COMMENTS: 48
Outrageous CEO Salaries Are a Nationwide Scandal -- Where Are the Politicians?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Politicians from both parties finally appear to be seeing which way the wind is blowing on this one. Last year, a Financial Times/Harris poll revealed that 77 percent of Americans think chief executives "earn too much." And that sentiment has likely intensified in 2008, with one banker after another walking away from the mortgage mess with overflowing pockets.
The presidential candidates have responded to public outrage over bloated CEO pay by promising to boost shareholder power over executive pay packages. Barack Obama is the sponsor of a Senate bill that would grant shareholders a nonbinding advisory vote each year. John McCain has suggested he'd like shareholders to have veto power.
This reform, widely known as "say on pay," could shame some boards away from offering truly obscene pay packages. But when shame goes up against corporate greed, we all know which one usually prevails.
The candidates should be giving more attention to proposals that focus on eliminating the various tax loopholes that currently subsidize excessive executive pay.
Obama is supporting a fix for just one of these, the "carried interest" loophole. This is the one that lets buyout kings like KKR's Henry Kravis (personal net worth: $5.5 billion) pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Private equity managers get away with this by claiming the profit share portion of their compensation as capital gains, a neat maneuver that cuts their tax bill from 35 percent to 15 percent.
When financial royalty like Kravis don't pay their fair share, the rest of us common taxpayers get stuck with the bill. The annual cost of that particular loophole: $2.7 billion, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation.
And that's just one of numerous tax loopholes that shift the financial burden for our country's infrastructure, education and other needs from the ultrarich to the middle class.
According to a new report by my organization, the Institute for Policy Studies, and United for a Fair Economy, average U.S. taxpayers subsidize executive compensation to the tune of more than $20 billion per year.
Other beneficiaries include guys like Kenneth Griffin, the head of Citadel Investment Group, who made $1.5 billion in 2007. Like most hedge funds, Citadel has a subsidiary in a tax haven, in this case, Bermuda. Such offshore investment vehicles make ideal locations for fund managers to stash boatloads of money in tax-deferred accounts.
While ordinary Americans have strict limits on how much they can set aside in 401(k) plans, hedge fund executives can funnel unlimited amounts into these offshore pots, where their dollars grow and grow, untaxed, until they start withdrawing from them.
Congressional research shows that this widespread tax avoidance scheme costs taxpayers more than $2 billion annually.
Griffin hasn't revealed how much he personally might have shielded from the IRS through his offshore subsidiary, but the multibillionaire admits that his work ethic would whither without low taxes. "I am proud to be an American," he told the New York Times last year. "But if the tax became too high, as a matter of principle, I would not be working this hard."
To defend their preferential tax treatment, Griffin, Kravis and other magnates have dispatched armies of lobbyists to Capitol Hill. Griffin is also hedging his political bets, hosting fundraisers for both presidential candidates and acting as a "bundler" to collect more than $50,000 for each.
So far, their "Save our Subsidies" campaign is working. The five key bills to plug executive-friendly tax loopholes are all languishing. In part, this may be due to the fact that members of Congress know they would face an almost certain presidential veto. In 2009, with a new face in the White House, prospects for this legislation could change.
The bipartisan attacks on runaway pay are encouraging. But if the candidates are serious about change, they should vow to plug every single loophole that allows our tax dollars to flow into the pockets of top business leaders. Surely, in these troubled economic times, we can find better ways to spend our nation's wealth.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cordas on Aug 25, 2008 1:51 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So if a company has an average salary of $16,000 per anum, then the highest salary anyone could earn would be $160,000 per anum.
I am fairly sure that would rapidly drive up wages for those at the bottom because of how averages work, giving those at the bottom a grand payrise could have a large effect on the average....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hell, let 'em make 20X the LOWEST wage in their company.
Posted by: thekidde
» RE: Hell, let 'em make 20X the LOWEST wage in their company.
Posted by: cordas
» No problem
Posted by: suprmark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 25, 2008 3:11 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Currently, there is almost no relationship between pay and performance, and no accountability for bad results. These guys make decisions affecting millions of employees, billions of dollars, the stability of the economy, etc. Every time they screw up, they leave the taxpayer to clean up the mess, and walk away with golden parachutes.
Before you come up with schemes to give shareholders veto power or set pay to n times the lowest-paid employee, you need to tie their pay to the long-term health of the company.
Most shareholders don't care how much the CEO makes, so long as their share price goes up, so the veto thing will do nothing, which is probably why McCain suggested it. Of course, that's part of the problem too: Many shareholders aren't interested in the long-term health of the company.
To summarize, the problems are systemic. These simplistic, election-year schemes may sound good to the average voter, but...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Accountability
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Accountability
Posted by: Hans B
» RE: Accountability
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on Aug 25, 2008 3:49 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, why are they doing it? If it looks like greed, sounds like greed and smells like greed, then it's probably greed. Congress should do something, but they're 99% corrupt. So, I guess its up to the American people, but it doesn't look like they're up to it either. Sic transit America?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Fatal Error "So, why are they doing it?"
Posted by: harryf200
» RE: A Fatal Error
Posted by: Cybershaman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: phindrup on Aug 25, 2008 3:59 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like a great idea to me!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: fixed ratio -- please explain
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: fixed ratio -- please explain
Posted by: cordas
» RE: fixed ratio -- please explain
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: fixed ratio -- please explain
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: fixed ratio ---- great idea!
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: fixed ratio ---- great idea!
Posted by: jnick
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lorenzo on Aug 25, 2008 4:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Lorenzo
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Lorenzo
Posted by: jnick
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harryf200 on Aug 25, 2008 5:15 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rest of us don't get a penny for helping them, of course. But hey! We have the pleasure of being loyal employees and we sit in the lavatory for them to dump on when they need a little sh#t to carry the can.
(I'm not bitter!)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What I really like about over paid CEOs is ...
Posted by: weenie
» RE: What I really like about over paid CEOs is ...
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: What I really like about over paid CEOs is ...
Posted by: harryf200
» RE: What I really like about over paid CEOs is ...
Posted by: weenie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 25, 2008 5:18 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why bother? Mccain or Obama, it'll stay.
Posted by: harryf200
» Find yourself another hero
Posted by: Hans B
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Carol Burns on Aug 25, 2008 5:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: icmfal on Aug 25, 2008 5:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US employees cannot win for losing anymore.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Something needs to be done to bring CEO pay in line.
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thekidde on Aug 25, 2008 7:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Come the revolution, the answer to obscene executive compensation
Posted by: dayenta
» RE: Come the revolution, the answer to obscene executive compensation
Posted by: harryf200
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlterEg0 on Aug 25, 2008 8:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remove the politicians, punish them for taking bribes, and then throw some regulations at corporations and their leaders - and whatever you do, make sure you enforce every single one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 25, 2008 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A 91% tax on their incomes would go a long way,but the candidates,the DNC and the RNC are way too far into these guys back pockets to help us real Americans living in the so-called middleclass that's really the poverty class of the new millenium
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gegner on Aug 25, 2008 12:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the CEO can't (due to taxes) line their own pockets, they maybe more inclined to use the company profits to 'encourage loyalty'(pay their workers/customers a living wage.)
This is how/why this nation was so prosperous after WWII. Naturally, there are 'accounting tricks' that provide a work around to a high marginal tax rate so I think a better idea is an 'impartial paymaster'.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: FDR fixed this problem once...it needs to be done again.
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 25, 2008 12:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RD
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Earthian on Aug 25, 2008 1:57 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.greedandgood.org/NewToRead.html
This ideas can be implemented right away by a requirement of such a ratio to be eligible for federal contracts. It could also be built into a national charter requirement. (Chartering not owning or nationalizing.)
In addition, the idea of requiring a national charter for corporations is also good, and something Nader proposed in the 1990s. Such a charter will prevent states from bidding in a race to the bottom in terms of anti-democratic policies and wage policies, such as Delaware.
Also, a national charter can institute the policy of economic co-determination whereby employees elect reps to comprise up to half of corporate boards of directors. This kind of economic democracy assumes that those who invest their lives (workers) deserve a place at the table and in making decisions as those who invest money.
Finally, the comments about FDR tax policies on high incomes is also quite good and viable. FDR actually proposed a maximum wage of $25,000 per year. But a true progressive tax policy such as during the period from say 1950 to 1970, would also be part of a mix to raise wages and support the rebuilding of the US middle class.
Sam Pizzigati who wrote Greed or Good is one of the great experts in this area. If this discussion evolves into actual legislation in the coming period, perhaps led by the Black and Progressive Caucuses in Congress, that would help make it reality.
As for corporations going to labor-cheap nations, the solution to that is a fair-and-balanced trade system such as that proposed by John Maynard Keynes in 1944 at Bretton Woods. Here is a summary of this system by Susan George:
http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/03economy
Wikipedia has a nice summary of Bretton Woods.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FoonTheElder on Aug 25, 2008 4:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to make the $1m limit a hard cap for all wages and benefits in a year's time. If a corporation wants to pay over $1m, that is fine. They will end up paying about a 70% tax between the corporate and individual income taxes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: $1 Million Cap on Deductibility of Compensation
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rtdrury on Aug 25, 2008 6:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Aug 25, 2008 7:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will Americans get angry enough...maybe when it becomes apparent that their real salaries, unaided and abetted by easy credit, won't buy a damn thing more than the most rudimentary living - no upward mobility, and so on. This is why the right wing got over for so long....the easy credit made depressed wages an illusion....but now, let's look at your wallets and vote for the ones with your economic interests in mind. Otherwise, you can count on treading water in this plutocratic regime no matter how hard you work.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Aug 26, 2008 12:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of them have been before or will be after they're gone, the very CEO's, CFO's, "Consultants" and "Advisers" and "Investors" in the very Corporate Entities they profess to be "over-sighting".
Why would all these fine "politicians" bite the hand that feeds them?? Their "public service" will almost certainly bode them fine and dandy when they "leave to pursue other interests or meet 'family' obligations".
That's where all these "politicians" are. These days, public service is private gain, plain and simple.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: corey on Aug 28, 2008 1:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Socialism provides moral incentives because the fruits of labor benefit all. No person robs others of the profits from their labor; when social goals are adopted by the majority, people will want to work for these goals. Work will seem less a burden, more and more a creative activity, where everyone is his/her neighbor's helper instead of rival."
Source:
Communist Party USA
"We are fighting for socialism, a system where the wealth of society belongs to those who produce it, the working class, and is used in a planned and sustainable way for the benefit of all. In place of greed, domination and exploitation, we stand for solidarity, friendship and cooperation between all peoples."
Source:
The Party for Socialism and Liberation
“Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.”
Source:
Socialist Party USA
“Socialism is the society that workers and the oppressed will begin to build when they have taken power through a revolution that grows out of their daily struggles. It must be based on workers' democracy, meaning both workers' control of production and the exercise of political power through mass democratic institutions. Only through such institutions of workers' democracy can the working class keep the power it has won and use it to construct a new society.”
Source:
Solidarity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Aug 28, 2008 11:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
regulation needed you think... dam straight, is long overdue... yet again!
did we learn during the depression not to waver away from regulations...
we seem to forgot so fast
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
My Experience with a Psychedelic Plant That Thousands Have Used for Release from Severe Addictions
Is Using a Checklist the Answer to All Your Problems?
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism




