandating this into law kinda goes against the whole, "free market", thing. Wouldn't you say?

The shareholders do have a say. Every year, they elect board members and trust those board members to make decisions that will increase the value of their shares. If paying out large salaries and bonuses by the board members rubs the shareholders raw, then the shareholders are well within their rights to elect board members who are against hat practice; not the government.
Click to expand...

Granted I do not know all the facts on the proposed changes so I may very well turn agaisnt it. Allowing corporate executives and there family members to have a vote can stack the odds into the boards hands giving them full power over their own income and bonuses. Which is exactly what has happened in some of the major cases recently.
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
Granted I do not know all the facts on the proposed changes so I may very well turn agaisnt it. Allowing corporate executives and there family members to have a vote can stack the odds into the boards hands giving them full power over their own income and bonuses.
Click to expand...

You're right, it can, but board members are no different than elected government officials. They get out and talk to the share holders to find out what the mindset is, too. If a board member figures that reforming bonuses and salaries will get him elected easier, he'll campaign on that platform. Obviously, the shareholders only care about the value of their stock increasing and don't care how that happens. Can't say I blame them.
 
I agree with this decision. Corporate execs. should not be able to sign in a $1 million pay raise or bonus without first consulting the shareholders. We've seen enough high profile cases of execs. taking the money and fleeing just before a big crash, placing their shareholders on the backburner.

In an ideal world this would not be necessary and I am not typically in favor of this kind of government interference, but Wallstreet has proven it lacks the foresight to support its shareholders before it supports its execs. Many execs just see shareholders as the route to their own personal riches and gain, instead of considering what it means to have corporate community.
 
What business is it of govt what people get paid?

This is fascism at it's finest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom