Author Topic: Limiting executive pay by decree (Read 1369 times)

Questor · « **on:** October 23, 2009, 04:13:08 AM »

What's your opinion on the limits on executive pay at those seven companies that got big bailouts? My take is that it creates incentives for the selected executives to put their efforts into things that will personally make them money, rather than worry about the companies they work for. They could do all kinds of ethical things like being on boards of other companies, working for non-profits, lobbying, etc.

LONGTOM · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2009, 04:21:45 AM »

I don't see the government putting a cap on their pay.
In fact they have a build in cost of living increese in place that they don't even have to vote on, they just get it every so often.
No company wastes as much money as the government.
I think they should start at the top and that means them!!!

LONGTOM

magooch · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2009, 05:15:27 AM »

Those companies shouldn't have been bailed out to begin with and for the executives to keep getting exorbitant pay and, or bonuses while their companies owe the government is ridiculous. It really galls me to agree with Osama, but as they say--even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

jimster · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2009, 05:20:01 AM »

I guess the government figures they own them....so it's a wake up call that anything the government touches is not good. Let that be a lesson for anyplace taking tax payer money, or letting the government get involved. Whatever the government decides...there isn't a thing they can do about it now.

Also should be a wake up call on how our president lies so much. He said in public he wanted nothing to do with "running these companies"....he lied like hell.
Now these execs for sure don't want their pay cut...but that's a lesson they can learn if it happens. They held their hands out. They all deserve it...and if they are not a full private company anymore, there is not a thing they can do about it. So be it....I say good....they got what they deserved for taking gobs of our money instead of just going away.

Should be a lesson in there somewhere for any private company grabing gobs of tax money....they best pay attention to it, and learn a hard lesson from it.

I say cut all their pay to the bone and teach everyone in the nation a good lesson....stay away from the government and tax money.

williamlayton · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2009, 05:39:51 AM »

I don't agree with gov't intervention. Bankruptcy is a good intervention for companies that can't manage their business.
Blessings

Questor · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2009, 05:52:39 AM »

WilliamLayton:

You da man! That's what I think too. All this intervention by the government is causing a lot more problems than it solves.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2009, 06:38:42 AM »

Why will they Cap people that pay taxes salaries at the same time
Not cap their perks.
Not cap thier own pay.
And not go after the people in government that have not paid taxes!

Cabin4 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2009, 08:21:51 AM »

Since our illegal government has already leaped off the bail-out cliff on this one, I agree with limiting pay only for companies that have accepted bail out money. When the money is returned, the pay limit on the company must be lifted.

In the case of AIG, those employees that had signed employment agreements that were in effect prior to the bail, those should have been honored. Congress passed a law to restrict these bonuses specific to those AIG employees. This is an illegal act under our constitution. Congress and the President should be held accountable for this act.

This proves why our government should not be in the bailout business to begin with. The government has no role in bail outs or limiting anyone’s pay in the private sector. But if you do the first one (bail out) there should be pay limits. It’s pure BS on all fronts. The bail outs are wrong and they are unconstitutional.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2009, 08:26:01 AM »

The CEO of Wells Fargo said he didn't even want any TARP money but was forced to take it. He said they didn't have that many bad loans.

briarpatch · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2009, 08:49:24 AM »

Sometimes what you hear and what you get are two different animals. To those in la-la land this is a good thing but the truth is they will probably get more. It just want be called salary.
You dont see them out in the street screaming and pointing fingers do you? A good indication of what is taking place behind doors, besides those CEO's are buds with the congressional whores. Tiny 0 needs to start looking good. The best way to do that is to pander and flatter.

The Hermit · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2009, 08:52:36 AM »

I think any company that gets taxpayer dollars gets compensation limits till the money is paid back. I also agree that the governemnt should keep out of the affairs of business. If I invest in a company that turns out to be poorly run, then its my risk, my loss.
The other thing to remember is that CONGRESS started this whole mess by forcing banks to make risky loans to people who couldn't afford it in the first place. (read socialism)
The greed in the market allowed the use of derivatives and packaged off good and bad loans as investments to more greedy people that didn't understand what they were buying.
It seems that the government can't figure out when its good to intervine and when its not.
Sorry for the rant.

The Hermit

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2009, 09:05:15 AM »

Like Reagan said. "Government is not the solution, it is the problem". Companies should be allowed to fail, and not be bailed out. GM and Chrysler got 30 billion in loans just before the election last year so they wouldn't have to file bankrupcy. Then last spring, they still had to file bankrupcy and reorganize. Should have allowed them to fail early on and not drug out the problem, and they would still be in business but leaner. Ford saw this coming and sold their stake in Madza, Volvo, and other assets and kept their core business in tact to avoid bankrupcy. GM and Chrysler should have done the same.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2009, 09:39:28 AM »

Quote from: Cabin4 on October 23, 2009, 08:21:51 AM

Since our illegal government has already leaped off the bail-out cliff on this one, I agree with limiting pay only for companies that have accepted bail out money. When the money is returned, the pay limit on the company must be lifted.

In the case of AIG, those employees that had signed employment agreements that were in effect prior to the bail, those should have been honored. Congress passed a law to restrict these bonuses specific to those AIG employees. This is an illegal act under our constitution. Congress and the President should be held accountable for this act.

This proves why our government should not be in the bailout business to begin with. The government has no role in bail outs or limiting anyone’s pay in the private sector. But if you do the first one (bail out) there should be pay limits. It’s pure BS on all fronts. The bail outs are wrong and they are unconstitutional.

I can see limiting BONUS pay but to walk in and steal 90% of their Pay is a move to drive these people out.
What would you do if I walked in said your company took federal $ and now you have to take a 90% pay cut?
You would look at your bills, based on 100% and figure out a way to either pay back the loans or leave and go work for another compan y where you could make 75% of your old pay. That is what is going to happen here.
I will not be suprised when they leave that Obama or the Pay Czar do not appoint people they want or owe and pay them Millions more than the pay that was limited.
This is an illegal move to steal $

Redtail1949 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2009, 09:57:03 AM »

one exc. said they were forced to take the bail out money no other option was on the table for them. THEN AFTERWARDS they put in the condition of EXC PAY. they should have put it up front and then the company could have made the decision to fail or accept the money and the conditions with it.

the government was just as big a snake as the companies were. the government should have let them go under and we would have suffered no question...but by now we would have been coming out of it. the government in a free country has no business in running any private companies nor bailing them out.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 23, 2009, 12:35:41 PM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on October 23, 2009, 09:39:28 AM

Quote from: Cabin4 on October 23, 2009, 08:21:51 AM
Since our illegal government has already leaped off the bail-out cliff on this one, I agree with limiting pay only for companies that have accepted bail out money. When the money is returned, the pay limit on the company must be lifted.

In the case of AIG, those employees that had signed employment agreements that were in effect prior to the bail, those should have been honored. Congress passed a law to restrict these bonuses specific to those AIG employees. This is an illegal act under our constitution. Congress and the President should be held accountable for this act.

This proves why our government should not be in the bailout business to begin with. The government has no role in bail outs or limiting anyone’s pay in the private sector. But if you do the first one (bail out) there should be pay limits. It’s pure BS on all fronts. The bail outs are wrong and they are unconstitutional.

I can see limiting BONUS pay but to walk in and steal 90% of their Pay is a move to drive these people out.
What would you do if I walked in said your company took federal $ and now you have to take a 90% pay cut?
You would look at your bills, based on 100% and figure out a way to either pay back the loans or leave and go work for another compan y where you could make 75% of your old pay. That is what is going to happen here.
I will not be suprised when they leave that Obama or the Pay Czar do not appoint people they want or owe and pay them Millions more than the pay that was limited.
This is an illegal move to steal $

The pay caps are only limited to senior executives. If they want to take money from the devil, they can pay the price. No company should be forced to take bail out cash. I don't believe that BS. Ford refused to take it and any company that says they don't want cannot be forced to take it. Tell the Feds to go ^%&(* ##(*!!

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2009, 12:56:46 PM »

Cabin 4
Yes they took the $ but that would be the same as the government telling you you took the tax refund
Yes I know it was your money in the return but it came from the govt. if it were not for the rules congress imposed and set up the banks and others would not have been in as much trouble.
I can see them cutting pay by 5-10% and taking all bonus payments as repayment to the loan.
but to cut the pay by 90% is designed to drive these people out of the job. there is a motive behind this.
I will bet you a round of sporting clays in Turlok that the executives that leave to make more else where will be replaced by Obama people appointed to take thier place and run the company at the exucitives old salaries.
Bet? Either way we go shoot sporting clays.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2009, 03:55:53 PM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on October 23, 2009, 12:56:46 PM

I will bet you a round of sporting clays in Turlok that the executives that leave to make more else where will be replaced by Obama people appointed to take thier place and run the company at the exucitives old salaries.
Bet? Either way we go shoot sporting clays.

mcwoodduck,
That is an interesting perspective and one I had not thought of. It will be very interesting to see how this develops.

Is Turlock really the closest place to do sporting clays around here?

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #17 on:** October 24, 2009, 11:24:32 AM »

Don't think it is the closest but I have a buddy that lives in turlock and the Rooster Ranch is a good course and better Cheap.
You know in case I am wrong.
RR also has a ird farm and will put out birds. Have not done it yet but Want to bring the 14 year old Nephew with me to get him some more hunting time.
There is the Sunnyvale Rod and Gun club in Cupertino that I want to check out.
I am also looking for a place to shoot either IDPA or some other handgun compitition.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 24, 2009, 12:25:02 PM »

I shoot at Sunnyvale R&G all the time. I like it better than Los Altos R&G up on the summit. Where is RR? Never heard of that place.

alsaqr · « **Reply #19 on:** October 25, 2009, 04:40:16 AM »

So far as I'm concerned executives of viable companies can be paid whatever the stockholders will allow. The executives in question trashed their companies by peddling useless derivatives. They came begging for US taxpayer bailouts and the US government decided to bail them out.

IMO: Pay them $20 per year until all the taxpayer bailout money is recouped by the US taxapyers, with interest.

jhm · « **Reply #20 on:** October 25, 2009, 05:45:33 AM »

I wonder how many of these CEOs were Osama SUPPORTERS prior to the coranation? And big DONERS to the DNC? Jim

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #21 on:** October 25, 2009, 05:55:43 AM »

Quote from: Cabin4 on October 24, 2009, 12:25:02 PM

I shoot at Sunnyvale R&G all the time. I like it better than Los Altos R&G up on the summit. Where is RR? Never heard of that place.

RR is Rooster Ranch in Turlock.
What splatter gun sports to they have at Sunnyvale?
Do they have Pistol Shoots there?
and if you want to move the bet to Sunnyvale, OK.

JBlk · « **Reply #22 on:** October 25, 2009, 06:26:50 AM »

When you dance you must pay the fidler.The excutives who run these companies are the ones who called the shots and they should be required to live by those decisions.Our tax dollars should not be used to supplement those decisions or their outcome.Any tax dollars shoud have a strick definition of the use of that money and a repayment schedule with instrest applied.The present procedure used to compensate our elected representives is a total farce.Any public employee should not receive a pay raise based on their own vote, but rather by the people who the represent.

mirage1988 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 25, 2009, 06:36:18 AM »

It is coming out now that the banks were forced to take the money.
Funny how some of you that claim to be against gov't intrusion think it's ok for gov't to limit pay!
Don't you see what's really happening?
They are trying to force the evil ceo's out to avoid the backlash like they got when they fired GM's ceo.
Divide and conquer- it's the democrat way.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #24 on:** October 25, 2009, 06:59:18 AM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on October 25, 2009, 05:55:43 AM

Quote from: Cabin4 on October 24, 2009, 12:25:02 PM
I shoot at Sunnyvale R&G all the time. I like it better than Los Altos R&G up on the summit. Where is RR? Never heard of that place.
RR is Rooster Ranch in Turlock.
What splatter gun sports to they have at Sunnyvale?
Do they have Pistol Shoots there?
and if you want to move the bet to Sunnyvale, OK.

They do cowboy shoots at Sunnyvale under the Sunnyvale Regulators SASS club. They also have trap shoots both organized and non. They also have bullseye and action pistol. Plus other competitive rifle stuff. Check it out.
http://www.sunnyvalegunclub.com/activities/action_pistol.html

Yes, let's move the bet to Sunnyvale. If you plan to go there sometime, let me know and we can meet up if I can make it.

Sourdough · « **Reply #25 on:** October 25, 2009, 11:18:02 AM »

If he is the executive that got the company in trouble, he should have been replaced. Now don't limit the new guy, pay him what he is worth. If it's still the old guy, yes cut his pay till he makes the company profitable again.

mechanic · « **Reply #26 on:** October 25, 2009, 01:53:21 PM »

I remember reading about the old Soviet Union. There the gov. decided what job you would have and your pay. We can all clamor to cut these guys all day, then they will come for us. The government has NO authority to bail out private business, nor to intervene in how much or how little they pay. We have missed the point. They should not have interfered at all, and let the businesses fail or prosper on their own. The damage to society is less from a failed business than a successful government in this situation......

torpedoman · « **Reply #27 on:** October 25, 2009, 02:01:20 PM »

I guess that the owner can pay what ever he wants to and the government owns them.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 25, 2009, 02:52:08 PM »

Just becasue a company is in trouble does not mean the executive(s) are at fault. Sometimes sectors of our economy or the economy as a whole just goes south. In any case, the government should never be in the business of bail outs. Who cares if the CEO screwed up or not, its their business to recover for the board of directors and the share holders, not the governments role.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #29 on:** October 26, 2009, 06:40:23 AM »

The car companies are in trouble as well as the banks due to Congress and the excessive taxes and regulations that cost $ to the business.
The car companies espacally.
There are huge gas guzzler taxes on most cars that put them out of the reach of most people.
a $40,000.00 suburban has over 7,000.00 of gas guzzler tax in it alone. Raising the cost of the car and lowering the demand, creating fewer cars to be made.
Hey if Congress was the ones that loaned the $ and are the reason why some of these companies had to be bailed out,
Why not limit the congress' Pay as well till the tax payers are paid back.
If it is good for the CEO's it is good for the congressmen.
Cabin 4 OK. Bet moved and I will see when I can get there. What and when do you shoot there?