Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But if they did not need it, and they paid it back as you stated Boe, then they would not be forced to have a cap on the ceo salary...because they paid back the money borrowed already....? Therefore they are no longer under the gvt's thumb, right?
This is why the cap of $500k is A GOOD THING....it is an incentive for ceo's not to take risks that the gvt is going to have to bail them out of....if they want their millions in salary, then don't be incompetent when you run the too big to fail company you are getting paid millions to do....
That's not what is being proposed - they are trying to sweep all of them under this.
The $500K cap is not a good thing. Past controls on exec comp caused compensation packages to be heavily weighted towards stock options. Much of the big increase in pay that is decried is due to option gains - which encouraged a focus on short term strategies to pump up the stock price.
A Cap will just result in alternate forms of comp to make up the difference which, like all such attempts at control, will have Unintended Consequences.
The real solution is to get rid of the Too Big Too Fail Concept, let companies experience the results of their risk taking, and keep government out of it.
I was thinking today about the $500K ceiling that Democrats want to put on CEOs earnings.
I wonder who's idea this was?
I also wonder why it's confined to only CEOs. Why not Hollywood actors. Why not sports athletes as well.
Some CEOs do make alot of money...but for someone on the "A" List in Hollywood they demand $20 million a picture.
Some basketball players are signing $100 million contracts. It seems that each time we hear about one it's the highest in history.
Why is it that CEOs are the only people being singled out? Why not actors and athletes too?
Do you think Obama is gonna demand that Tim Duncan spread the wealth...give that money to the needy....only earn $500k? Figure the odds on that.
Personally I think it's a sneaky form of racism....but that's just me.
I was thinking today about the $500K ceiling that Democrats want to put on CEOs earnings.
I wonder who's idea this was?
I also wonder why it's confined to only CEOs. Why not Hollywood actors. Why not sports athletes as well.
Some CEOs do make alot of money...but for someone on the "A" List in Hollywood they demand $20 million a picture.
Some basketball players are signing $100 million contracts. It seems that each time we hear about one it's the highest in history.
Why is it that CEOs are the only people being singled out? Why not actors and athletes too?
Do you think Obama is gonna demand that Tim Duncan spread the wealth...give that money to the needy....only earn $500k? Figure the odds on that.
Personally I think it's a sneaky form of racism....but that's just me.
I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.
I was thinking today about the $500K ceiling that Democrats want to put on CEOs earnings.
I wonder who's idea this was?
I also wonder why it's confined to only CEOs. Why not Hollywood actors. Why not sports athletes as well.
Some CEOs do make alot of money...but for someone on the "A" List in Hollywood they demand $20 million a picture.
Some basketball players are signing $100 million contracts. It seems that each time we hear about one it's the highest in history.
Why is it that CEOs are the only people being singled out? Why not actors and athletes too?
Do you think Obama is gonna demand that Tim Duncan spread the wealth...give that money to the needy....only earn $500k? Figure the odds on that.
Personally I think it's a sneaky form of racism....but that's just me.
I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.
from my understanding of the term too big to fail, is that it is NOT the company that is too big to fail because that company will be hurt, it is too big to fail because ALL OF INNOCENT Americans will be hurt by it.
The ONLY way to correct, "too big to fail" so that these companies do not bring the rest of America down with their poor decisions, is with regulation reform...
I have not read the article yet, is the cap including all other compensation or only on salary? Also, was there not already legislation passed by congress that capped their incentive compensation such as stock options as well?
No one capped ceo salaries previously and they STILL MOVED towards the majority of their pay coming from their stock options, why are you blaming the gvt for this? The private sector themselves chose to pay themselves in that manner, the short term profit manner instead of running a business soundly and for long term...
I was thinking today about the $500K ceiling that Democrats want to put on CEOs earnings.
I wonder who's idea this was?
I also wonder why it's confined to only CEOs. Why not Hollywood actors. Why not sports athletes as well.
Some CEOs do make alot of money...but for someone on the "A" List in Hollywood they demand $20 million a picture.
Some basketball players are signing $100 million contracts. It seems that each time we hear about one it's the highest in history.
Why is it that CEOs are the only people being singled out? Why not actors and athletes too?
Do you think Obama is gonna demand that Tim Duncan spread the wealth...give that money to the needy....only earn $500k? Figure the odds on that.
Personally I think it's a sneaky form of racism....but that's just me.
I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.
And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?
Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?
Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?
Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.
Putting aside the rhetoric;
Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.
A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.
The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.
I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.
And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?
Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?
Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?
Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.
Putting aside the rhetoric;
Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.
A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.
The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.
And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.
I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.
And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?
Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?
Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?
Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.
Putting aside the rhetoric;
Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.
A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.
The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.
And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.
And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?
Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?
Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?
Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.
Putting aside the rhetoric;
Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.
A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.
The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.
And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.
Only if she negotiates that for herself.... and if it is not offered... she has the freedom to go elsewhere.... it is not OWED to her at all ( along the same lines, it is not inherently DESERVED).... it can be offered if indeed those who make the business decisions have the willingness to have that as compensation incentive
I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.
And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?
Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?
Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?
Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.
Putting aside the rhetoric;
Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.
A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.
The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.
And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.
And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?
Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?
Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?
Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.
Putting aside the rhetoric;
Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.
A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.
The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.
And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.
So you are saying that if he/she does her job correectly, she warrants more than if she doesnt?
If she doesnt do it correctly, she deserves to lose the job.
Seems you prefer rewarding those that do what is expected as opposed to punish those that do not do what is expected.
Interesting.
And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.
Only if she negotiates that for herself.... and if it is not offered... she has the freedom to go elsewhere.... it is not OWED to her at all ( along the same lines, it is not inherently DESERVED).... it can be offered if indeed those who make the business decisions have the willingness to have that as compensation incentive
She earns it, she deserves it, therefore it is owed to here, the fact that they are too greedy to give her her share of the profits is what is wrong with American values today.
Only if she negotiates that for herself.... and if it is not offered... she has the freedom to go elsewhere.... it is not OWED to her at all ( along the same lines, it is not inherently DESERVED).... it can be offered if indeed those who make the business decisions have the willingness to have that as compensation incentive
She earns it, she deserves it, therefore it is owed to here, the fact that they are too greedy to give her her share of the profits is what is wrong with American values today.
She earns it? She earns the salary she accepts. She does more than what was expected of her and does not get compensated for it? She can get another job.
I do not see where you are going with this. You are not supporting a point. You are simply stating an ideology.
She earns it, she deserves it, therefore it is owed to here, the fact that they are too greedy to give her her share of the profits is what is wrong with American values today.
She earns it? She earns the salary she accepts. She does more than what was expected of her and does not get compensated for it? She can get another job.
I do not see where you are going with this. You are not supporting a point. You are simply stating an ideology.
Which supports the point that while the pie has gotten bigger, the piece of the pie given to the lowest paid workers has gotten smaller and the piece given to the highest paid workers has gotten bigger. No country can long sustain such a huge income gap. Remember the French Revolution?
And AgainSheila how can you think that just because you work somewhere means you "Deserve" anything. Salary is a performance based system, not a system that just says oh well she is doing a job so we should give her a raise, or profits as you call them. Entitlement is not what gets you anywhere.
Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at how pathetic people have become to think they Deserve anything. They put their lives on the line to create a better place for man to live and prosper with their abilities leading the way.
And AgainSheila how can you think that just because you work somewhere means you "Deserve" anything. Salary is a performance based system, not a system that just says oh well she is doing a job so we should give her a raise, or profits as you call them. Entitlement is not what gets you anywhere.
Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at how pathetic people have become to think they Deserve anything. They put their lives on the line to create a better place for man to live and prosper with their abilities leading the way.