It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Key Obama Officials Reveal Executive Pay Limits

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
I am scared this type of move sets precedence for capping our salaries eventually.


If taxpayer money is paying your salary because you screwed up your business so bad that the people had to bail you out, then your salary SHOULD be capped.




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well, if you are worried about "reaching into capitalism" you are far too late. Favorable tax rates for businesses reach into capitalism (if by that you mean a free market) the bailout itself reaches into capitalism, passing legislation that favors businesses over people is reaching into capitalism, cleaning up with public money the mess corporations make is reaching into capitalism, US government pressure on other nations who balk at allowing businesses to have free reign in their country is reaching into capitalism. Awarding no bid contracts to your friends is reaching into capitalism.

The bunny is out of the hat already. And has been for decades. Corporations have never been against government intervention in the market. They have only been opposed to government intervention that works against their interests.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I agree. I laughed at the concern that this would mess up their "performance based pay" system.

Ummmmm. Wasnt the performance in question "running companies into the ground?" I didnt realize that merited ANY pay. Heck, even I can do that. Who woulda thunk it was worth millions a year in salary?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I have no issue with it. If your company is asking for money from the federal government, then the government has every right to impose restrictions upon how you use the funding they provide. I'm sure someone will find a loophole around it, but on the surface, its the right idea.

The only potential downside I can see to this is that it might make recruiting quality senior management difficult for very large firms, as they would be unable to offer a competitive salary when some others can provide compensation into the tens of millions. Then again, I say: tough crap. Those companies wouldn't be in such dire straits if they'd hired better people in the first place.


[edit on 4-2-2009 by vor78]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


FYI, I am an xray tech, and I paid 10,000$ in taxes last year. I think I put in my share!!!!!!!!!!!


[edit on 4-2-2009 by sickofitall2012]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

well, actually, I am kind of worried about that also, if taxpayer money is all that is needed to warrent the government to poke their noses into our business, either personally, or in the business sector, well, I am afraid that this might set a standard that enables them to do alot more poking. most of us are, either directly, or indirectly benefitting from this money!!
your company is paying you a few hundred thousand dollars a year for your labor, only, well.....over 50% or their workforce is being propped up by taxpayer dollars so your company can have the ability to pay them near slave wages...you company is dependent on those taxpayer dollars! without them, they probably wouldn't be able to pay you as much as they do, and well, maybe wouldn't even be able to pull a profit, because, well, starving, hungry, homeless people aren't that productive. or, well, if you are a doctor or a nurse in a hospital, well, that hospital is more than likely also dependent on the government to pay for a rather large portion of your patients...
or....even if you are just working for this company that cleans out empty apartments, well, once someone comes into that apartment, there's a good chance that their rent will be subsidized by...you guessed it, taxmoney being funneled through hud...
there's alot of money being thrown around in all areas of the economy, the scary thing is......could it be possible that we are all dependent at this point on this money? we've seen just how much we are all either directly or indirectly dependant on the credit flowing through it...what about all the other programs upon programs that diverts money this way or that?
if benefitting from that tax money asserts the gov'ts right to start dictating how we live...well, I think we all have a major problem!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Saying that the government having a say over how a direct recipient of tax dollars behaves means that somewhere down the road all those who indirectly benefit from tax dollars will be controlled in a Draconian way is a bit of a stretch, dont you think?

Welfare recipients, (direct beneficiaries) have had to meet certain requirements to get their money for years, and this hasnt trickled down to those of us who work for a company that has benefited from using the roads bought by taxpayer dollars.

And another thing I would remind you, is that in theory, your government represents YOUR will. In theory, if people were active in the system and not just bystanders to politics who maybe pay attention once every four years, you (represented by the people you elect) are the one having a say over how your tax dollars are spent.

I know that many people DONT get active in politics, and DONT ensure that our leaders actually are representative of our collective will, but thats the way the system COULD work, if people realized that the only thing preventing this was their own lack of participation. "We the people," are getting a say in how OUR money is spent on corporations and the officers that serve them. Corporations are not voters. They dont get a say. And that was by design.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
OK guys, help me out here.

I am looking at the citigroup contract they signed with the government to get the money. From what I am reading the government agreed to buy a part of the company (shares) in exchange for the money under a set of conditions.

One condition is as follows on page 10/137

"WHEREAS, the Company agrees to expand the flow of credit to U.S. consumers and businesses on competitive terms to promote the sustained growth and vitality of the U.S. economy;"

PDF File

The biggest complaint I have heard from the government is that these groups are hoarding the money and not loaning it out.

If this is the case, why hasn't the government gone after these companies for breach of contract?

And if the government can't enforce the parameters it has already set, how do they expect to enforce the new parameters Obama will set.

BTW, here is the web page where you can view all the contracts the government has signed.

www.treasury.gov...

Sorry about not inserting the quoted text. It wouldn't let me copy text.





[edit on 4-2-2009 by jam321]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 
Really, the government needs to stay out of private business altogehther. Remeber the rule of unintended consequences!

"Let's see, do I want my company to get bailed out and lose my $10,000,000 salary and bonus? Or, do I take the $25,000,000 "Golden Parachute," get out, and do something fun where BHO will leave me alone?

Bye, guys."

Not much incentive for CEOs, CoTBs, CFOs and others on the gravy train tp go begging, is there?

The socialist's socialist solution is here. You (Dems/Libs/Progressives)asked for it.

Look what you've done to my country.

Deny ignorants.

jw
edit to add s & f for you

[edit on 4-2-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


saying that a few bad loans would wide up causing such a horrible mess that taxpayers would be forced to share ownership of these companies isn't a stretch? but, I agree to your point.. it probably won't go that far...but..
well....who knows, sometimes our government defies all logic it seems...

as far as the preaching about participating in our gov't as much as I can, well, sorry, I gave up with the letter writing and such a few decades ago...I might write, but they ain't gonna listen. as far as voting, when they bring up someone worth voting for, I will vote for them, till then well, it's dear ole mickey mouse for me!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I agree. In our country, businesses and corporations should be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own merits.

But, the government got involved. They bailed out these idiots with our tax dollars. And, instead of letting them use the bailout funds for these ridiculous salaries and bonuses, the government should have SOME say in how that money is used (with regards to executive pay and bonuses until the money is paid back).

No one is too big to fail.....but, we fell into the trap of thinking that all of these companies and banks were TOO big. They failed with their money....do we want to them to fail with ours, too?

[edit on 2/4/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
We should have let the banks fall, and pick themselves back up again. They haven't done what the "bailout" was supposed to do and now we, as a country have started the slippery slope downhill.

Saying what companies can pay their employees is a *bad* idea. It just opens the door to more government control and soon into other areas, until we no longer have a free market society.

People are rah rah for this as they have wealth envy and love to see it stuck to the bad guy. Aka the rich.

Don't we have enough screw ups due to the government? Why in the world would we want MORE of them telling us what to do? You really think it would end at *just* the bailout companies?? Precedence. Once it is done, there is precedence



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Pay caps for bailed out CEOs. This is an idea I'm on board with also. Though I was hoping the cap would be equivalent to the president's salary, $400,000, the cap at $500,000 is better than them reaping tens of millions. Remember, this isn't federal money, this is bailout money, in other words OUR money, OUR children's money. The government is borrowing it from us and our children interest free, which is already an outright travesty.

If you read the proposal, there is a way those CEOs can go above the cap - the company has to go with full public disclosure and the board of directors of that company has to approve of the pay increase.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by jdub297
 
No one is too big to fail.....but, we fell into the trap of thinking that all of these companies and banks were TOO big. They failed with their money....do we want to them to fail with ours, too?

Then we have three choices:

Never turn off the "cash-flow," add in limited (how many?) increments as needed, or "cut your losses."

The first tranches were supposed to be conditioned on new lending. That didn't happen. If BHO does not want to enforce existing conditions, what limits are there? (we already know his "ethics" commitment was subject to waivers and exceptions)

Even more troubling is the question of 'nationalization.' If we can dictate payrolls, why not marketing strategy, shareholder support, R & D, product mangement and development, community development?

Instead of compensation restrictions, why not condition new $$ upon new management? Or on corporate support for ACORN and the DNC? Or NORML?

We dipped our finger into the pool - do we dry off or dive in?

Note: I didn't endorse cutting them off, I just noted that the wise CEO will bail himself out.

Correction: Cut 'em off, how much worse can it get? And, what help are they now, anyway?

(I've always supported small, local banks over the giants. Not as many "services," (or fees), I know. But, I know my bankers, they know me. We share, invest in, and and are supported by the same community.)

(Didn't that line of thought get chopped up by BHO during the campaign?)

jw



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


I'm sorry for the off topic, but I just had to comment on your avatar. That is so great!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
Another story on this....

Source




Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that such an intrusion into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector's recovery.


Ah, so if the government tries to tell them how to spend the money they are given they won't take the money, which means they don't need it in the first place, or don't think they do... Are these people for real? I think when I'm hungry and desperate I'll refuse food stamps because I'm not allowed to buy a car with it. Think the government will reconsider how I get to use my free ride?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by TravelerintheDark]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


While I understand your frustration with our choices at Presidential elections, you need to realize that the small elections, that not many pay any attention to, at the local level, heavily influence who you get to choose as President.

If Greens or Libertarians began sweeping the local elections, guess who in a few years is going to have the pull to run off a bigger seat?

"They" cant give you better choices for president. You know why? Because you are "they" and you have given up.

Edit to add;

As far as letter writing not working, I can guarantee you that reason this cap of executive salary is even being discussed because of voter outcry and letter/email/call campaigns. The outcry against the bailout was huge, and they know they better darn well give us at least a token sacrifice or they all might get hauled out and...well whatever the mob wants to do with them I suppose.





[edit on 4-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I found the loophole.

This is Obama's plan



Under Obama's plan, companies that want to pay their executives more than $500,000 will have to do so through stocks that cannot be sold until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government.


www.cnn.com...

Normally, CEO's get shares of their company as part of their bonuses. What is to stop companies from paying CEO's with stocks incentives from other companies?

I reckon it all depends on what stocks the government is talking about.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
I found the loophole.

What is to stop companies from paying CEO's with stocks incentives from other companies?


How about the fact that BHO isn't enforcing the conditions that already a part of the previous bailouts?

There's nothing stopping them now. It would all be after-the-fact anyway!
"Give me back our money." "Sorry, we spent it and paid it out in bonuses."

Tell me how this works.

jw

[edit on 4-2-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join