Poll of the Day > Should CEO pay be capped

(+) Yeah! (+)

Should CEO pay be capped

---

Capped, no. Taxed highly after a certain threshold? Sure.

---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

No one's pay should be capped.

---

I don't like how much money CEO's make, but you're essentially asking for the government to be allowed to decide how much people are allowed to be paid, which is freaking terrible.
---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

No one's pay should be capped.

---

BUMPED2002 posted...

Should CEO pay be capped

Idk. I know many people who say that. But then would be mad if their pay got capped, too. Especially if they became a CEO...
---

ForteEXE3850 posted...

I don't like how much money CEO's make, but you're essentially asking for the government to be allowed to decide how much people are allowed to be paid, which is freaking terrible.

They already do decide that. They set the minimum wage.

---

So what you're saying is, we should do away with minimum wage.
---

Not gonna do a lot of good capping pay when they get compensation in other ways.

theres a reason why a lot of the highest paid ones work for a dollar a year.

Id support capping what those in medicine can get, around 200k cap for anyone involved. Remove some of the sociopathy and politics from medicine. Id even support a lower amount, but I wanted to account for VHCOL areas. Hospitals can do more tuition pay offs in exchange for signing up for a 3 year contract.

Use the money to hire more people and begin working more standard work hours and also give better quality of care.

Nonprofit hospital CEOs shouldnt be making millions. Nobody at a non profit should be making more than a couple hundred thousand.

Not sure about outright capped, but it'd be better than what we have now.

I'd rather MASSIVELY tax high earning brackets (and same rate, whether it's wages or capital gains) to discourage paying people those obscene amounts when the government will just collect most of it anyway.
I'd also like to reform corporate tax structure. Eliminate all the loopholes. The only tax breaks a company gets boil down to 2 factors:

1. Ratio of their profits to the size of their legal U.S. workforce (temp and part time workers counting as fractions of an employee)
2. Ratio of highest paid employee to lowest paid employee (to even further discourage massive CEO pay that's hundreds of times what other workers get)

Nothing else should really matter.

12 no votes and 5 yes votes. Good for you potd.

---

We should do away with corporations altogether.

---

I say no, but it IS kinda dumb a CEO can effectively bankrupt a company either though design or incompetence, and get huge windfalls all the way down.

The punchline here is that people who think it should be capped are most likely wage-cucks who'll never see that kind of money in their lifetime. But if the positions were reversed, they would do anything and everything to keep their money.

---

Capping CEO salaries likely wouldn't change much, but defining minimum wage as some percentage of the highest wage in the company would. In general, higher taxes on both very high salaries and corporate profits would also improve the disparity issue, without being as awkward as a hard cap would be.

---

No, but there should be tax implications for the company when the CEOs total compensation package reaches a certain level above the lowest paid person, the median and the average.

Moreover, if you earn over a million, we are taxing each dollar at 75%.

---

adjl posted...

but defining minimum wage as some percentage of the highest wage in the company would.

Probably wouldn't, because most companies would just lower CEO pay to keep everyone else's pay low, but would then use loopholes to pay CEOs in bonuses and stock dividends that don't technically count as pay.

Companies already do this.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Probably wouldn't, because most companies would just lower CEO pay to keep everyone else's pay low, but would then use loopholes to pay CEOs in bonuses and stock dividends that don't technically count as pay.

Companies already do this.

Such regulations would probably have to specify total compensation to avoid such loopholes. Really, any attempt to rectify the situation is going to require some efforts to close loopholes, since it's just way too easy to get out of paying taxes and whatnot if you can afford a good enough accountant/lawyer.

---

adjl posted...

Such regulations would probably have to specify total compensation to avoid such loopholes. Really, any attempt to rectify the situation is going to require some efforts to close loopholes, since it's just way too easy to get out of paying taxes and whatnot if you can afford a good enough accountant/lawyer.

Yes, but the point is more that if they're already finding ways to bypass things, they'd almost certainly find all new ways to open new ones even as we're closing old loopholes.

It would be extremely difficult to completely shut down every possible signing bonus, consultation fee, expense account, stock option, or possibilities we haven't even conceived of yet if they were determined enough to find ways to profit.

And that's assuming they wouldn't just move the bulk of their operations out of the US entirely to benefit from laxer laws in other countries, if we couldn't establish some incredibly strict trade regulations but simultaneously prevent it from becoming more profitable to the entire company to just sell outside the US instead (which is always a danger as more and more nations fully industrialize the way China is).

It would be a huge undertaking - which would call into question how worthwhile a reform it is in the first place, especially when worse, more important issues are being ignored in favor of it.
---

If it was an issue people would rise up and deal with it.
It's clearly not an issue.

---

Yes, they should have the good conscience to pay the people actually doing the bulk of the day-to-day activities better, even if they have take a pay cut.

This isn't a governmental issue, it's a societal issue.

---

I love when normal people fight for billionaires. Why do you want obscenely wealthy people to be even more obscenely wealthy?

CaptainStrong posted...

I love when normal people fight for billionaires. Why do you want obscenely wealthy people to be even more obscenely wealthy?

Only jealous people say something like this.
---

CaptainStrong posted...

I love when normal people fight for billionaires. Why do you want obscenely wealthy people to be even more obscenely wealthy?

Because I treat others the way I want to be treated. Plus, I'm pretty sure I'm only against to because I'm not rich. If I were in their position, I'm pretty sure I'd feel different. Also, capping their pay might cause them to not care as much, meaning the product could end up worse. They would probably still find ways to get that extra money, like going out of the states. And this could be just the start. Maybe after capping CEO pay, they start capping pay for other jobs or people. And I don't want that. I like being happy, so that would suck. But if they start capping pay for other people, other people stop caring about the work they do...
---

Judgmenl posted...

If it was an issue people would rise up and deal with it.
It's clearly not an issue.

What fantasy planet do you live on and how do I get there from earth?

---

There's one theory that says the best cap is a multiple of the lowest wage.
Another says that something should happen with tax that encouarges the money back into the buisness instead.

---

Joker_X_II posted...

The punchline here is that people who think it should be capped are most likely wage-cucks who'll never see that kind of money in their lifetime.

it is a pretty safe bet that most people expressing literally any opinion will never be as rich as the richest 0.1% of the population. That's a little too tautological to be a particularly meaningful statement.

Joker_X_II posted...

But if the positions were reversed, they would do anything and everything to keep their money.

Eh, yes and no. Personally, I really don't care about being a billionaire. That's just a completely unnecessary amount of money. If I were to magically win a billion dollars overnight (ignoring the economic ramifications of such shenanigans), I'd give most of it away because even just $5-10 million would be more than enough to live comfortably on for the rest of my life (note that the salary caps being considered are intended to prevent people from becoming billionaires, not millionaires). In that regard - the strictest interpretation of "if the positions were reversed," no, I wouldn't try overly hard to keep the money.

However, if we're talking about earning the money more gradually, things get a bit different. It's because I don't care about being a billionaire that I will never become one. Conversely, if I were to become a billionaire the non-magical way, I would have to care, and caring would entail fighting tooth and nail for every dollar I could get my hands on. In that sense, yes, I'd be doing everything I could to keep my money, but that's less a reflection of my personal greed and more the simple nature of what one has to do in order to become a billionaire. Quite simply, I would never end up in that position without adopting such a mindset.

In that latter regard, your statement isn't wrong, but it makes some fundamental assumptions that prevents it from accurately assessing my character. Again, we run into tautology issues: If I were a completely different person who cared enough about becoming a billionaire to maximize my income at every turn, then I'd maximize my income at every turn. That also isn't a particularly meaningful statement, especially for the purposes of describing my (or others') current personality and values.

---

I think we need to axe the bonuses entirely; at least for executives. Maybe the lower workers can still get holiday bonuses and the like but executives should instead have it forced into their salary.

---