Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
If a corporation of, say, 50,000 employees decides to give their CEO $10,000,000/year (and by this, I mean the Board of Directors decides), and that CEO fails, you suggest that the market should punish the corporation for the mistake. Isn't the end result of such "punishment" a round of low-level employee layoffs and a comfy severance package for the outgoing CEO? In other words, why support a system that punishes the lower level workers for the mistakes of the executives?
|
The employees of failed companies go to work for successful companies.
-----Added 10/2/2009 at 11 : 35 : 58-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
--the only responsibility a ceo has institutionally is to increase shareholder value.
|
Your use of the word "only" is misleading. A CEO of a publicly traded corporations has legal and fiduciary responsibilities responsibilities to constituents other than shareholders.
-----Added 10/2/2009 at 11 : 41 : 59-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
|
In the Key Findings section:
Quote:
Average U.S. taxpayers subsidize
excessive executive compensation — by more than $20 billion per year — via a
variety of tax and accounting loopholes.
|
The problem is not with the CEO but with the convoluted tax code. Taxation based on consumption would tax people based on lifestyle rather than "income" which can be manipulated very easily. If a person lives like a billionaire they should be taxed accordingly, we should not tax labor, savings and investments.