U.S. Plans $500,000 Cap on Executive Pay in Bailouts - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Matt L · #16 02-04-2009, 02:01 PM

How much is an executive worth, given that his company is now worth quite a bit less than when he started? Negative paychecks?

Botnst · #17 02-04-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

How much is an executive worth, given that his company is now worth quite a bit less than when he started? Negative paychecks?

I dunno, do you? If I were a voting investor I'd give a poopie. If I were simply an investor I'd probably move my dough if I found the compensation package burdensome. If I'm not an investor then I keep my nose out of other folks' biddness.

B

Matt L · #18 02-04-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I dunno, do you? If I were a voting investor I'd give a poopie. If I were simply an investor I'd probably move my dough if I found the compensation package burdensome. If I'm not an investor then I keep my nose out of other folks' biddness.

B

What about the bailout? Are you not becoming an unwitting investor?

John Doe · #19 02-04-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

That's the Socialist way,isn't it.Throw a bone to appease the angry masses.
This will simply lead to more cheating and theft as these execs find more creative ways to enrich themselves.

Yeah, its a dumb move, imo.

link · #20 02-04-2009, 03:03 PM

I think pay caps are a great idea. If the gov is supporting the company the gov has every right to set caps. I wish it were done more broadly. There are so many companies that exist to leach off the government, this change would be huge victory for the tax payers to impose pay caps on every one of these. For every project paid by the gov put caps on all officers and top ranking managers. Give them a performance based bonus as an incentive, but an absolute cap on salary.

Putting a cap on pay is a power of monopsony that is never used. Further, if a company exists to farm the government they ought to be responsive to gov requirements. If the business doesn’t want pay caps, then don’t work for the government. Simple choice.

In the end it will help companies offer a better value by having less financial drain for people who, the evidence has shown, provide little value for the company. If the company doesn’t have an extra 1m or 140m in financial drain, imagine how much more can go to the stock holders.

If the business isn’t subsidized and/or doesn’t work for the gov, they can do as they please.

If folks want to cheat their way around it, they open themselves up to jail time.

aklim · #21 02-04-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by link

I think pay caps are a great idea. If the gov is supporting the company the gov has every right to set caps. I wish it were done more broadly. There are so many companies that exist to leach off the government, this change would be huge victory for the tax payers to impose pay caps on every one of these. For every project paid by the gov put caps on all officers and top ranking managers. Give them a performance based bonus as an incentive, but an absolute cap on salary.

Putting a cap on pay is a power of monopsony that is never used. Further, if a company exists to farm the government they ought to be responsive to gov requirements. If the business doesn’t want pay caps, then don’t work for the government. Simple choice.

In the end it will help companies offer a better value by having less financial drain for people who, the evidence has shown, provide little value for the company. If the company doesn’t have an extra 1m or 140m in financial drain, imagine how much more can go to the stock holders.

If the business isn’t subsidized and/or doesn’t work for the gov, they can do as they please.

If folks want to cheat their way around it, they open themselves up to jail time.

I think I said that pretty simply in post 8.

Live with Mom & Dad, live by their house rules. Don't like it, move out.

Medmech · #22 02-04-2009, 05:50 PM

I'm split on this one, I'm all for free market but these so called talented clowns ran their companies into the ground and went to Washington with a tin cup asking for Uncle Sam to bail them out. Maybe if the clowns would run their companies in the black they would not have to worry about a federal cap on their income because they would not be asking for a handout. In the olden days executives had smaller salaries and big stock packages, if the stock did well...payday if it did not move along.

And if they too the bailout and the pay is not enough they are free to destroy the private equity of their choice.

A264172 · #23 02-04-2009, 05:57 PM

Also, groceries purchased with 'food stamps' will no longer be loaded into Escalades.

Botnst · #24 02-04-2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

What about the bailout? Are you not becoming an unwitting investor?

If I were an investor I would have a certificate in my hot little hands. Right now I'm just another sucker in a government ponzi scheme.

aklim · #25 02-04-2009, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If I were an investor I would have a certificate in my hot little hands. Right now I'm just another sucker in a government ponzi scheme.

I thought Ponzi schemes require that the old investors be paid off by the new investors? Which one are you and when do you get paid?

Botnst · #26 02-04-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I thought Ponzi schemes require that the old investors be paid off by the new investors? Which one are you and when do you get paid?

I'm the guy guy left holding the debt while the other guys get paid.

aklim · #27 02-04-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I'm the guy guy left holding the debt while the other guys get paid.

Ah, the Taxpayer, aka Sucker.

Botnst · #28 02-04-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Ah, the Taxpayer, aka Sucker.

My turn in the barrel.

aklim · #29 02-04-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

My turn in the barrel.

But does your turn ever end and you get to be the guy using the barrel? Me, I haven't seemed to get to that point and I was wondering when you would so I can gauge when my day outside is.

PaulC · #30 02-04-2009, 07:12 PM

So, executives in those companies that are subject to this restriction can move to other employers not subject to this salary cap, allowing even less-qualified execs who couldn't command over $500k in a free-market environment to take the helm.

An oil tanker's captain takes a drunken nap while his ship runs aground, giving a free lube job to hundreds of miles of shoreline. Cap resigns and starts a new career as a school bus driver. Should the salary for a ship's captain at his former company be reduced as a condition of a government-funded cleanup? Do you think such a salary reduction will attract more-qualified or less-qualified successors to the position?