CDZ Would a federal law limiting the ceo/board to 100 times

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by ScienceRocks, Dec 16, 2016.

  1. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,107
    Thanks Received:
    9,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +35,923

    No....and it isn't the federal governments business how much a company pays it's CEO......all the wealth does not go to the wealthy......if you want more people to have more upward mobility lower taxes on everyone.....get the power away from the central government and you will see economic mobility again.
     
  2. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,107
    Thanks Received:
    9,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +35,923

    Exactly....look at the worst socialist countries....Venezuela, cuba....the top political leaders have about a million times the income of the rest of the masses they control.......so no...get power away from the government....don't interfere with how companies pay their executives...if they pay too much for a bad CEO...that company will fail and someone else will step up......that is how companies get punished for paying bad CEOs too much money....
     
  3. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    37,630
    Thanks Received:
    5,180
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,705
    no way

    It's none of the government's business how much people make
    And we certainly don't need government confiscating people's salary to
    "spread the wealth"
     
  4. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,351
    Thanks Received:
    1,048
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +4,923
    Don't see that it would do all that much. A better plan is just going back to the original intent of limited liability for corporations as well as doing away with the 'corporate personhood' scam as a legal device for avoiding responsibility for the personal decisions of corporate management and shareholders; the vast majority don't in any way deserve to have their personal wealth protected while they bankrupt their companies and others. That will guarantee those that actually are competent managers and business people succeed while the hacks and swindlers uniformly fail and suffer consequences for their ineptness and corruption. If shareholders are so in love with some crony or other then they can pay for that along with their management.

    Of course implementing this will cause major disruptions across the board in the short term, as the current crops of embezzlers and Ponzi scheme operators all fall by the wayside and new competent types rise via real merit and organizational skills and leadership. Currently those qualities are anathema to Wall Street and the financial sector and cause for lynching and slander.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2016
  5. Tommy Tainant
    Offline

    Tommy Tainant Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    10,008
    Thanks Received:
    1,131
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Y Cae Ras
    Ratings:
    +6,781
    The best retailer in the Uk runs on this principal. Corporate pay is a standing joke and the current modus mean that bandits can sacrifice a companies long term interests for short term gain.
    All big companies in the UK have a remuneration committee but they are pretty much an old boys club and little more than back-scratchers.

    The real issue is that the majority of CEOs are timeserving nonentities surfing the wave of someone elses good idea.
     
  6. sakinago
    Offline

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,359
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +956
    There is a difference between good business practice, and a government mandate based on "I don't like how much that person is making." These CEO's raking it in disproportionally is a symptom of a dying business model that cried for help from the government and got an unfair advantage, and they don't have to change a thing...but they in no way shape or form make up a majority of what's happening in the business world. To say that they do nothing is unfair, that's like saying a coach for a team, or a conductor for an orchestra does nothing. And they usually have a very strong body of successful work that has got them up to their position.

    Are these CEOs to blame for how bad small/new business have been tanking over the past 9 years? No, they're not policy makers. Are they to blame for the fact that Americans haven't seen a wage increase in a long time, despite increasing inflation? No, most Americans work for smaller business.


    Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
     
  7. HenryBHough
    Offline

    HenryBHough Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    23,503
    Thanks Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Oak Grove, Massachusetts
    Ratings:
    +12,919
    Pull that crap and we'll also need a law revoking the passports of executives who are leaving America to work where they are both needed and appreciated. Maybe you liberals can build a wall of your own.....one designed to KEEP people IN. Sorta like the one you missed when Reagan got it torn down.

    Yeah.

    That one.
     
  8. Anathema
    Offline

    Anathema Crotchety Olde Man

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Messages:
    8,781
    Thanks Received:
    859
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    The Olden Days
    Ratings:
    +5,002
    It would not have the desired effect. What would happen is....

    1. CEO's would sell their companies and take their profits whole watching the company falter and fail without them.

    2. CEO's would reduce their salaries but co.pensate in terms of bonuses, options and other benefits.
     
  9. HenryBHough
    Offline

    HenryBHough Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    23,503
    Thanks Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Oak Grove, Massachusetts
    Ratings:
    +12,919
    Beware the regime that fails to grasp the meaning of the law of unintended consequences.
     

Share This Page