Should the government cap actors' pay?

[CrusaderFrank]

Just think of all the "good" they could do for the people. They could hire Mark Lloyd to regulate the "content" and maybe even Michelle could be the "Popcorn Czar". Only fruits and veggies served. Save the children!

OMG!!! OMG!!!

That's Classic!

 

[Wry Catcher]

AFFLECK: That speaks so perfectly to people's feelings about our country. It's like it's just about getting by, or people can like let people go if they can get away with it, that there's no deeper sense of right or wrong. The banks shouldn't -- people shouldn't make such a giant profit off just moving money back and forth. And CEOs' pay shouldn't be 200 times the average worker. It used to be nine times.

Read more: Ben Affleck Goes on NPR to Complain About Overpaid CEOs -- Not Overpaid Movie Stars | NewsBusters.org

Affleck makes in the neighborhood of 125 times more than that on one movie. Factor in an entire year and he probably earns in the neighborhood of 500 times the “average worker” in his industry — maybe a lot more.

Before we start regulating CEO pay, maybe we should start with actors. The Hollywood left likes the idea of creeping socialism, just as long as it doesn’t creep any farther west than San Bernardino.

Michelle Malkin Heh: Actor Who Made $12.5 Million for ‘Gigli’ Says Corporate CEOs are Overpaid

Ah gotta love that celebutard hypocrisy.

I agree. Actors, Athletes and assholes are overpaid (I define an asshole as a Snidley Whiplash type, though I suspect many on the right do not). And the best way to fix excessive compensation is to increase the tax on the wealthy, back to the days before Ronald Reagan's effort to remake our republic into a plutocracy.

 

[Woyzeck]

AFFLECK: That speaks so perfectly to people's feelings about our country. It's like it's just about getting by, or people can like let people go if they can get away with it, that there's no deeper sense of right or wrong. The banks shouldn't -- people shouldn't make such a giant profit off just moving money back and forth. And CEOs' pay shouldn't be 200 times the average worker. It used to be nine times.

Read more: Ben Affleck Goes on NPR to Complain About Overpaid CEOs -- Not Overpaid Movie Stars | NewsBusters.org

Affleck makes in the neighborhood of 125 times more than that on one movie. Factor in an entire year and he probably earns in the neighborhood of 500 times the “average worker” in his industry — maybe a lot more.

Before we start regulating CEO pay, maybe we should start with actors. The Hollywood left likes the idea of creeping socialism, just as long as it doesn’t creep any farther west than San Bernardino.

Michelle Malkin Heh: Actor Who Made $12.5 Million for ‘Gigli’ Says Corporate CEOs are Overpaid

Ah gotta love that celebutard hypocrisy.

If we're going to cap someone's pay, could it be professional sports players? They make far more money than they should for playing a simple game.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AFFLECK: That speaks so perfectly to people's feelings about our country. It's like it's just about getting by, or people can like let people go if they can get away with it, that there's no deeper sense of right or wrong. The banks shouldn't -- people shouldn't make such a giant profit off just moving money back and forth. And CEOs' pay shouldn't be 200 times the average worker. It used to be nine times.

Read more: Ben Affleck Goes on NPR to Complain About Overpaid CEOs -- Not Overpaid Movie Stars | NewsBusters.org

Affleck makes in the neighborhood of 125 times more than that on one movie. Factor in an entire year and he probably earns in the neighborhood of 500 times the “average worker” in his industry — maybe a lot more.

Before we start regulating CEO pay, maybe we should start with actors. The Hollywood left likes the idea of creeping socialism, just as long as it doesn’t creep any farther west than San Bernardino.

Michelle Malkin Heh: Actor Who Made $12.5 Million for ‘Gigli’ Says Corporate CEOs are Overpaid

Ah gotta love that celebutard hypocrisy.

I agree. Actors, Athletes and assholes are overpaid (I define an asshole as a Snidley Whiplash type, though I suspect many on the right do not). And the best way to fix excessive compensation is to increase the tax on the wealthy, back to the days before Ronald Reagan's effort to remake our republic into a plutocracy.

How come Democrats never run on the TruthMatters 90% income tax platform?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah gotta love that celebutard hypocrisy.

corporate CEO's DO make too much money relative to employees further down the food chain. it used to be a disparity of something like 6 to 8 times. now it's something like 30 times.

actors are used BECAUSE they make money for corporations. If you starr Brad Pitt in a movie, how much does his name bring to the box office? He creates wealth for the production company much like Derrick Jeter does for his team's owners. I view it as profit sharing.

unlike failed CEO's who get golden parachutes. when you screw up like he or Carly Fiorina did, do you get a check for millions of dollars and a pension? Or does your butt get shown the door?

How much wealth did Tony Hayward produce for BP?

Why do actors like Affleck get paid so much more than the grips and best boys that work the same movies? Even the movie stars did not used to make as much as 200 times what a gaffer did, yet they do know. Why doesn't that bother you, or Affleck?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Jim Parsons is worth every dime, and he should get a tax exemption.

Same with Kelly Couco.

Now if we want to regulate pay, we should start with the lawyers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BP is a multinational corporation. But I mentioned Carly Fiorina, too. She screwed up at HP like nobody's business.

It's not just about not sucking at their job. It's about profit creation. And yes, Affleck has made some horrendous films, but in the main, he's a big box office draw...

How many people buy a product BECAUSE of who the CEO is? It becomes an issue for me when failed CEO's get so much money in golden parachutes that companies try to cut worker benefits. How do you hand a failed CEO a check for millions and then turn around and tell your workers you're cutting their pensions/health coverage/salary increases?

I think that's the point they were making.

So, because some CEOs suck, we should punish them all? Perhaps the government should regulate everyone's pay?

you're ignoring the point and going to the extreme...

you think a failed CEO should suck millions out of a corporation in golden parachutes? or you think their pay should at least be linked to profitability?

The stockholders of those companies could easily put a stop to that, yet they do not. There are two possible explanations for that.

1. They are completely ignorant and do not deserve to own any part of the company.
2. They know something I don't and actually believe that they are getting enough bang for their buck that it is worth every penny they pay.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you're ignoring the point and going to the extreme...

you think a failed CEO should suck millions out of a corporation in golden parachutes? or you think their pay should at least be linked to profitability?

So Affleck has never made any money on the crappy movies he has made? The point is he. and many of the Hollywood elite, are hypocrites as they make many times the money a gaffer on the set makes and still they preach about evil corps CEO's making money with a failing company. If the movie fails, they still make money...correct. While it may be a valid point, coming from just another millionaire actor in this country, most don't care to listen.

Kinda like Obama stating that all have to tighten their belts while he is not looking for money to make his house payment.

how much of our money has gone to movie production companies to make up for the short fall of bad and deceptive investments?

More than you think, or haven't you ever heard of tax incentives for movies to do location shooting? Then we have the NEA That gives them federal tax credits that come out of your pocket. If your only criteria is that they get tax money then the government should definitely step in in actors and athletes salaries. Especially the over hyped ones that make millions and still produce loosing movies and teams.

 

[chanel]

I think the outrageous salaries afforded to athletes, actors, and rockstar/rapper has a negative effect on education. Kids get a very warped perception of what "success" means. Mental health/educational issue if you ask me. Think of the children dammit! Lol

 

[daveman]

I think the outrageous salaries afforded to athletes, actors, and rockstar/rapper has a negative effect on education. Kids get a very warped perception of what "success" means. Mental health/educational issue if you ask me. Think of the children dammit! Lol

*fweeeeet!* Flag on the play. Illegal use of "think of the children" to punish Democrat special interest groups. 10 yard penalty.

 

[chanel]

Oh and Baruch - I agree with you 100 percent. The right to a lawyer is guaranteed in the Constitution. Hence lawyers should be public servants - paid accordingly ; just like teachers and cops.

 

[whitehall]

Actors make more money than they are worth but we shouldn't authorize the government to put a cap on anyone's earnings.

 

[jeffrockit]

you're ignoring the point and going to the extreme...

you think a failed CEO should suck millions out of a corporation in golden parachutes? or you think their pay should at least be linked to profitability?

So Affleck has never made any money on the crappy movies he has made? The point is he. and many of the Hollywood elite, are hypocrites as they make many times the money a gaffer on the set makes and still they preach about evil corps CEO's making money with a failing company. If the movie fails, they still make money...correct. While it may be a valid point, coming from just another millionaire actor in this country, most don't care to listen.

Kinda like Obama stating that all have to tighten their belts while he is not looking for money to make his house payment.

how much of our money has gone to movie production companies to make up for the short fall of bad and deceptive investments?

I have no idea but I suspect, with your lack of any actual facts in a link, neither do you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ah gotta love that celebutard hypocrisy.

corporate CEO's DO make too much money relative to employees further down the food chain. it used to be a disparity of something like 6 to 8 times. now it's something like 30 times.

actors are used BECAUSE they make money for corporations. If you starr Brad Pitt in a movie, how much does his name bring to the box office? He creates wealth for the production company much like Derrick Jeter does for his team's owners. I view it as profit sharing.

unlike failed CEO's who get golden parachutes. when you screw up like he or Carly Fiorina did, do you get a check for millions of dollars and a pension? Or does your butt get shown the door?

How much wealth did Tony Hayward produce for BP?

Nice attempt at rationalization, but there's just one problem: Can you say "Gigli"? That movie was an utter debacle, for which Ben Affleck nevertheless pocketed over $12 million. So don't be trying to give us that "actors MAKE money, but CEOs have golden parachutes when they fail" line. They're EXACTLY the same. Both are given contracts guaranteeing huge sums based on the assumption that they will more than earn that amount back for their employers. And both sometimes are unable to deliver, but their employers are nevertheless obligated to honor their contracts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

BP is a multinational corporation. But I mentioned Carly Fiorina, too. She screwed up at HP like nobody's business.

It's not just about not sucking at their job. It's about profit creation. And yes, Affleck has made some horrendous films, but in the main, he's a big box office draw...

How many people buy a product BECAUSE of who the CEO is? It becomes an issue for me when failed CEO's get so much money in golden parachutes that companies try to cut worker benefits. How do you hand a failed CEO a check for millions and then turn around and tell your workers you're cutting their pensions/health coverage/salary increases?

I think that's the point they were making.

So, because some CEOs suck, we should punish them all? Perhaps the government should regulate everyone's pay?

you're ignoring the point and going to the extreme...

you think a failed CEO should suck millions out of a corporation in golden parachutes? or you think their pay should at least be linked to profitability?

If the company signs a contract promising the CEO that money, success or failure, then you're damned right they should have to honor their contractual obligations. And what's it to YOU? It's not YOUR money, so it's none of your damned business.

If a corporation can compete with other corporations for the management talent they want with a contract based on profitability, then fine. But it's not for you or me or anyone else who isn't a shareholder to come in and dictate to them what they do with their money.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the stockholders of corporations are so lame they don't mind paying people to lose money for them what business is it of mine?

The government ought not to be the business of setting people's salaries, except in the case of setting a minimum wage, and of course deciding what compensation government workers get.

That being said, the fact that CEOs get enormous paychecks even when they lose money is sorta nuts.

But this entire system is sorta nuts so that fits the pattern.

thanks. you said it better than i did.

but... how much say do the shareholders actually have in CEO pay?

they care only about price per share, not whether workers health care is cut to pay some yahoo who got him/herself fired.

Well, thank you so much for exhibiting your own glaring class prejudices and hatreds with that blanket assumption that corporate stockholders are greedy, money-grubbing bastards who don't give a shit about other human beings.

I can, however, point you to any number of corporate shareholders - voting shares, not just general stock - whose major focus is making their company more humane, more environmentally friendly, etc. The Rockefeller heirs leap to mind, expending an enormous amount of time and effort in improving Exxon-Mobil's environmental impact and trying to get them to move into the area of alternative fuels.

And the voting shareholders have quite a bit to say about CEO compensation, as it happens. The board answers directly to them, and you'd better believe heads DO roll when shareholder money gets wasted on a CEO who turns out to be a company disaster.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you're ignoring the point and going to the extreme...

you think a failed CEO should suck millions out of a corporation in golden parachutes? or you think their pay should at least be linked to profitability?

It is NOT the Government's business what private Companies pay their employees. If it is then it applies across the board. Shall Congress decide how much you Lawyers get paid? What a fucking joke.

It becomes their business if they've bailed-out a private company with taxpayers money, because they are then share holders. Like what happened in the UK banking industry and Goldman Sachs in the US. But a government can't alter a private contractual agreement between an employer and employee that was signed prior to a government cash injection/bail-out.

Then perhaps the answer is for the government to get out of the business of bailing out corporations and becoming shareholders.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you're ignoring the point and going to the extreme...

you think a failed CEO should suck millions out of a corporation in golden parachutes? or you think their pay should at least be linked to profitability?

So Affleck has never made any money on the crappy movies he has made? The point is he. and many of the Hollywood elite, are hypocrites as they make many times the money a gaffer on the set makes and still they preach about evil corps CEO's making money with a failing company. If the movie fails, they still make money...correct. While it may be a valid point, coming from just another millionaire actor in this country, most don't care to listen.

Kinda like Obama stating that all have to tighten their belts while he is not looking for money to make his house payment.

how much of our money has gone to movie production companies to make up for the short fall of bad and deceptive investments?

Well, I'll say it again: the answer is for the left to stop inserting the government into every-damned-thing in the country and stop throwing the taxpayers' money at people at the drop of a hat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actors make more money than they are worth but we shouldn't authorize the government to put a cap on anyone's earnings.

I disagree. Actors make what they do precisely because they ARE worth it. The big-name, big-salary actors sell millions of dollars worth of tickets just by having their names on the movie posters, and the studios know it, which is why they're willing to fork over that much money.

 

[newpolitics]

Well it disgusts me that these actors and athletes make such ridiculous amounts of money and then tell doctors making 250K that they aren't paying their "fair share"

But prob the grossest injustice is when class action lawyers rake in millions while the actual victims get peanuts. The govt should really put and end to that, doncha think?

You sound jealous. That is all I am getting from this. You're argument is irrational and angry sounding, and lends itself no credibility because it is not based on sound logic.

Actors perform a great service to everyone who is willing to watch, mostly because it is available to ANYONE WHO HAS EYES AND EARS to consume. They take us out of our daily lives and allow us to look at ourselves and thus, everything and everyone else differently, as it is with any and all art. This is invaluable.

Their pay rate is only a reflection of the publics consumption of their services. Since there is only ONE of each actor, by the laws of supply and demand, THEY ARE WORTH A LOT.

It's simple economics really. Besides, do you know how few A-list actors there are in our society at any given moment? There must be less than 100, I think even less than 50. These are hard-working people who use their talent for the better of all of us (if the movie is good).

CEO's don't deserve any sympathy. They are shielded from any and all accountability of what they do, by the nature of what makes an LLC, (except after the outrage from the economic meltdown, and only in the cases of the CEO's of the companies who 'caused' the collapse), they reap massive profits usually with great costs to society in the form of externalities (human rights violations, environmental damage, government lobbying to limit regulation). I mean, it's a non-arguement.

Sorry, but this thread is a total fail. It just sounds like another angry conservative trying to rail against any and all liberals they can. So, it becomes the poor CEO's (conservatives) versus the shameless Hollywood actors (liberals, progressives.) Haha... too funny.