Union Speech Compared to CEO Pay
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 07/01/2010 - 07:46
Isn't it ironic.
When lawmakers try to cap unfair compensation for CEO's they come up with narrow terms "cash salary". Then "clever" wall street lawyers come up with stock options to skirt the regulations. Why can't CEO compensation be capped the same way political spending is?
A Union has to form a federal PAC. And of course federal PAC law uses broad language like "donation in kind". In layman's terms, that simply means PAC laws don't need to define details. As long as the spending benefits someone we can consider it a donation.
OK, I don't agree with capping free speech of unions. However, it does provide a good example of how the law can cap financial transactions in broad terms.
So let's tell congress to cap CEO pay the same way. We cap CEO pay and use the same language "compensation in kind".
Next, we need to tell congress that any "salaried" compensation can not be deducted as a cost.
Salaries are for management. Management compensation is part of a corporation's profit-in-kind. Management compensation therefore should never be deducted from taxable income.
We need to return to a time when most folks are payed by the hour. Making folks "salaried" skirts the law by defining jobs as "management like".
Henry Kiss
#1 Corrupt lawmakers make Wall Street Lawyers look smart
Submitted by Brenda Staley (not verified) on Thu, 07/01/2010 - 11:19.
Great post. There is no reason why the broad language used to cover campaign spending couldn't easily be applied to CEO compensation.
Workers are under compensated, period. It's not just the CEO's it's the whole corporate culture that denies working people are part of the economy.
Chicago is getting Wallmart. That's the best the public and private sector can come up with? Of course not. There are plenty of small businesses that could benefit from a little help from the city. Local small businesses help local workers and the local economy.
Post new comment