CEO compensation: Who cares? John Stewart gets $30 million/yr.

Absolutely it should.

Income made from capital gains was already taxed once.

If I make $1000 from labor, and net $700 after tax, then invest $500 of that... Why would that be taxed again like labor.

Considering the risk of investment and the economic growth, that seems counter productive.

 

Nah, they would never go for it=) Only evil CEOs, especially those who lean Right, should pay more. The left demands we all should pay more, but none of them actually want to pay more. They want OTHERS to pay more. They won't give an extra dime. Liberal hypocrites.

 

While I don't have very strong opinions on the topic, you are just trying to compare apples with oranges.

First of all, the reason behind CEO salaries being such an issue is based on a lot of instances where companies were suffering from losses, downsizing etc yet the CEOs rewarded themselves with fat cheques and bonuses. The buck stops with them so if the company is suffering, they should be held accountable (and by that I do not mean fired) rather than rewarded. My dad is the CEO of an MNC and when the company was going through a tough time (from circumstances beyond his control) he voluntarily had his salary cut n half and flew economy class only for all business trips. While, this is not the standard I would expect almost any CEO in the country to adopt, it just goes to show how wrong those on the opposite end of the spectrum are.

Re celebrities earning humongous amounts, that is because they are a brand unto themselves. They do not earn salaries but are rewarded returns on their success or losses. Depending on the success of their brand (their performance, name etc) their stock goes up and down and so does their income accordingly.

There is no one who claims that shareholders profits should be restricted. However, salaries do need do be checked upon.

- - - Updated - - -

While I don't have very strong opinions on the topic, you are just trying to compare apples with oranges.

First of all, the reason behind CEO salaries being such an issue is based on a lot of instances where companies were suffering from losses, downsizing etc yet the CEOs rewarded themselves with fat cheques and bonuses. The buck stops with them so if the company is suffering, they should be held accountable (and by that I do not mean fired) rather than rewarded. My dad is the CEO of an MNC and when the company was going through a tough time (from circumstances beyond his control) he voluntarily had his salary cut n half and flew economy class only for all business trips. While, this is not the standard I would expect almost any CEO in the country to adopt, it just goes to show how wrong those on the opposite end of the spectrum are.

Re celebrities earning humongous amounts, that is because they are a brand unto themselves. They do not earn salaries but are rewarded returns on their success or losses. Depending on the success of their brand (their performance, name etc) their stock goes up and down and so does their income accordingly.

There is no one who claims that shareholders profits should be restricted. However, salaries do need do be checked upon.

 

Compensation in all cases should be a private matter between the employee and the owners of the company. It's really nobody else's concern.

 

So you have no problem with Stewart because he only employs highly skilled workers, but you take issue with for example Wal Mart because ether employ almost exclusively low skill workers?

Because of course if Wal Mart had robots stocking shelves, all those employees out of jobs would suddenly be high skilled workers making big bucks.

 

This isn't a good argument. You're saying that you work to earn $, and then you invest it, so you've already paid taxes on it.

But so what? If I work to earn $, then I hire a maid, she still pays taxes on the money I previously earned.

 

If we expect that the "wage" of a professional has to be related to the importance and the stress of one's job ... well, if a CEO can gain millions of US$ ... I guess how much should the President of the United States gain ?!?

But, surprise [!], we tend to consider the politicians as not so worthy, deserving, so that they gain a little [and so they get financial support from the CEOs who make lobby!].

What about doing the other way round?

Let's allow the President gain 70,000,000US$ per year and CEOs no more than 300,000US$ per year ... let's see what happens ...

P.S. note the satirical approach to this paradoxical proposal.

 

And people were born CEOs, no one who tries to become one ever fails?

As far as income and taxes go, this is all irrelevant. But the reality is that the many actors who don't make it big - that just comes with the territory. It's a dream job, people take up careers in the arts because they love it. They take up careers in business because they're concerned about the bottom line.

 

That raises an interesting question.. What is "the typical liberal"? How do you define a liberal? The only criteria I can pinpoint for today's "liberal" label/epithet are voting democrat and having a certain position on a list of pre-defined popularly and politically hyped issues, like gay marriage (lol) and abortion.

Anyway, John Stewart is an entertainer. I don't know why anyone would love or hate an entertainer.. You either enjoy his efforts or you don't, but that alone doesn't seem to warrant a feeling as strong as hate.

 

How I personally define a libera is like this:

They are the opposite of conservatives. If a conservative is a firearm enthusiast they want to take away your firearms. If a conservative is pro - life, they are pro - choice. Generally, their opinions and beliefs tend to be the opposite of what conservatives believes.

liberals have a snobby elitist attitude.

Many of them are Marxists wqho use tactics out of Saul Alinski's book Rules For radicals.

They always bash conservatives any chance they get to.

The people they hate the most are conservatives, so almost anything they say will be to generalize and demonize conserv atives to no. One of the posters that represent this the best is Gorn Captain.

They hate wealthy people except for their oiwn.

They never hold their own to the same standards as anybody else and think they are above their own rules. They say it's wrong to be bigoted and hateful yet they hate and are bigoted against conservatives the most.

Many of them are Marxists.

They do NOT believe in the Constitution. For example, they don't want the individual to have firearms and will do anything theyc an to take them away using any dirty rotten trick they can think of.

Liberals can never be open and honest they must turn any criticism of them around to bashing conservatives.

There's quite a bit more, but I'm tired right now.

 

while i'll agree that the argument made by jcarl is lacking, being taxed twice on your labor simply because you chose to risk it by investing is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg. for the sake of simplicity, take an investment in manufacturing. taxes are paid on assets, buildings and equipment, and on the materials for whatever goods are being manufactured. as an employer, there is then the matter of taxes paid on your payroll. then there are the taxes paid on the profits made when the goods are sold (our corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world). out of what's left, the original investments are repaid with whatever post-tax dollars remain and taxes are then taken from the return on those investments. the string of taxes on that original investment is staggering and what i've given you is still only what you can see of the iceberg above the waterline. below there are regulatory and transportation fees, usage fees and property taxes, not to mention a whole host of fees, penalties and taxes added on by regional authorities. all of this must be figured into the equation before the investors see a dime of the money they risked in the venture. you might say "well, that's the price of doing business", but what happens when that price becomes too high? what happens when investors, tired of paying too much for too little return, move on to more business friendly climes?

 

You just don't get it do you? Do CEO's don Iron Suits and ward off evil doers? Duh,,,No. Do they have a staff of writers that spend untold hours spinning news stories to be fed to an eager liberal audience to help relieve their built up daily stresses acquired on the battlefield as only a Jon Stewart can do? NO again. Those CEO's cower in their ivory towers in fear that Ironman doesn't bust in and 'make thing right' and that Jon Stewart's writers don't discover what they've been up to with their corporate mergers and corrupt capitalist shenanigans.

 

Sooo, if we have this correctly, when we don't hear of them giving to charity, it is because they are selfish sh*ts. When we do hear of them giving to charity, it is because they are vainglorious sh**ts.

Nothing like having it both ways, huh?

 

Well its not like that actually. You're taxed on earnings. If you work and earn $100k that you proceed to invest, you first pay taxes on the 100k earned. Lose 10 investing? You pay no taxes. Make 20 investing? You only pay taxes on the income, not on the principal. Your 100k remains untaxed.

And as far as the multiple fees and taxes in production, I agree it is too many KINDS of tax and should be simplified (I'd prefer fewer kinds of taxes at higher rates). But even then, your business is ultimately only taxed on earnings. You deduct costs, so if there is a $2000 licensing cost, the government ignores $2000 of your income.

 

No, you don't have it correctly. Read it carefully. He's saying that the praise given for good is relative not to the good itself, but to how much people like the people doing the good (the poster is claiming it based on political views). So, as he said, the Koch brothers can build hospitals, fund children's education, fund struggling musicians, fund public broadcasting and educational programming, but they won't get much praise for it because the people reporting on it are liberals who know how much the Koch brothers give to Republicans.

And he's right. The Koch brothers are generous philanthropists who aren't given the appreciation they deserve simply because they're Republican. And that's just wrong. I sincerely appreciate the good that the Koch brothers, Bono, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, George Bush (1&2) etc. Have done, despite their political affiliations.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you don't have it correctly. Read it carefully. He's saying that the praise given for good is relative not to the good itself, but to how much people like the people doing the good (the poster is claiming it based on political views). So, as he said, the Koch brothers can build hospitals, fund children's education, fund struggling musicians, fund public broadcasting and educational programming, but they won't get much praise for it because the people reporting on it are liberals who know how much the Koch brothers give to Republicans.

And he's right. The Koch brothers are generous philanthropists who aren't given the appreciation they deserve simply because they're Republican. And that's just wrong. I sincerely appreciate the good that the Koch brothers, Bono, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, George Bush (1&2) etc. Have done, despite their political affiliations.

 

I was not just addressing his comments. I was taking them, in conjunction with Logical claiming you hardly hear of them giving money

Great point. Why do all the clebs and the scum from Hollyweird get a pass on all the money they make. And BTW you hardly ever hear of them giving money to charity!!!!

Thus, the point stands. You have logical1, claiming you never hear about 'Hollyweird' donating. Yet, you are and sanskrit are trying to claim that who is reported giving to charity is biased because those that do the reporting are leaning left. If that was the case, then one would think that the Hollyweird charitable would be splashed all over the news.

So, either logical1 is just blathering mindlessly, or the non-reporting of charitable acts goes both ways.

 

people that brag about the money they give are not doing it for the 'giving', they are doing it for their image...

 

I'd prefer ONE kind of tax at the lowest-possible rate.

 

Thank the conservative tax cuts for that.

 

well, you'll notice, Sanskrit isn't logical1. I'm not Sanskrit, and logical1 isn't me. So taking different posts from different people in conjunction as if they are from concurring sources is fundamentally flawed. It makes no sense for you to criticize Sanskrit "Nothing like having it both ways, huh?" when the "both ways" only comes from combining his statements with statements that are not his.

 

What if I told you that there is a tax that is burdenless to the economy. A tax which does not increase consumer prices, lower wages or make producers or consumers poorer in any way, no matter how high the tax is levied. A tax which has no dead-weight losses. A tax which does not discourage production but actually encourages production. A tax which drastically increases competition in one of the most important factors of production (a monopoly busting tax). A tax which is tied directly to the benefits received from government spending -- ensuring that the tax is always affordable to the market. In addition, this would be a voluntary tax which would never put people in cages (prison) for non-payment. If I could show you that such a tax exists … would you support that tax?

 

I think CEO pay only becomes an issue with corporations that get bailed out.

Granted, bailing out corporations is a much bigger issue in and of itself.

The only other cases where I can see it mattering are where the government allows or fosters a monopoly/oligopoly in a given market. If a market isn't truly free, then CEO's aren't really being paid according to their value.

In short, cronyism can lead to top-heavy management. A free market would punish these companies by causing them to fail while letting much more practical and efficient companies succeed in their wake.

Since we've quickly discovered that quite a few big banks are treated as "too big to fail" by the government, concerns about CEO pay are understandable.

This is missing the forest for the trees, however, since the practice of bailing out corporations should be abolished in the first place.