John Edwards and Executive Pay

alaskaguy · 10-28-2007, 03:27 AM

The following passage is from John Edwards website:

Cap Unfair Levels of Executive Pensions: Even as more corporations deny retirement benefits to regular workers, they are offering millions in tax-free deferred compensation pensions to their top executives. This gives executives in effect unlimited IRAs or 401(k)s, without the limits that apply to other workers. Edwards will limit the amount of money that can be put into these funds to $1 million a year.

I wonder if sports stars will be subject to similar caps, or if Mr. Edwards is intends to only have this proposal apply to business executives?

Link:John Edwards for President-Edwards Introduces Bold Proposals For Restoring Corporate Responsibility And Strengthening Retirement Security For The Middle Class And Working Families

herbiedoobie · 10-28-2007, 03:51 AM

I am all for a 95% mandatory tax on income from tort lawyers' income. No tax deduction allowed, and it's on the GROSS, not the NET.

I'm thinking two can play at that game....

brianhos · 10-28-2007, 08:55 AM

There are federal caps on 401k and IRA's.

For instance in a 401k, if you are considered a highly compensated employee (100k+), you can only put in a little bit more than the lowest employee by percent. Because of this, if an exec wants to put more in his 401k, he has to try to get the other lower paid employees to max theirs out. That happends a lot at my company, which is a big reason why the execs try to talk everyone into maxing their 401k out. Plus it just makes good financial sense.

brianhos · 10-28-2007, 09:15 AM

Ok I read that article...

Umm what?
Holding corporations accountable for serving the interests of workers and customers, not just corporate insiders, with stronger corporate responsibility law and consumer protections. Holding corporations accountable for serving the interests of workers and customers, not just corporate insiders, with stronger corporate responsibility law and consumer protections.

The purpose of these corporations is to serve their shareholders, not serve the workers? By serving the shareholders better, the workers get benefits themselves. IF they do well, the company will treat them better to keep them around and continue making $$ for the shareholders.

How unamerican could that statement possibly be? We should just hire every single american to work for the government so that they are "taken care of."

brianhos · 10-28-2007, 09:24 AM

OMG!

From that article:

Worker contributions will be matched up to dollar for dollar on the first $500 by a new Get Ahead tax credit, which will be far more valuable than the 10 percent or 15 percent tax deduction that many workers get on retirement savings today

So now we are dropping the tax incentive to invest in a 401k and instead have the gubment give us $500 with our block of cheese?

Cyclonepride · 10-28-2007, 09:40 AM

Universal health care coverage should have been a part of the social contract since it was first proposed by Harry Truman.

Social contract? Is that what it's called when the government subsidizes those who don't feel like being responsible for themselves?

ericlambi · 10-28-2007, 02:30 PM

I've never understood why middle income and higher individuals would ever vote democrat. It makes no financial or economic sense, and these are just more examples of why.

CloneFan65 · 10-28-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

The purpose of these corporations is to serve their shareholders, not serve the workers?

I'm assuming this was a statement and not a question. I don't understand why serving the shareholders and serving workers are mutually exclusive. If not for democratically elected government intervention, we'd have no minimum wage, no worker benefits, and no laws protecting children from abusive labor practices.

iceclone · 10-28-2007, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by CloneFan65

I'm assuming this was a statement and not a question. I don't understand why serving the shareholders and serving workers are mutually exclusive. If not for democratically elected government intervention, we'd have no minimum wage, no worker benefits, and no laws protecting children from abusive labor practices.

brianhos · 10-28-2007, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by CloneFan65

I'm assuming this was a statement and not a question. I don't understand why serving the shareholders and serving workers are mutually exclusive. If not for democratically elected government intervention, we'd have no minimum wage, no worker benefits, and no laws protecting children from abusive labor practices.

It does not have to be mutually exclusive, but Edwards is trying to make it sound like the only reason the corporation exists is to give you a wonderful high paying job. The reason you have a job at all is because somewhere someone had an idea, and wanted to make some $$$ off of it.

TykeClone · 10-29-2007, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

OMG!
So now we are dropping the tax incentive to invest in a 401k and instead have the gubment give us $500 with our block of cheese?

Almost no one who contributes to a retirement plan can qualify for that tax incentive. Presumably few would qualify for the cheese either.

CloneAggie · 10-29-2007, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by ericlambi

I've never understood why middle income and higher individuals would ever vote democrat. It makes no financial or economic sense, and these are just more examples of why.

Shouldn't be that hard to understand. Could it be that some people consider other issues to be more important than financial issues?

brianhos · 10-29-2007, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

Shouldn't be that hard to understand. Could it be that some people consider other issues to be more important than financial issues?

Sounds like a commie plan to me!

Cyclonepride · 10-29-2007, 11:12 PM

I find the CEO salaries a little outrageous, but I can't get too worked up about it because if they were not worth the money, shareholders wouldn't pay it. It's very much like football coaches, you have to pay for the name, and if he produces, it pays off big, if he does not, you let him go.

herbiedoobie · 10-30-2007, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

Shouldn't be that hard to understand. Could it be that some people consider other issues to be more important than financial issues?

Provided that money represents your "life force" what "other" issues are there? I could show you how all those "other issues" are really financial issues.