Excessive CEO pay, part of the problem for American Corporations.

[Hum Dinger]

Good thing that will never happen, as it is illegal. So long as a corporation does not seek any help from the government the government has no say. It is 100%, without any doubt or reservation, the role of the shareholders to set executive compensation, period. It is simply how it works and how it will ALWAYS work. And that is a GOOD thing.

It certainly is not unconstitutional and any other laws can be changed. THAT is how it WORKS and THAT is a GOOD thing.

 

[pegwinn]

Uhm... C'mon, spit it out

I guess you've never actually read the Constitution or you would have recognized my rather obvious reference to the 'General Welfare' Clause of the constitution. This clause gives the government almost unlimited power.

Now that you've spit it out, you might as well swallow again. Reading is fundamental. So, let's read and see shall we?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The enumerated powers are very specific about what Congress is allowed to do. The term, "welfare" in this case means happiness or prosperity. The entire statement is describing what form of revenues the Federal Government is allowed to collect and what it can do with them. Clearly, even you oh arrogant one, can see that they are limited "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Regulating an executives compensation cannot be argued to substantially increase the overall happiness or prosperity of the United States unless you are willing to grossly stretch the point.

There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution barring the government from regulating executives compensation.

If there is please point out the section, article or amendment.

I must say, you really do need to study simple civics instead of skipping class to play hopscotch. The US Constitution is a limiting document all on its' own. If the power is not specifically enumerated, they (the Congress) are not authorized to do it. In order to be Constitutionally correct, the deed or action taken by Congress must be specifically allowed by the enumerated powers.

So charity, foreign aid, regulation of education, abortion rights, marriage rights, etc are not the purview of the US Congress.

The reality is that they may, might, and in some cases will.... "do it". From time to time we will have judges who should have paid more attention to the literal wording of the Constitution instead of getting in touch with their inner child or feminine side and trying to "interpret" a plainly written document. These judges will support the illegal actions of an anti-Constitutional Congress.

(Note: The U.S. Constitution isn't divided into chapters and verses, that would be the Bible, I know it's hard, but please try not to mix two of them up.)

(Note: Richard has obviously been unable to comprehend colloquialism IRT chapter and verse. This explains why he obviously cannot comprehend the plain language of the Constitution. So, we will cut him a break, this time.

Did you understand the lesson Richard or was I typing too fast for you?

 

[Zoomie1980]

It certainly is not unconstitutional and any other laws can be changed. THAT is how it WORKS and THAT is a GOOD thing.

Regulating compensation is not within the granted powers of the Constitution to Congress or the Executive. Sorry, puke, you lose this one.

 

[Paulie]

The founders certainly left a lot to be desired in regards to the so-called general welfare clause.

"unlimited powers", though? You can't be serious.

 

[pegwinn]

Regulating compensation is not within the granted powers of the Constitution to Congress or the Executive. Sorry, puke, you lose this one.

The founders certainly left a lot to be desired in regards to the so-called general welfare clause.

"unlimited powers", though? You can't be serious.

Guys, be nice to Richard since he's having a rough thread. All he needs is a dictionary or other reference on spoken English of the period the pertinent portion of the Constitution was written in.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't have a problem with CEOs making a lot of money but you have some particularly good points here.

How come today Republicans are so up in arms over what Hunter Biden was making then?

Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019,[53] receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months.

Drop in the bucket. In 2008, Republicans didn't care how much CEO's and VP's and White Collar workers made. But now they think $50,000 a month is excessive?

 

[Supposn]

... I tell you all, excessive CEO pay is part of the problem for American corporations.

I don't perceive excessive corporate compensation of their executives as anything that affects our nation's economy.

Individual corporations and persons great wealth's excessive political influence, Our supreme court's decision in favor of Citizens United, have left our nation to be a less democratic and a more plutocratic and oligarchic republic.
This is critically politically, economically, and socially detrimental to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn