17
   

Executive Pay limitation!

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 04:33 pm
@BigTexN,
Can you have better proof that your argument sucks than that H2OMan agrees with it?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 04:41 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

My argument boils down to this: NO ONE...not even you kickycan...should be told that your income will be capped...especially capped below current prevailing wages.


Okay: provide your justification for the word 'should' in the above sentence. Why not?

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 04:44 pm
Don't democrats want companies to take TARP money if they might need it? Isn't that the great plan to rescue the industry?

They just made it less likely that companies will do that (which make me happy).
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 04:55 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Don't democrats want companies to take TARP money if they might need it? Isn't that the great plan to rescue the industry?

They just made it less likely that companies will do that (which make me happy).


We only want them to take it if they desperately need it to survive.

If they would rather fold than take exec. limitations, fine with me.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 04:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I hope for the sake of our country that they don't take my/our money....whether they need it or not.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


We only want them to take it if they desperately need it to survive.

If they would rather fold than take exec. limitations, fine with me.


WE?

This Socialist Stimulus plan needs to die a quick death.



http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,

The argument BigTexN puts forth rocks!

PrezBO sucks, and those that support his Socialist Stimulus plan suck!

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:03 pm
@maporsche,
I think we are all in agreement that none of us want tax money to be spent bailing out corporations.

But there are persuasive arguments being made that doing bail outs may produce results better than letting corporations go bust. That is something that has to be taken seriously.

And I think even if the salary cap is purely cosmetic (I am not prepared to consider it just cosmetic--I do not see it as inappropriate.

The corporations are free to refuse the help. Ford did!

If the corporate heads are so certain they are worth tens of millions rather than a half-million...turn the help down. Sink or swim on your own.

But the cap is not inappropriate.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:04 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Leaving aside your penchant for slinging puerile insults


Three sentences before,

Quote:
... coming from a childish creep such as you.


Now is that hypocritical, Set?

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:06 pm


More than 50% of all Americans agree that there should be no more bail-outs or hand-outs.
This Socialist Stimulus plan stinks and the people can smell it.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:10 pm
@H2O MAN,
It has been necessitated by the moron who just got dumped.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,


The Socialist Stimulus plan is not necessary.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:26 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

My argument boils down to this: NO ONE...not even you kickycan...should be told that your income will be capped...especially capped below current prevailing wages.


I'm going to save this for my next salary negotiation when the boss tries to tell me there just isn't money in the budget this year for a larger increase. Do you think he'll buy it?
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:46 pm
@Butrflynet,


You have to earn a larger increase.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
0 Replies
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
They really are perfectly free not to accept the bail out.


Wells Fargo tried that...Paulsen didn't allow them to not accept the funds...and now people are pissing on them about Vegas.

0 Replies
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 05:55 pm
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
I'm going to save this for my next salary negotiation when the boss tries to tell me there just isn't money in the budget this year for a larger increase. Do you think he'll buy it?


If your talents can't be priced higher elsewhere then you are recieving a fair wage.

If he tries to cut your income by 90% and offer you incentive stock options...then you're working for Barack Obama!
0 Replies
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 06:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Okay: provide your justification for the word 'should' in the above sentence. Why not?


The answer to your question is: Assuming that you are marketable and that you have valuable expertise, you shouldn't have a government dictator tell that you are not allowed to strive to earn what you're truly worth in the marketplace.

You have the free will to work for less but a president of a free market shouldn't look down on his subjects and dictate what income his subjects will be allowed to take home.
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 06:19 pm
@BigTexN,
tex wrote :

Quote:
a president of a free market shouldn't look down on his subjects and dictate what income his subjects will be allowed to take home.


i understand that those "$500,000" executives are free to reject the cap and find a better paying job .
is the president forcing them to work for $500,000 ?
why would they accept such a job if they can find a better one ?
(and it's not like a $1 job , which someone might accept for "the good of the country" imo) .
hbg
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 06:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
cyclo wrote :

Quote:
Do American shareholders have the right to vote on executive pay in most American Corporations? I had been under the understanding that they were not allowed to do so in most situations.


currently , in canada , shareholders cannot determine the salaries of any executives . the salaries etc. are listed in the annual report AFTER they have ben paid - but that's it .

in canada there is now a movement underway - by some very influential - investors to have legislation incorporated in the securities regulations requiring the establishment of "advisory boards on executive compensation" .
the big corporatios "strongly" object - BIG SURPRISE !
hbg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 06:37 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I hope for the sake of our country that they don't take my/our money....whether they need it or not.


Well, the TARP and the stimulus bill are two different animals; I'm not for firms taking advantage of TARP funds unless they really need it, and as far as I'm concerned, if they aren't willing to accept pay limits, they don't really need it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 09:41:23