Pay czar to cut CEO's Salaries

@bobmnu (8160)
United States
October 24, 2009 2:05am CST
This is really socking it to the rich CEO's and their big salaries. Just think a big Wall Street CEO who makes 10 million a year is now going to have to live on 500 thousand. This is great. Just think a guy that used to pay a million or more in taxes is not only going to have to pay a few thousand. Now figure about 50 CEO and the government is losing close to 100 million in tax revenue. Who do you think is going to pay that tax? It will be interesting come April 15, 2010 when tax revenues are down. Look at New York State and the problems they are having with the budget. I be they wish those Wall Street types had gotten their bonus. It is estimated that NY lost several billion in tax revenue because of that. Is the pay czar cutting salaries a good idea or a symbolic jester?
6 responses
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
24 Oct 09
The government does not have the authority to even do that. Even so, it is a bad idea and merely a gesture on the part of the jesters in the WH camp. That tax revenue will have to be made up somewhere.
@Koriana (302)
• United States
24 Oct 09
why does the government lost funds have to be made up, they have plenty of slush funds, proxy agencies ect. to borrow all the money they want (even though their constitution forbids this)! In plain simple words, NY States problems cut far deeper than the pay of the top exuctutives of a few companies!
• United States
25 Oct 09
Because the liberals and communists will not stand by and let that money slip through their greedy little fingers.
@Koriana (302)
• United States
25 Oct 09
I could have came up with a better answer than that. people have been moving out of NY in droves for a few years. the environment up there is inhospitable to the working class! the taxes are killers! This is just my opinion after living there for a few decades! their tax base has been dwindling, their spending just keeps growing, and yes, it is against the constitution for them to borrow money, but well they found ways around that using such agencies as the NY Port Authority. to suggest that them losing the taxes from a decrease in these few ceos will harm them in any significant amount as compared to how much they have harmed themselves through their own policies is just plain laughable! I live in Virginia now, and well, this state has had little rainy day fund that they've been drawing from to help them get through this tough time. All NY had was a bunch of debt already stacked up that they had to pay interest on. debt, dwindling tax base, high taxes, high unemployment, decreasing home values, out of control costs in the welfare, medicaid, medicare, ect....
• United States
25 Oct 09
LMAO, you actually think these guys pay that much in taxes? These are CEO's of companies that manage money, and create tax havens. Many of these Wall Street CEO's have better tax lawyers than the IRS, and actually wrote the tax code. Do you think they know ways around it? Do ya??? I agree it will be interesting to see what the numbers say in 2010. I bet that it won't be anywhere near what your estimates are, and then what are they going to say? Do they explain to the American people that these people are cheating the system, and we know it. Or, do they just ignor the problem, and move on. I am putting my money on the latter.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
30 Oct 09
First of all in this country we tax income and not wealth. Second did the state of New York cut their budget or increase it? They increased it and every tax payer has to pay more. In the end the CEO's lost some but every taxpayer lost too. I gues that is how you spread the wealth. Remember in NY the Governor gave every school age child money to spend on school supplies and he gave the people on welfare $300 when the gas prices jumped. You had to cut back but those on the government dole made money. Who do you think they will vote for the next election?
@Koriana (302)
• United States
24 Oct 09
NY State has always had budget problems.... This year appears to be worse, yes. As far as I know though, and I doubt very much if it is, this isn't attributable to a few ceo's on wall street not getting their bonuses.... matter of fact, how many haven't gotten their bonuses? I'd bet it would more than likely be due to the fact that there has been a few jobs lost...from wall street, to main street...
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
26 Oct 09
You heard about the big bonuses that were not paid, what you did not hear was that the no bonus also was felt by all the workers. In those companies and many others who did not want the bad press the no bonus meant no bonus for anyone. Even companies that made money and were profitable did not pay bonus. So the secretary and the janitor who worked hard every day did not get the extra money for their families. This meant that the workers in the stores where they would spend the money did not make the sale and lost money or were cut hours. It is called the trickle down effect.
@Koriana (302)
• United States
27 Oct 09
gee, don't know, I've gotten a couple bonuses.....not million dollar bonuses, not even thousand dollar bonuses....but we're still not going out and buying much. and well, might as well forget about us buying a new car, don't matter how good the next bribe the gov't comes up with it....since well, hubby was laid off so I doubt if we could get the loan!!! the fact of the matter is, anyone making millions a year should have managed to find a way to have a nice rainy day fund to help them get through this traumatic time!! unlike the millions of your average working people who've been laid off of late. and one thing is pretty sure, unemployed, and still overtaxed people aren't gonna be buying much of anything!
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
30 Oct 09
According to the article I read last year the CEO get a 1.5 million dollar bonus. The Federal government takes 38% or $570,000, the state gets 10% or $150,000. He now has $780,000 left of his bonus. Lets assume he spends it all and half of the cost of the goods and services he purchased goes for wages. The government would get (assuming they are in a lower tax bracket) about 24% or $93,600. As a result of that CEO not getting his bonus the state and federal government are out $813,600 or over half of the bonus goes in taxes either directly or indirectly. This example is only taking it down one layer It is often said that if you shop locally the money circulates 6 times. Think of all the people who had less because the CEO's did not get their bonus. What earned the President a few point bump in the polls cost the government at least 54% of the bonuses not paid.
• United States
24 Oct 09
Let me see from the information you provided 50 CEO's are going to lose their income, they took government bail out money for their corporations (Not included in your discussion but is a known fact) So they now can only earn at best $500,000 per year and the government lost 100 million dollars. Now on the same hand you compare the loss of CEO salaries to have affected the State of New York and the revenue loss is in the Billions of dollars??? I don't get the connection, why did all the CEO's in New York have to forfeit their right to their salaries did they all take government bail out money? Or is there another reason? If their books don't balance then there has been creative accounting and the market is making corrections for criminal actions. (Crimes not corrected.) Does a CEO deserve to make so much? The Earth does get a little smaller and a little flatter... Boom!
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
30 Oct 09
I know a few CEO who make 6 or 7 figure incomes and receive big bonuses. I would not like their work schedule. A friend who is the head of Operations for a company has employees who are in charge of monitoring the emissions from the plant. At 2 AM when the police get a call about the smell guess who they call? Not the worker but the head of operations. He has an excellent safety record at his plant. The plant 400 miles away has had a rash of accidents. He was called to the home office (800 miles away) for a major meeting and is told that for the next 6 weeks he will be reviewing and implementing a new safety procedures for the poor performing plant. He was successful in improving safety and reducing accidents but he did not get to see his daughters last year in Volleyball or two concerts she was in her senior year. He lived out of a motel room and worked 12 to 16 hours a day (the plant ran two shifts and he had to check on both shifts). You are telling me that the guy who works the 8 hours shift and goes home should get the same pay as my friend? Do you know why these Executives receive such big bonuses? Because many years ago (back in the 1970's) two presidents (Nixon and Carter) tried to control prices and wages. Two things we got as a result of their attempt to control the economy: 1. New Car Rebates - this is because if the car companies reduced the price to sell the car then they could not raise it later. 2. Bonuses in Lu of salary. A person working on commission or piece work could not get an increase in weekly wages but could get a bonus at the end of the year.
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
24 Oct 09
Initialy we were told this was just ceo's from banks who took T.A.R.P. money. NOW it seems it's ceo's in banks whether or NOT the bank took T.A.R.P. money. Next, it will be ceo's for other big companies that did or did not take T.A.R.P. money. so where does it end? It doesn't, until WE make it end. Comeon folks, it isn't going to stop. even if you use the fact that they took TARP money (whcih is STILL unconstitutional) this throws that right out the window because now they think they can controll ANY large salery. Go ahead, tell me this country isn't headed for an outright revolt soon.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
26 Oct 09
Several years ago there was an idea going around to pay for the work based on the value to society. A nurse would be paid more than a Bank Officer because the nurse saved lives. the garbage person would be paid the same as a stock broker. The idea was that some government committee would decide what was a fair wage for each job. Sounds like we are heading for this.
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
24 Oct 09
You missed the real danger in this...just what has an unelected advisor got that enables him to determine what ANYONE is paid? Not that I care for the idea of them making so much money, but come on, this is supposed to be America. The government HAS no business telling anyone what to pay in salaries, unless they are employed by said government. And the fact that this guy IS NOT an elected official is down right scary! WE are supposed to run this country by electing and delegating OUR power to those elected officials. But here's a guy who merely appointed, not elected...running the show? Who's next? I bet it's healthcare workers!