• 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!

Corporate Earnings

What should be the annual cap?

  • $100K or less

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • $200K

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • $500K

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • $1M

    Votes: 2 4.0%

  • That's none of our business.

    Votes: 46 92.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
earthworm said:
Hard to believe my vote - placing me in the "super majority".
But for those "earning" unlimited quantities of money , there should be a tax rate, without loopholes, of say 60%.. At one time (1949), this was 90% , but with holes King Kong could stroll through !
Unfortunately, as long as its the wealthy who design the tax laws, the rich will NOT pay their "fair" share.
Its not a good idea to limit anyones income, and we do need the uber-rich..to buy the first automobiles, the first VCRs, on and on..
Click to expand...


A majority of Americans agreed with Obama there should be NO cap on tax deductions for the super rich. Get over it. You viewpoint lost in the election.
 
PeteEU said:
Wrong question.

Salary/compensation should be linked to performance. Hence the executives salary/compensation increases when the company does good, and decreases when it does not. Sadly this is not the reality of most companies these days.
Click to expand...
Trick question. I wanted to see how many would have the arrogance to dictate salary caps. There are four, so far.
 
Boo Radley said:
Wrong question. No one I know seriously suggests a cap. Most just recognize that it isn't good for the country to see executive pay so outdistancing worker pay. Just something most know instinctively to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'd rather not be governed by people's instincts, they are too capricious.
 
Dooble said:
Trick question. I wanted to see how many would have the arrogance to dictate salary caps. There are four, so far.
Click to expand...

Well technically if salary/compensation is linked to performance, then there is a salary cap :)
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'd rather not be governed by people's instincts, they are too capricious.
Click to expand...

Nor sure I said you should be. The fact is we can show objectively that it harms the country. I merely note most know this without that evidence. however, we still would need the evidence.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nor sure I said you should be. The fact is we can show objectively that it harms the country. I merely note most know this without that evidence. however, we still would need the evidence.
Click to expand...

Who is the we you reference? I'm curious what you base this on. Are there other economic things that people know without evidence?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Who is the we you reference? I'm curious what you base this on. Are there other economic things that people know without evidence?
Click to expand...

People, you, me, any poster here. And we can look up evidence. We can look at history, studies,and logic.
 
joko104 said:
A majority of Americans agreed with Obama there should be NO cap on tax deductions for the super rich. Get over it. You viewpoint lost in the election.
Click to expand...

Rates and deductions are being confused.
Re-read my previous post..
The 60% is a number snared from thin air....my doing.
The 90% was from the 1949 rates, even back then, the loopholes should have been tightened, but, as we know, the wealthy design the system, ensuring that they pay little tax.
Right now, I know of no solution. In England, they have the House of Lords and the House of commons.....Maybe we need a house of true commons...All we have is two Houses of Lords !
Maybe we just need a better wealthy people, not the scum we have today !
 
PeteEU said:
Well technically if salary/compensation is linked to performance, then there is a salary cap :)
Click to expand...
True, but the salary capper should at least be the boss, correct? That was my point. What prompted me to post this thread was after I heard a radical leftist state that $500k per year was plenty for business executives. That they didn't need anymore money than that.

"Try telling that to your Hollywood pals, comrade!".
 
Dooble said:
True, but the salary capper should at least be the boss, correct? That was my point. What prompted me to post this thread was after I heard a radical leftist state that $500k per year was plenty for business executives. That they didn't need anymore money than that.

"Try telling that to your Hollywood pals, comrade!".
Click to expand...

I agree, 500k is more than enough for anyone, CEO, actor, music star and so on. That we live in a ME ME ME greedy society means they can earn far more.. that is just life. What the "leftists" are trying to do is to link CEO pay to performance, because at the moment it aint.. and by saying 500k a year is more than enough they bring this problem to the forefront... and frankly as I stated... 500k a year is more than enough.
 
PeteEU said:
I agree, 500k is more than enough for anyone, CEO, actor, music star and so on. That we live in a ME ME ME greedy society means they can earn far more.. that is just life. What the "leftists" are trying to do is to link CEO pay to performance, because at the moment it aint.. and by saying 500k a year is more than enough they bring this problem to the forefront... and frankly as I stated... 500k a year is more than enough.
Click to expand...

And you, sir, are far from being a radical leftist !
So, how about say $100000 being tax free, and 30% on all amounts above that ?
And they can "earn" a billion dollars per year - for all I care....
Rather unfair, still, as I believe that our tax code is fair, for the poor and middle class anyway........
 
Dooble said:
Sure was. And what did Jesus say about judging others? Blanket judging, no less. You've managed to condemn an entire tax bracket to everlasting damnation, all by yourself! What incredible judicial powers you must have, your Worship!!
Click to expand...
I see,

So what you take from Christian ethics is only one trait of not being judge mental
Interesting escape clause to justify your greed and corporate murder globally.

Jesus also said that the rich should give away their wealth. You do realise that Jesus was a socialist?

Christianity and capitalist corporatism are morally incompatible. Choose or rot in the furnace of Beelzebub.
 
Boo Radley said:
People, you, me, any poster here. And we can look up evidence. We can look at history, studies,and logic.
Click to expand...

We can google for information that would objectively show that damage is being caused by this income disparity you reference. Wouldn't you have to have a hypothesis before asserting that there is damage, and then the supporting evidence evaluated before any such conclusion is made. How do I know that you didn't just skip those steps and just reached a conclusion that you believe but can't prove? Maybe your evidence is just has some correlation but not any causation?
 
Dooble said:
What's the maximum salary America's business executives should be allowed to receive?
Click to expand...
I don't think there should be a maximum dollar number. A maximum defined as some multiple of the lowest salary in the corporation might make sense though. Or it might not, I'm open to opposing views.
 
Dooble said:
What's the maximum salary America's business executives should be allowed to receive?
Click to expand...

Some of them should be in prison with all they have confiscated...:)
 
Klown said:
I see,

So what you take from Christian ethics is only one trait of not being judge mental
Interesting escape clause to justify your greed and corporate murder globally.

Jesus also said that the rich should give away their wealth. You do realise that Jesus was a socialist?

Christianity and capitalist corporatism are morally incompatible. Choose or rot in the furnace of Beelzebub.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you are a Christian and insist upon people following your religious beliefs?
 
lpast said:
Some of them should be in prison with all they have confiscated...:)
Click to expand...

Could you name a couple of executives and what charges they should have filed against them, or is it just speculation on your part?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Could you name a couple of executives and what charges they should have filed against them, or is it just speculation on your part?
Click to expand...

Dimond and the ceo of AIG and Freddie and Fannie..and a variety of big banks that are being and have been investigated in the last 3 yrs and just got fined....
 
earthworm said:
And you, sir, are far from being a radical leftist !
So, how about say $100000 being tax free, and 30% on all amounts above that ?
And they can "earn" a billion dollars per year - for all I care....
Rather unfair, still, as I believe that our tax code is fair, for the poor and middle class anyway........
Click to expand...

My point is that 500k is a lot of money and more than enough to live off.

Now is 500k "enough" or "fair" for a person who runs a company that say generates 20 billion in profits? Not really but neither is 200 million. If a person preforms then he or she should be rewarded... and only if they preform. And lets be reasonable when giving bonuses and compensation.. blowing 40 million on a CEO while people are loosing their jobs to prop up the bottom line is.... disgusting.

Is 500k "enough" or "fair" for a person who runs a company that comes out sizable red numbers .. say 400 million ? Frankly yes and that is stretching it... such a person should not get paid at all in my opinion..

In our world, the person driving a company into the ground gets pay a hell of a lot more than 500k for basically being a failure. He should be paid basic living allowance if it stood up to me... no performance no over living expenses pay. His/Her workers are threatened to lower their pay requirements or loose their jobs and so should the CEO.... but we both know that wont happen under the present egotistical greedy regime that has infected big business.
 
PeteEU said:
My point is that 500k is a lot of money and more than enough to live off.

Now is 500k "enough" or "fair" for a person who runs a company that say generates 20 billion in profits? Not really but neither is 200 million. If a person preforms then he or she should be rewarded... and only if they preform.

Is 500k "enough" or "fair" for a person who runs a company that comes out sizable red numbers .. say 400 million ? Frankly yes and that is stretching it. In our world, the person driving a company into the ground gets pay a hell of a lot more than 500k for basically being a failure. He should be paid basic living allowance if it stood up to me... no performance no over living expenses pay. His/Her workers are threatened to lower their pay requirements or loose their jobs and so should the CEO.... but we both know that wont happen under the present egotistical greedy regime that has infected big business.
Click to expand...

Obama believes the WalMart Heirs at $20 BILLION EACH plus $16 BILLION more between them isn't enough, so he gave them a $2.8 BILLION Dollar a year tax break from ObamaCare, plus deciding WalMart employees earning under the poverty line is plenty enough already.

Americans voted AGAINST ANY limits on tax breaks for the super rich in voting for Obama, rejecting limiting tax breaks to $25,000 per year.

So Americans have already decided they do NOT want the rich to pay more taxes. Rather, that the rich need more tax breaks like the WalMart heirs and the CEOs of 1200 other corporations do.

^ Everyone who voted for Obama voted for that. That's the facts.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
We can google for information that would objectively show that damage is being caused by this income disparity you reference. Wouldn't you have to have a hypothesis before asserting that there is damage, and then the supporting evidence evaluated before any such conclusion is made. How do I know that you didn't just skip those steps and just reached a conclusion that you believe but can't prove? Maybe your evidence is just has some correlation but not any causation?
Click to expand...

This isn't actually new, it has been done just like that, often. I think we even have had threads on it here. I think a lot has been written on it.
 
I think a CEO should be limited to some multiple of the lowest paid person in the corporation.

Say maximum would be 50 times the lowest paid. That would have the CEO earn about 1 million.

With pension perqs etc., it comes out to a nice package. The problem of course is how do you get every corporation to instituted such a policy? If only some do it, the best execs will naturally go for the biggest pay packets.
 
Jonsa said:
I think a CEO should be limited to some multiple of the lowest paid person in the corporation.

Say maximum would be 50 times the lowest paid. That would have the CEO earn about 1 million.

With pension perqs etc., it comes out to a nice package. The problem of course is how do you get every corporation to instituted such a policy? If only some do it, the best execs will naturally go for the biggest pay packets.
Click to expand...

For companies that have shareholders, they might like that. Potentially more dollars to spread to them, that is if the company is making money.


I voted that is none of our business what a CEO gets. Shareholders, etc should decide what the person is worth.
 
mike2810 said:
For companies that have shareholders, they might like that. Potentially more dollars to spread to them, that is if the company is making money.


I voted that is none of our business what a CEO gets. Shareholders, etc should decide what the person is worth.
Click to expand...

Excellent in theory but not in practice.. The big proxy holders determine it. Not the average shareholder. Ever seen "the solid gold cadillac"?
 
Jonsa said:
Excellent in theory but not in practice.. The big proxy holders determine it. Not the average shareholder. Ever seen "the solid gold cadillac"?
Click to expand...

Your example was a hypothetical / theory in setting salary at some multiple of the lowest paid.

It is my personal belief that salaries have gotten out of hand for many positions, not just CEO's. It facinates me that CEO's, some proffesional athletes make so much more than our President. In general they can't start a war or nuke someone. The President can.:mrgreen: Yet wages are what they are. I do not think the govt should limit what a person can make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom