Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Winning the Class War

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. Posted August 31, 2007.


This year's Executive Excess 2007 report found that "top executives averaged $10.8 million in total compensation, which is 364 times the pay of the average American worker."
Advertisement

Every year around Labor Day, United for a Fair Economy (UFE) issues a report on the excesses of CEO pay.

This year's report -- Executive Excess 2007: The Staggering Social Cost of U.S. Business Leadership -- found that "top executives averaged $10.8 million in total compensation, which is 364 times the pay of the average American worker, a calculation based on data from an Associated Press survey of 386 Fortune 500 companies."

Another key finding: The top 20 equity and hedge fund managers raked in an average of $657.5 million, or 22,255 times the pay of the average worker. Meanwhile, the study notes, workers at the lowest rung of the economic ladder just got their first federal minimum wage hike in a decade. Over that same decade, UFE reports, CEO pay has increased by 45 percent.

None of that is very surprising. What's interesting is the finding that compensation for U.S. business leaders now "wildly dwarfs" the big bucks being paid leaders in other sectors.

The top 20 CEOs of publicly traded corporations last year took home, on average, $36.4 million. That's 38 times more than the top 20 in the nonprofit sector and 204 times more than the 20 highest-paid generals in the military.

Executive Excess aims to dispel the notion that excessive executive pay is a necessary function of modern economies. If that were true, the report's authors argue, "business executives that American executives compete against in the global marketplace would be just as excessively compensated as American executives. They aren't. Top executives of major European corporations ... last year earned three times less than their American counterparts."

Such grotesque pay differentials essentially mean we, as a society, are discouraging needed leadership talent from entering less lucrative fields, such as education, where we could use an infusion of talent.

The thing I like about UFE reports is they always include pragmatic policy proposals. This year's report offers six:

  • 1) Eliminate tax subsidies for excessive CEO pay, which would close a tax loophole that allows corporations to deduct excessive CEO pay packages as a "business expense."

    UFE estimates that by closing that loophole alone there would be $1.4 billion in extra tax revenues -- enough to pay the annual salaries of 29,000 teachers and reduce class sizes in overcrowded schools, the study says.

  • 2) End the preferential tax treatment given to private investment company income.

    That would plug the loophole in the current tax code that allows equity and hedge fund managers to pay taxes at a lower rate than average Americans. Closing that loophole, the Economic Policy Institute estimates, would add $12.6 billion to the federal treasury, which could be used to fully fund a five-year expansion of the public health insurance program for low-income kids.

  • 3) Cap tax-free 'deferred' executive pay.

    Tax-free deferred pay is unlimited for corporate executives but strictly limited by average workers enrolled in standard 401(k) plans.

  • 4) Eliminate the tax reporting loophole on CEO stock options.

    Because corporations are allowed to report one set of executive stock option figures to investors and another to the IRS, it allows corporations to get tax deductions that far exceed companies' reported expenses, according to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

  • 5) Link government procurement to executive pay.

    The feds should deny procurement contracts to firms who pay top executives more than 25 times what their lowest-paid workers make. "The federal government currently denies contracts to companies that foster racial and gender inequality. The same principle could be invoked to deny contracts to companies that increase the nation's economic inequality," the study proposes.

  • 6) Increase the top marginal tax rate on high incomes.

    The report notes: "... any move to restore mid-20th century top marginal tax rates would raise substantial revenue for investments in education and other social programs that could significantly broaden economic opportunity."

Indeed, this is class warfare. And as Warren Buffett has noted, his side is winning.

Fellow rat-race runners, arm yourself with information. It won't win the war but like the G.I. Joe cartoons used to say: knowing is half the battle.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: class, wages, ceo, economic inequality, tax loopholes

Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff reporter and a syndicated columnist.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Showe me the money
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Aug 31, 2007 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CEO pay has gotten way out of hand but could be understandable if they produced real results. Often those pay levels hold even if the company does poorly.. Home Depot is a perfect example..

While we are at it, consider the enormous pay of Hollywood's elite.. while supporting cast gets scale..and is happy for it.. no one is more obscene than those "stars" that add nothing more than $$ to the bottom line.. theirs included. Show me the money has never been a more true statement!!!

I suspect congress does not want to address this issue as at some point they figure they will be back in the corporate world - why make enemies!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Showe me the money Posted by: SavageDissension
» RE: Showe me the money Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Divertasaurus... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Divertasaurus... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Showe me the money Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Showe me the money Posted by: Conservasaurus
I appreciate the concrete recommendations.
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 1, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without proposals for change, CEO pay then becomes just like the weather--everybody talks about it but nobody does anything.

The rest of us, who don't move around in those tax brackets, may have no idea how we are subsidizing (would have appreciated some history; are those GOP since Reagan features of tax law?) the filthy rich.

And in a multi-trillion dollar economy, CEO pay is still only a drop in the bucket. But it is emblematic of how corporations, established originally for socially beneficial reasons, have used their economic leverage to further the interests of those who run the corps.

So, yeah, let's hear more about trickle-down economics. Tell our growing homeless population, the filthy, how much good the filthy rich are doing for them.

You know what? It wouldn't be quite as bad if they'd stop corrupting our government in the process. But those who take cannot stop taking. It's a good thing that the best things in life are still free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Au contraire
Posted by: eddie torres on Sep 1, 2007 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excessive executive pay IS a necessary function of modern economies.

Without $657.5 million, how does the average private equity / hedge fund CEO support all the little people who make the privilege world spin - the barbers, the pilots, the art dealers, the maids and butlers, the security teams, the legal eagles, the yacht and submarine captains and crews, etc? It's all fun and games talking about "progressive" this and "egalitarian" that, but when Greenwich, Connecticut (home to 380 hedge funds) is plunged into economic uncertainty it's all the little people who really suffer.

The Subway barber shop, Greenwich Cigar & Stationery, and the Barcelona Wine Bar used to be standing-room only, with hedge fund managers' limos lined up for blocks looking for parking. Now, business is slow and customers are "tetchy" and "uptight." Employees who once rode high on $100 tips and a leftover Bordeaux have to settle for $20 and a cigar stub.

Just imagine all the suffering: Farhad Manjoo and David Cay Johnston discuss a truly appalling yet common ailment of CEO life - the cramped corporate jet. Senator Steven Symms (R-Idaho, 1981-'93), champion of the downtrodden, finally charged on to the US Senate floor and put his foot down: "We talk about the lavish comfort of flying in corporate jets... however, I think sometimes we should remember that some of these corporate jets, such as one I am familiar with in Idaho that a food processing company owns, will barely seat eight people."

And won't somebody please think of the accountants? The US tax code has been "summarized" by Chicago-based CCH Inc every year since 1913 in a handy little book called "Tax Reporter." It is now 55,000 pages - chock full of the loopholes, subsidies, and deductions that keep US CEOs on top of their game. Do something silly - like rip up the US tax code and start from scratch - and all those accountants will be roaming the streets pimping sleazy "refunds" and corrupting America's homeless faster than you can say Arthur Anderson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» With a little tongue in cheek... Posted by: eddie torres
3.9
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Sep 3, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments:

1. The article was informative in terms of how ordinary taxpayers are subsidizing the wealthy. Most discussions of CEO pay end with pay disparity, and don't often get into details of how the system is rigged to trickle-up. It's a good start, but the explanations are kind of blurry, and don't give much insight as to how the tax code works--especially the one about 401k plans.

2. "Needed leadership talent"?...Are you saying you want to free up greedy, psychopathic liars and manupulators so they can use their "talents" in the public sector? I'm not sure what the article means by that. Maybe we need to settle on a definition of "talent" and "need" for purposes of this discussion.

3. Money talks, but it's not going to want to talk about taxing the rich and plugging up their loopholes. Good luck with those "pragmatic policy proposals."

4. Even if they were to free up all those extra tax revenues, do you really think they're going to spend it on schoolteachers? My bet would be on more bombs to drop on Iraq and for Israel to drop on Palestinians.

5. Interesting bit about US CEO pay vs. global CEO pay. I figured that since we're in a global economy with multinational corporations, all CEO pay would be about the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 3.9 Posted by: k_the_c
U r out of your mind!
Posted by: pg on Sep 4, 2007 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"any move to restore mid-20th century top marginal tax rates would raise substantial revenue for investments in education and other social programs that could significantly broaden economic opportunity."

No doubt, the top marginal tax rate in the mid 20th century hit 91%!

There are plenty of grossly overpaid Americans today and many tax loopholes that need to be fixed...but suggesting that high earners deserve to have $9 of evry $10 dollars they earn taken from them by politicians who then promise to redistribute that wealth fairly (read buy votes) is sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EVEN GROSSER!!!!!!!
Posted by: pg on Sep 4, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IN 1982 A PERSON EARNING $85,600 PER YEAR WOULD Have paid 50% of their income to the politicians in washington...THAT IS FAIR?

GEORGE SURE WOULD HAVE $$ TO SPEND ON WAR AND HILLARY $$ TO SPEND ON HEALTHCARE TO STICH UP THE WOUNDED

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bring Back Hostile Takeovers
Posted by: k_the_c on Sep 7, 2007 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More examples of government policies benefiting the well connected... yet you propose more government policies? To do what exactly? How about just getting rid of the laws restricting hostile takeovers...

http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=705
Reuven Brenner:...The good mechanism for handling this can be found in what was practiced in the decade of the 1980s - hostile takeovers. If a CEO votes for himself outrageous compensation and meanwhile gives to his board an outrageous compensation, the board will not vote him out of power. So who can then throw out both the board and management? This can only happen if you can carry out a hostile takeover. Unfortunately, regulations were passed in the early 90s and courts gave interpretations that you cannot pursue a hostile takeover unless you meet so many conditions. As a result, hostile takeovers disappeared completely from the horizon. These abuses that happened over the last 10 years are in my view, an unintended consequence of these badly-sought or badly-conceived regulations. People are talking about greed and so forth, incorrectly. The metaphor that I have in mind is that you have a house well there are say, 3 cats and 10 mice. Well, take away 1 cat and the mice have more leverage to dance. It is not that the mice became greedier or anything. You now have two cats instead of three to keep an eye on the mice. It is not that the nature of the mice changed. Unfortunately the government, inadvertently threw out one of the cats from the house.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3604
Another important problem is that both the federal and state governments have passed many laws that protect corporate management against the interests of the general shareholders. The most important of those laws is the federal Williams Act of 1968, which requires any person or group that acquires more than 5 percent of the shares of a corporation to provide extensive information within 10 days to the corporation, the exchanges, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including "if the purpose of the purchases or prospective purchases is to acquire control of the business of the issuer of the securities," and increased the authority of the SEC to regulate tender offers. Following the Williams Act, the number of hostile takeovers declined in the 1970s and, following a series of court decisions and state anti-takeover laws beginning in the late 1980s, the number of hostile takeovers declined again in the 1990s. The primary protection of general shareholders against an abuse of authority by corporate management, thus, has been substantially eroded by public policy. The second simple cure for what ails American corporations, thus, is to begin to reverse this process by repealing the Williams Act of 1968.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]