Should CEOs who accepted federal bailout money have to take deep pay cuts?
Posted at 6:00 AM on October 23, 2009
by Anna Weggel
(15 Comments)
Filed under: Economy, Politics/Government
The Obama administration's pay czar has ordered a 90 percent pay cut for executives at seven companies that took public bailouts. Should CEOs who accepted federal bailout money have to take deep pay cuts?
Comments (15)
No, they should be put in chains and put on display in the town square for all to ridicule and taunt. Crimminals be they.
CEO's should have there pay cut.
Many don't pat their fair share in taxes or they have their taxes paid for by the companies they run.
Additionally, All bonus that are recieved and salaries need to have the Social Security cap removed. One CEO would contribute as much as 1000's of people.
I wish the government would prosecute mangers and boards that ruin employees, stock holders and the communities lives by their poor and irresponsonsible behaviors.
Our society seems to worry more about prosecuting petty criminals when the larger "white collar" thieves affect our society more in that they can affect thousands to millions of other people. Indeed where does ethics in business seem to be a priority?
To be quite honest, even CEOs of multinational and conglomerate corporations who DIDN'T accept federal money need pay cuts. We give so many tax breaks, subsidies, and legal concessions (AND government contracts) to multinational corporations that there's no way they could make their mega-profits without continuing to siphon off the public wealth.
The wealth gap in this country is absurd and ever-growing; soon it will simply erase the middle class. And it is a result of late-20th-century unchecked predatory capitalism.
Absolutely, as should the upper level management of many other large corporations. When the top 1% of earners make MORE than the lower 99%, as is the case in the US, those with the highest earnings are receiving obscene amounts. Greed has no limits.
If any executive is willing to accept federal dollars to save his or her company, he or she becomes a federal employee, and as such should not receive as compensation any more than the highest ranking member of the federal government - the $400,000 per year we pay the president. Not a penny more until they pay the government back in full.
Why shouldn't they be expected to take a cut?
If they pay us back (Remember, this is OUR government, and they are in debt TO US.) they should be able to do whatever they want with pay.
But until they pay us back, no they shouldn't be riding on the high horse...that's just silly.
YES!!!
CEOs of bailed out companies should be thankful their respective companies are still up and running. Taxpayer bailouts are funding these pay packages, directly or indirectly, making this a common sense move.
Absolutely! There are few CEOs in the US who shouldn't take drastic pay cuts. The fact that CEOs of many companies make hundreds of times more than their average employee is absurd.
Further, the fact that CEOs of non-profits make more than a half million dollars a year is equally absurd, particularly when they solicit donations from the public. Think about this, a CEO of a non-profit is able to pay cash for my nice suburban house and the one next door and still have my professional salary left over after one year of work. We need a major overhaul of all executive compensation in this country.
Yes, cut the pay. If we hadn't bailed them out, they'd be out of work. The 'pay czar' has designed a program that reduces their compensation until we are paid back, which should be an excellent motivator to return to taxpayers the money that saved these companies & these overpaid jobs.
Why don't we just put it to a stockholder vote. Since all tax-paying Americans are now stockholders I believe the vote would be in favor of pay-cuts.
No one, I repeat NO ONE is worth this kind of money. If they don't like it, let them find a different job.
Companies that hold TARP money have us taxpayers as shareholders. They would likely have folded without our money. Managers that put their companies in that situation should consider themselves lucky to have a job. Pay cut...Yes.
Unequivocally YES!!!
Isn't it a 90% pay cut to the cash salary but an increase in Stocks that they receive?
They shouldn't even get the Stocks.
YES!!!!!!!!!
| October 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- How have your views on nuclear power changed over the years?
- Where do you stand on requiring Minnesotans to produce a photo ID to vote?
- Now that the caucuses are over, what are your three most important issues?
- What living writer might still be read 200 years from now?
- What do you think of Minnesota's system of party caucuses?
- How do you think the United States and other countries should respond to the situation in Syria?
- What do you think of constitutional amendments as a way to make policy?
- What changes would you like to see in campaign finance laws?
- What role should evaluations play in teacher job security?
- If you were energy czar, how would you change U.S. energy policy?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
