Home | About | Donate

3 Bills to Rein in Executive Pay

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/02/3-bills-rein-executive-pay

I have concluded that bitcoin is not the answer.
It has too man loose ends.

But digital accountable transparent currency is .

I find most of Ms. Anderson’s work impenatrable and thorough.
But here, as she pushes for laws to put some fingers in the leaking dam, she ignores that those in the financial system have already discovered new ways of scamming the system.

New Laws?
What off the hundreds of laws that are on the books right now that no one is caring to enforce, and presidents themselves are enabling the violation of?

Nope. Sorry. Lame sauce.

Silly.
Just fix the tax rate: 90% on income over $1 million/year.
Eliminate loopholes.

Tax rate for 1955 average income: 26%
Tax rate for 1955 income of $200,000: 91% ($3.73 million income today, with inflation)
https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1956

Tax rate 1960-1980: income of $200,000: 70%
Reagan lowered top rate to 50% in 1983,
–then down to 38% under HW Bush
Top tax rate under GW Bush in 2003: 35%
37% top rate today

1 Like

Good point robb, but don’t forget much of executive pay is stock options today, and falls short of the definition of taxable income. Something has to reel this in also.

1 Like

One reform I have long favored is to make any stock issued to executives non-negotiable until some time, perhaps a year, after that executive is no longer at the company. This would discourage short-term thinking by executives and probably make stock bonuses less attractive to them.

But another idea in this area that I only heard of recently is to require that when a corporation issues more stock (thereby diluting the value of other stock in the company) that some significant portion of that new stock be taken by the government as a stock issuance tax. That stock would be managed by the government and used to fund payments of basic income for residents of the country. This way, the general public could be guaranteed a share in the growth of the corporate prosperity.

1 Like

First, so much for “Truth in headlines and ledes”. This article was about one bill; I did not see three bills.

I once read a statement by a maker of several successful motion pictures, that it is hard, even for him, to raise the money to make a film. In his opinion, people able to raise the money for a project, so hard to do, deserve their pay. (He is speaking of persons who may be different than the targets of this bill.)

As described here, this bill sounds good. I wonder what it would look like when implemented. And I wonder about the consequences. A company like ‘Toy’R’Us’ would go bankrupt anyway. This is all about the “When” it goes bankrupt, and how the “bankrupt estate” is divided up after it fails.

New Deal regulations created a playing field that limited how much corporations could game the system, thereby keeping corporate influence under control and strengthening the middle class for half a century.

That is why, starting with allowing unregulated mortgage securitization in 1978, both parties have serially dismantled those regulations and continue to do so. Anderson’s proposal will simply provide another in a series of token regulations that are easily gamed (recall Dodd/Frank as a recent example). The only solution to the problems presented are to restore New Deal regulations and add more regulations to address the 21st century economic and political landscape.