# Limit US CEO pay?



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

If you were in charge of such things would you limit CEO and other "C" level executive's pay?

How?

My ideas:
A flat limit of some legislated number? Pick any number.
A multiplier of the lowest paid full-time worker? Pick any multiplier
A 100% tax on any amount over a legislated number? Government takes anything over the limit.
A percentage of retained earnings?
A percentage of the company's taxed earnings?

You tell me how to limit it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> If you were in charge of such things would you limit CEO and other "C" level executive's pay?
> 
> How?
> 
> ...


Let the market take care of it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let the market take care of it.


I guess that is a no vote.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

*2018 Pay*

*1. Elon Musk - CEO Tesla - $513 million*
*2. Brendan Kennedy - CEO and President, Tilray $256 million
3. Bob Iger - CEO and Chairman, Walt Disney $146.6 million.
4. Tim Cook - CEO Apple $141.6 million.
5. Nikesh Arora - CEO and Chairman, Palo Alto Networks$130.7 million
.
.
.
10. Stephen Angel - CEO, Linde PLC $66.2 million.

https://www.investopedia.com/highest-paid-ceos-2019-4687532


*


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I guess that is a no vote.


Give Sherlock a cigar! I don't give a rats backside what the next feller earns, it's my pockets I'm concerned with.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

https://www.asyousow.org/report/the-100-most-overpaid-ceos-2019#introduction-2019


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Give Sherlock a cigar! I don't give a rats backside what the next feller earns, it's my pockets I'm concerned with.


Thanks sunshine


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Once pay for someone is limited, it opens the door for other pay to be limited. Just another way keep the populace under control.

Since I'm among the "poor", I am in awe of what CEO's make. But that doesn't make me want to limit their salary. Everyone should be able to strive to make that amount if they wish.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wolf mom said:


> Once pay for someone is limited, it opens the door for other pay to be limited. Just another way keep the populace under control.
> 
> Since I'm among the "poor", I am in awe of what CEO's make. But that doesn't make me want to limit their salary. Everyone should be able to strive to make that amount if they wish.


Pretty sure most folks would love earning that kinda money.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Raise taxes and let the company decide what to pay management.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

No, but I might limit the salaries (and bonuses) of college professors, Presidents, and coaches.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let the market take care of it.


The market doesn’t work since it’s not a free market thing


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

No. Why is it that people want to be rich, but we hate anyone who is. Greed and envy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wolf mom said:


> Once pay for someone is limited, it opens the door for other pay to be limited. Just another way keep the populace under control.
> 
> Since I'm among the "poor", I am in awe of what CEO's make. But that doesn't make me want to limit their salary. Everyone should be able to strive to make that amount if they wish.


 Lol The government decides what everyone will Make and if any any buddy gets out of line they beat them down with jail terms and legal actions. 
That is why the government has such a vendetta to destroy unions and refuses to control immigration


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> No. Why is it that people want to be rich, but we hate anyone who is. Greed and envy.


I don’t think most people really hate the wealthy it’s just they see the unfairness of how some people have accumulated wealth


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Give Sherlock a cigar! I don't give a rats backside what the next feller earns, it's my pockets I'm concerned with.


 That makes you most self-centered and self destructive That makes you both self-centered and self-destructive


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> No, but I might limit the salaries (and bonuses) of college professors, Presidents, and coaches.


We just fired our football coach. He has something like a $10M payout. Stupid... This is after an early payout to another fired coach of $12M in 2017


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t think most people really hate the wealthy it’s just they see the unfairness of how some people have accumulated wealth


Life isn't fair. Never has been, never will be, shouldn't be fair. I have made and spent fortunes, some of it I spent on whiskey and women, the rest I just pissed away. Something I have never done is whine about something not being fair.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

HDRider said:


> You tell me how to limit it.


I wouldn’t place any limit upon it. I would however insist that there must be solid proven justification for the pay.

If a CEO is going to be paid X amount, he or she had better have really earned every dollar to be determined in measurable, provable means by the investors and shareholders. They have to hold the CEO’s feet to the fire.

Capitalism is a fantastic system and on this earth it’s probably the best system - as long as all players strictly adhere to the rules of fiscal reward and punishment.

When the rules for fiscal reward and punishment become skewed and are disobeyed, that’s when things go wrong.

So for my POV, no limit on pay. But it has to really be earned.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> If you were in charge of such things would you limit CEO and other "C" level executive's pay?
> 
> How?
> 
> ...


None of my concern, but for the sake of discussion, start right here-

Highest Paid Celebrities

Taylor Swift $185 Million
Kylie Jenner $170 Million
Kanye West $150 Million
Lionel Messie $110 Million
Cristiano Ranoldo $109 Million
Neymar $105 Million
The Eagles $100 Million
Dr. Phil $95 Million
Howard Stern $93 Million
Russel Wilson $89 Million
Le Bron James $89 Million
Elton John $84 Million
Jay Z $81 Million
Beyonce $81 Million
Kim Kardashian $72 Million
Sean Combs $70 Million
Metallica $68 Million
Robert Downey Jr $68 Million
Gordon Ramsey $68 Million


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I agree on making them earn it and providing proof. Salaries should be somewhat realistic and then bonuses should be based on verifiable goals and solid accounting to prove it.

This, of course, is only for public companies trading on the stock market. Private really get to decide whatever they want to do and the investors need to be the ones holding their feet to the fire.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I agree on making them earn it and providing proof. Salaries should be somewhat realistic and then bonuses should be based on verifiable goals and solid accounting to prove it.
> 
> This, of course, is only for public companies trading on the stock market. Private really get to decide whatever they want to do and the investors need to be the ones holding their feet to the fire.


Public companies have a compensation committee, made up of Board of Director members, with some HR consultants to set "C" level compensation, salary, stock grants and bonus.

Some countries require a "non biding" shareholder vote on executive compensation. I don't know anywhere these votes have teeth.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Maybe pay them a regular salary and give them a bonus on what they do?

If they are good enough they would go for it.

But otherwise, no. I don't think it's our responsibility to set the rate. But if I was on the board in would strive for the above.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Maybe pay them a regular salary and give them a bonus on what they do?
> 
> If they are good enough they would go for it.
> 
> But otherwise, no. I don't think it's our responsibility to set the rate. But if I was on the board in would strive for the above.


That is how it works. Stock and bonus are normally reward for hitting goals, and performance.

There are occurrences where C's get big bonuses when performance is poor. They usually explain it away.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> That is how it works. Stock and bonus are normally reward for hitting goals, and performance.
> 
> There are occurrences where C's get big bonuses when performance is poor. They usually explain it away.


I know but when they explain it away that should be on the board.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I know but when they explain it away that should be on the board.


They would, in their SEC filings, which are approved by the BoD.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> Life isn't fair. Never has been, never will be, shouldn't be fair. I have made and spent fortunes, some of it I spent on whiskey and women, the rest I just pissed away. Something I have never done is whine about something not being fair.


 You’re right on those first three Life isn’t fair ,life never has been fair it never will be fair,
But you are way way way so wrong on that fourth one life should be fair it’s something we should strive for


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

By definition capitalism does not apply to corporations a corporation is legalized theft to thuart capitalism.


----------



## Witch's Broom (Dec 23, 2017)

It's not as cut and dry as "yes" or "no", so I didn't cast a vote.

Companies that are largely controlled by shareholders, are largely run by the shareholders, and the shareholders meet and gauge the progress and success rate of the company they've invested in, and in turn, the CEO is (more often than not) rewarded accordingly to quarterly and yearly profit margins/stock/share value, etc, etc, regardless of how hard a CEO works, so when shareholders stand to profit, if there's any consideration of a salary increase on the table or in the wind for the CEO and the company is doing well, salary increases are usually and unanimously passed and pushed through by greedy shareholders, because everyone profits.

Now, take companies that are failing, bleeding money and assets, loosing capital, and turning out bleak quarters, I see no reason why CEO's behind such faltering performance should be rewarded, and in fact, when companies under such trying times cut jobs and workers, the pay rate of CEO's spearheading companies under such lackluster returns should also suffer the consequence of salary loss, and some should even be jailed for theft and deceit.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> The market doesn’t work since it’s not a free market thing


It most certainly is!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

How do you figure that?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Most CEOs set their own salary
The next biggest group of CEOs set the salaries for each other


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> That makes you most self-centered and self destructive That makes you both self-centered and self-destructive


Self centered perhaps... Self destructive... No. I figure if I'm tending to my business I can do more than if I spend my time trying to tend the next fellers.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> How do you figure that?


CEOs salaries are generally negotiated.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think you’re wrong about that while you’re tending to your own garden the chemical factory next-door is covering your your yard in poison


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> CEOs salaries are generally negotiated.


Lol 
Where did you get that idea


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol
> Where did you get that idea


I read


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I think you’re wrong about that while you’re tending to your own garden the chemical factory next-door is covering your your yard in poison


Nope, I don't have any chemical companies next door.


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

I expect that those salaries do not even begin to account for the money they're making from stock options and such. I used to be super libertarian about this stuff but these days I'm left wondering when usury which our entire modern world is built around became a virtue and not a mortal sin.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Most CEOs set their own salary
> The next biggest group of CEOs set the salaries for each other


No they don't


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

dyrne said:


> I expect that those salaries do not even begin to account for the money they're making from stock options and such. I used to be super libertarian about this stuff but these days I'm left wondering when usury which our entire modern world is built around became a virtue and not a mortal sin.


The compensation numbers I post include all forms of compensation, salary, stock and bonus.


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

They should be covered...
Especially in stock noted companies, otherwise it is to easy to lose contact to the workers and the responsibility you carry as a C position holder.
If the company is doing good, it can be reflecting the success, but in moral/ethical steps...
But when the business is going down, the income should decrease as well...
For a educated/firm answer about values, numbers and or percentages, a forum discussion like here is way to short handed to make some profound decisions, but the government should have a controlling position ins this, this "the market handles it" or "self control" will not work and will lead to business "genies" like Mr Trump who got rich by ruining business and putting people into unemployment...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Meinecke said:


> They should be covered...
> If the company is doing good, it can be reflecting the success, but in moral/ethical steps...
> But when the business is going down, the income should decrease as well...


It's a lot easier to manage a company when it is making money and pretty tough when times get tough.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

can't cast a vote if there are no pro's and con's.
all the choices are slanted toward limiting the salaries.
If one is not in favor of limiting salaries, where are the options for that ?
I really don't care how much the next guy gets paid.
If he wiggled himself into a position for the multi million dollar wages, more power to him.
that option is open to anybody , all they have to do is figure out how to do it.
I never figured it out.. my bad.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> No, but I might limit the salaries (and bonuses) of college professors, Presidents, and coaches.


University professors don't actually make that much. University upper administration is fairly in line with PhD level remuneration: $150K up to about $500K for university president. The problem are coaches (especially football coaches). I did a quick check on my local uni. and the president of the university makes just a tad over $400K, BUT the head football coach makes a bit over $1.2 MILLION per year.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t think most people really hate the wealthy it’s just they see the unfairness of how some people have accumulated wealth


What?

It isn’t unfair that CEOs make a gazoodle dollars.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> You’re right on those first three Life isn’t fair ,life never has been fair it never will be fair,
> But you are way way way so wrong on that fourth one life should be fair it’s something we should strive for


No. We should try to treat those around us with respect. The end. 

Fair is a construct.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

American Stand is casting chum on the waters again.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

More taxes.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Nobody ever promised anyone "fair" in this world. Get over it - do something to "merit", yes, merit - (a word never used anymore) to deserve oodles of money since that's what we seem to use as a baseline today.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

colourfastt said:


> University professors don't actually make that much. University upper administration is fairly in line with PhD level remuneration: $150K up to about $500K for university president. The problem are coaches (especially football coaches). I did a quick check on my local uni. and the president of the university makes just a tad over $400K, BUT the head football coach makes a bit over $1.2 MILLION per year.


Check how many hours a week a professor works for the university and how much extra they make through consulting or working on government contracts.

Check out this list of salaries for college Presidents.
https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/executive-compensation#id=table_public_2018


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wolf mom said:


> Nobody ever promised anyone "fair" in this world. Get over it - do something to "merit", yes, merit - (a word never used anymore) to deserve oodles of money since that's what we seem to use as a baseline today.


"Deserves got nothing to do with it."
Clint Eastwood as eddy money in unforgiven.

"Fair" is an event where a community gets together annually to judge pie making and flower growing.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

I'm thinking about starting a new thread and poll. I cannot decide what question I want to ask. Maybe, 
"Do you think doctors are paid too much?"
"Do you think plumbers are paid too much?"
"Do you think realtors are paid too much?"
"Do you think auto mechanics are paid too much?"
"Do you think government employees are paid too much?
"Do you think septic tank pumpers are paid too much?

Keep the government out of determining what a person should earn. Governments that decide what a person should earn are called communistic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> American Stand is casting chum on the waters again.


Shirley, you jest.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cabin Fever said:


> I'm thinking about starting a new thread and poll.


Put me down for "I don't get paid enough"


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

I've never understood why people care what the other guy makes. There are those that make more and those that make less. As a society we don't jump up and down when an actor makes a bazillion for a movie, but we care what a CEO makes. We don't bat an eye at pro football players making millions, but hate the guy that created something, took it to market, and is now a bazillionaire. Seems kind of messed up.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

hiddensprings said:


> I've never understood why people care what the other guy makes. There are those that make more and those that make less. As a society we don't jump up and down when an actor makes a bazillion for a movie, but we care what a CEO makes. We don't bat an eye at pro football players making millions, but hate the guy that created something, took it to market, and is now a bazillionaire. Seems kind of messed up.


There's only 2 reasons that I consider what a CEO makes and never care if it's anyone else.
1) If it's a public company like a utility and I'm a customer without another option to use.
In that case, what they make comes out of my pocket and if they are getting bonuses while my service sucks, I think I have a legitimate right to say something about it. If the service is fine, I'll keep my mouth shut. If I have another company to choose, I can always do that too, so it is relatively a rare occurrence.

2) If I work for that CEO and he/she is making big money, but always says "we're broke" when it comes my turn for a little more pay. Naturally that's only if I'm one of the _reasons_ that boss is making that big money.
And I generally know if my work is turning a profit and how much.
I may not have any right to a piece of the pie, but it's for sure that I'm gonna ask if it's warranted.
At that point, it's a waiting game to see whether I make more money working there, or somewhere else.


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

Wow, I think a lot of replies would scare me if they were running for office.....seems like they'd like dictate...be dictator in chief?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> American Stand is casting chum on the waters again.


You know me better than that. There’s plenty of controversial subjects here without me having to add to it
Actually the very thread we’re on is far more controversial I would think.

Honestly I am shocked that suggesting that we should strive for fairness would be considered the least bit controversial

Should black people be prohibited from living in certain areas because the black? We all know the answer to that is no and the reason I know is because it’s not fair. 
Should poor people be prohibited from seeking redress in court? No of course not and why not because we know it’s not fair
Fair is something that we should strive for in the nation there’s no jump in the water on there it’s basic common decency
Should everybody have the same things in the same amount no that wouldn’t be fair either some people work harder some people work smarter the government cannot and should not control all of those things but it should make the process and the rules that we work under the same for everyone.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> What?
> 
> It isn’t unfair that CEOs make a gazoodle dollars.


If you modify that to say it’s not unfair that SOME CEOs make bucuu bucks I would agree with you


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I have to admit I am amazed that 75% think that CEOs should have unlimited salaries apparently of their own choosing. 
Look carefully at the question that we were polled on it says “if you were in charge. “ 
That is a lot different than would you vote to or should there be restrictions in place.
The question in the opening post is basically saying if you were hiring a CEO would you limit their pay. 
I’m not sure if that’s what HD meant to ask but it certainly what he did ask


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

A common complaint related to "CEO pay" is that these entities also pay very little in taxes, using loopholes and available avenues to escape paying anymore to the government that they can get away with.

Meanwhile, it should be common knowledge that most public and private colleges and universities are flat out exempt from taxation. That is right, they wear the 501 c moniker. 
Now, while classified as a non profit, they build stadiums and arenas worthy of professional sports. The NBA/NFL has many times been described trying to "lure" a college coach into the pros? Why? Because they are entrenched in a program that pays them as well if not more, with more job security and overall better press.
All them dollars going for Junior's education and very little going to Uncle Sugar.
Want to guess how much revenue is generated each year from March Madness? Well, it is tax free.
The same with the money collected from NCAA, PAC 10, Big 10, etc programs; the food, tickets, broadcasting revenue, etc is
tax free.
It is considered a part of the educational mission.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Forbes article. Excellent analysis. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveodland/2012/04/17/what-is-fair/


Some politicians would rather promise their constituents that they will redistribute the wealth of a few to them all in the name of fairness. And so the cycle of tax, spend, and redistribute continues, and the debt piles up, until people have the courage to stand up and say “enough.” Maybe that time has come. It’s only fair.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Fair is what the market will bear and what you qualify for.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I'm all for not worrying about what the other person makes, it's only what others are willing to pay them. What grinds my gizzard a bit is generational money. Doesn't seem quite right that one kid starts the race with nothing while another starts the race having already won.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gilberte said:


> I'm all for not worrying about what the other person makes, it's only what others are willing to pay them. What grinds my gizzard a bit is generational money. Doesn't seem quite right that one kid starts the race with nothing while another starts the race having already won.


True, some kids get a substantial head start. Is that a problem? I'm doing ok today, partially due to my grandfather, a bit because of my father. But mostly due to my own efforts coupled with the freedom won secured and protected by my merkin countrymen before me. My grandfather was a smart man, worked hard and did well while others suffered through the depression of the thirties, he busied himself seeking out opportunities. He managed to acquire a farm that provided his living through his remaining years. I learned a lot from him. Also learned a lot from my father. A couple years ago when my father passed my brothers and I divided up those accumulated assets our father and grandfather worked hard for. I was 65, my brothers older than I. We certainly didn't have the race won at birth but I've no complaints. My finish line is not far off and hope to pass on my grandfathers head start to my up and comings. Should I give my "generational money" to your kids, grandkids instead? If so, why?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

We started married life with no financial help from either one of out parents. they didn't have any money to spare. and we didn't expect any.
Once in my life my dad gave me two dollars. I was just out of 8th grade and was getting onto a train to travel 120 miles to a job at a chicken farm. My dad gave me $2.oo to tide me over until I got paid.
We as kids never went hungry and always had ample clothes. no fancy stuff. In high school I bought my own clothes. 
My 3 kids had more help from us than we received from out parents. they all went to college on our dime.
all of them are better off to help their children more.
and I hope it grows until someday somebody will be jealous of my great great grandchildren for getting a super head start.. Heck, maybe one of them will be a CEO and get way over paid..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Considering the comments here on this subject I am surprised how popular the idea of limiting CEO pay is portrayed in the press. 

I guess it reflects the type of person that would come to HT.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Considering the comments here on this subject I am surprised how popular the idea of limiting CEO pay is portrayed in the press.
> 
> I guess it reflects the type of person that would come to HT.


People that frequent self sufficient lifestyle, homesteading sites are more prone to like freedom, less government in our business than our city dwelling cousins. The press caters to the masses, that's where the ratings are.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Considering the comments here on this subject I am surprised how popular the idea of limiting CEO pay is portrayed in the press.
> 
> I guess it reflects the type of person that would come to HT.


The term portrayed as you used it is an accurate description of how the media reports anything in this modern age.
I would not put stock in anything the press portrays in whatever light they choose.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

GTX63 said:


> A common complaint related to "CEO pay" is that these entities also pay very little in taxes, using loopholes and available avenues to escape paying anymore to the government that they can get away with.
> 
> Meanwhile, it should be common knowledge that most public and private colleges and universities are flat out exempt from taxation. That is right, they wear the 501 c moniker.
> Now, while classified as a non profit, they build stadiums and arenas worthy of professional sports. The NBA/NFL has many times been described trying to "lure" a college coach into the pros? Why? Because they are entrenched in a program that pays them as well if not more, with more job security and overall better press.
> ...


Yep.
And I exercise my "vote" with my wallet on those things.
I stopped watching most every professional sport a long time ago and rarely watch more than a quarter or so of any college and that's on a OTA "free" antenna.
Can ya guess how much money they make off me in tickets and sports paraphernalia?
Nada, zip.
No, I don't buy their advertised products from tv commercials either, I flip the channel when any commercial comes on.
There must be plenty of people still giving them money to stay in business, but I ain't one of them.
I guess I am one of those who believes in limiting their pay, but unless it is personal, that's about all i
I will do about it.
If it IS personal, that's another matter. That's when the "hands off, no laws, let the market handle it" is a two edged sword.
I settled a pay dispute last month from my last employer, he was the CEO.
Fortunately the law was on my side and he decided to see things my way.
But there was never a doubt in my mind I was getting back the 20 grand he owed me, it was just a question of when and how.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> People that frequent self sufficient lifestyle, homesteading sites are more prone to like freedom, less government in our business than our city dwelling cousins. The press caters to the masses, that's where the ratings are.


And the votes


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Fair was never part of Darwin's theory. 

Is it fair to a baby gazelle when a cheetah takes it down? It's only according to who you ask. To the gazelles mama it's not fair. To the cheetah cubs who get to eat it is very fair.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

gilberte said:


> I'm all for not worrying about what the other person makes, it's only what others are willing to pay them. What grinds my gizzard a bit is generational money. Doesn't seem quite right that one kid starts the race with nothing while another starts the race having already won.


 Supporting that dynasty tax would modify but not eliminate this problem.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

What we are actually talking about isn’t really about limiting CEO pay it’s about who gets to limit CEO pay. 
CEO pay is always limited by someone


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> And the votes


True, however I didn't cast a vote in that poll because neither answer qualified my position, although I got the gist of your question.
If I was forced at gunpoint to give an answer I suppose "no" would do, because I don't believe that any law would suffice nor cover the various situations sufficiently.
But as I said in my previous answer, if the law is going to be hands off what they make and how they get it, then I expect the same courtesy if a CEO takes money from me they don't deserve.
That's when the phrase "life ain't fair" becomes apparent.


----------



## Micheal (Jan 28, 2009)

Many years ago I met T. Boone Pickens; he bought the company I was working for and was meeting all of management. After all the meeting and greeting he got us all together and made a statement that still sticks with me today. He said "Half of you will not be here tomorrow." I was there the next day......
During the transition I was asked about the turnover and my reply - "As long as I keep my job, T. Boone, is worth every dollar he is getting out of this deal. If I lose my job he's not worth a cent of what he makes"............ 

So I guess - about anyone's pay - it all depends on where you stand.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Micheal said:


> Many years ago I met T. Boone Pickens; he bought the company I was working for and was meeting all of management. After all the meeting and greeting he got us all together and made a statement that still sticks with me today. He said "Half of you will not be here tomorrow." I was there the next day......
> During the transition I was asked about the turnover and my reply - "As long as I keep my job, T. Boone, is worth every dollar he is getting out of this deal. If I lose my job he's not worth a cent of what he makes"............
> 
> So I guess - about anyone's pay - it all depends on where you stand.


Lol. T Boone was a special character.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

gilberte said:


> I'm all for not worrying about what the other person makes, it's only what others are willing to pay them. What grinds my gizzard a bit is generational money. Doesn't seem quite right that one kid starts the race with nothing while another starts the race having already won.


That's a load right there. I have three nephews painting a rental house this morning. 16,17,and 21 olds earning their part of the American dream, to be self employed. They are on the path to be 4th generation landlords. Nobody gave me anything but sweat equity and knowledge. They have remodeled 3 rental units in the last 9 weeks and enjoying it...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

TripleD said:


> That's a load right there. I have three nephews painting a rental house this morning. 16,17,and 21 olds earning their part of the American dream, to be self employed. They are on the path to be 4th generation landlords. Nobody gave me anything but sweat equity and knowledge. They have remodeled 3 rental units in the last 9 weeks and enjoying it...


Shame on you for giving those kids an opportunity.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> I have to admit I am amazed that 75% think that CEOs should have unlimited salaries apparently of their own choosing.
> Look carefully at the question that we were polled on it says “if you were in charge. “


CEOs do not choose their salary. The company they work for sets the salary. If the salary is below the CEOs expectations, s/he is free to leave the company.

To answer your other question, if I were the owner of a private company, then "YES" I would limit the salary that I paid my CEO. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, the OP's question was "should the government limit the salaries of CEOs."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yeah that’s the way I took it to but I got noting that’s not exactly the way it’s written 
Most CEOs of private companies are the people that own the company that’s why I said most CEOs set their own pay


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yep, T. Boone Pickens was probably a unique character, never met him.
But the description reminds me of several CEO's I have worked for and met.
The good ones had the same characteristics.
They were hard, fair and appreciated the people that gave it to them straight, no matter what.
We got along great. They'd tell me how it was with them and I gave them the same back, no BS.
The other kind of CEO was a conniving shyster who couldn't be trusted.
I never lasted too long working for those.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

People like to blame CEO`s when it comes to the high costs of business...…...its just a reflection of the surplus of cash and the sacrifices made to perform such a job.


If you have ever been involved you would know it is a _____ show,....its a job I would never do at any price......the realities of such a job and the vision are quite contrasted.


But I am jaded on the whole money thing, so my perspective is likely warped....


Its the people who support these places with purchases that are to blame, when you have literally billions of funny money coming thru the door, you throw it around however you please. Easy come easy go........



Its just a reflection of human nature and the system of things.........there is ample resources to fix every thing, take care of every one, but no one has a plan or vision and frankly most people could care less as long as they are comfortable.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> What we are actually talking about isn’t really about limiting CEO pay it’s about who gets to limit CEO pay.
> CEO pay is always limited by someone


I meant by legislation, which you could easily understand if you read some of my examples.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I don't want the government limiting pay or demanding proof.
If I was writing the checks or a board member, then yes, I'd want proof they were worth what they were being paid, but it's none of the government's business.
We'd be better off imposing term limits on all government positions and salary caps so they can't vote themselves a raise.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cabin Fever said:


> CEOs do not choose their salary. The company they work for sets the salary. If the salary is below the CEOs expectations, s/he is free to leave the company.
> 
> To answer your other question, if I were the owner of a private company, then "YES" I would limit the salary that I paid my CEO. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, the OP's question was "*should the government limit the salaries of CEOs*."


You assumed correctly. I think he purposely muddies the water.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

When has the government ever limited pay for anything?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

The CEO for the company I work for is a great guy who makes a lot more than I do.
He also works way harder, puts in a lot more hours, travels more, worries more and is a lot smarter than me.
That's probably why they pay him so much.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

GTX63 said:


> None of my concern, but for the sake of discussion, start right here-
> 
> Highest Paid Celebrities
> 
> ...



Our society willpay out of the nose to be entertained.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Unless I am on the board of directors of a private company, I should have next to no say as to what the CEO makes. (By private, I mean non-governmental)


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

GTX63 said:


> When has the government ever limited pay for anything?


https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/69/markets/government-price-control/

Now, they most certainly won't limit the amount of money that THEY can make, but, for us plebes, they feel that they are free to meddle at will.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Shame on you for giving those kids an opportunity.


Thank you! The only thing we don't do ourselves is drywall installation and roofing. I did my last roof over ten years 12/12 metal. If it hadn't belonged to dad I wouldn't have gotten on it. 30 feet to fall rattles my nerves....


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

TripleD said:


> Thank you! The only thing we don't do ourselves is drywall installation and roofing. I did my last roof over ten years 12/12 metal. If it hadn't belonged to dad I wouldn't have gotten on it. 30 feet to fall rattles my nerves....


I wish I never learned how to roof. I say I will never do it again but I have one this weekend to do for a sweet little old lady. Only ten squares though. 

But I sure don't do drywall.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> You assumed correctly. I think he purposely muddies the water.


I think you posted this thread to stir the pot
There is no muddy water here I’ve made it quite clear that most CEOs are CEOs of their own company. 
Are you forgetting this or simply trying to muddy the water?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Unless I am on the board of directors of a private company, I should have next to no say as to what the CEO makes. (By private, I mean non-governmental)


 Why not why shouldn’t the shareholders of a company have some say in how much the CEO siphons out of it?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Something else people seem to be forgetting is that a company exists at the forbearance of the citizens of the country. 

If the country is going to grant you some special rights why shouldn’t they have a say in limiting how you are exerting those rights ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I think you posted this thread to stir the pot
> There is no muddy water here I’ve made it quite clear that most CEOs are CEOs of their own company.
> Are you forgetting this or simply trying to muddy the water?


I posted this because there is a movement in America to limit CEO pay. I wanted to see what folks here thought.

I see being an owner, and a CEO as two very different things. I am not talking about owners. I am most especially talking about CEOs of publicly traded companies. You clear now?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Something else people seem to be forgetting is that a company exists at the forbearance of the citizens of the country.
> 
> If the country is going to grant you some special rights why shouldn’t they have a say in limiting how you are exerting those rights ?


The forbearance of the iPhone. 

So don't buy one then.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Something else people seem to be forgetting is that a company exists at the forbearance of the citizens of the country.
> 
> If the country is going to grant you some special rights why shouldn’t they have a say in limiting how you are exerting those rights ?


That makes zero sense


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> I wish I never learned how to roof. I say I will never do it again but I have one this weekend to do for a sweet little old lady. Only ten squares though.
> 
> But I sure don't do drywall.


Just thought of something. This lady is limiting my pay on this job.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> That makes zero sense


I think he believes the people need to set the wage of the CEO. Some believe we need to confiscate estates instead of being willed to the heirs. 

Let's take a vote and ask how much I should charge for my job?

Let every one turn in their grandfather's gun, grandmother's recipe and everything we have every accumulated by way of probate. Then we can auction it all off and give the money to the poor.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I think he believes the people need to set the wage of the CEO. Some believe we need to confiscate estates instead of being willed to the heirs.
> 
> Let's take a vote and ask how much I should charge for my job?
> 
> Let every one turn in their grandfather's gun, grandmother's recipe and everything we have every accumulated by way of probate. Then we can auction it all off and give the money to the poor.


He is suggesting that the general public, by popular vote, set a CEO's wage?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

That’s not what I was suggesting at all but since you brought it up it’s not a bad idea.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HD why did you ask the question in the first place?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> HD why did you ask the question in the first place?


I told you.

I wanted to see what others thought on this subject.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> I think he believes the people need to set the wage of the CEO. Some believe we need to confiscate estates instead of being willed to the heirs.
> 
> Let's take a vote and ask how much I should charge for my job?
> 
> Let every one turn in their grandfather's gun, grandmother's recipe and everything we have every accumulated by way of probate. Then we can auction it all off and give the money to the poor.


 You totally are miss characterizing the dynasty tax
The dynasty tax is about freedom freedom from Taxs during your lifetime freedom from paperwork and weirdly complicated tax avoidance schemes.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> That makes zero sense





HDRider said:


> I told you.
> 
> I wanted to see what others thought on this subject.
> 
> Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Because you say things like the top statement. 

If you want to learn what people think you can’t castigate and insult them when they tell you.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Because you say things like this


That too, makes no sense.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Why not why shouldn’t the shareholders of a company have some say in how much the CEO siphons out of it?


Generally a board of directors answers directly to the shareholders. Sometimes such things are voted on by share holders. Either way is fine. Talk of legislation to limit how much a private company pays any of its employees is wrong.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> You totally are miss characterizing the dynasty tax
> The dynasty tax is about freedom freedom from Taxs during your lifetime freedom from paperwork and weirdly complicated tax avoidance schemes.


What?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Generally a board of directors answers directly to the shareholders. Sometimes such things are voted on by share holders. Either way is fine. Talk of legislation to limit how much a private company pays any of its employees is wrong.


 Why? We limit the bottom why can’t we limit the top?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Generally a board of directors answers directly to the shareholders. Sometimes such things are voted on by share holders. Either way is fine. Talk of legislation to limit how much a *private* company pays any of its employees is wrong.


Sweden considered letting shareholders vote on pay. I think that fell apart.

You are correct about the BoD thing. 

Did you mean to say "public"?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> That too, makes no sense.


Why doesn’t it make sense?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Why? We *limit the bottom* why can’t we limit the top?


We should remove that too.

Although, I sure do not see ANY connection.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Why doesn’t it make sense?


Your sentences do not make sense. You leave people trying to guess what you mean.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> What?


The dynasty tax is a replacement for the income tax it would be a tax of 100% on your estate when you die instead of at tax of a percentage of what you earn every year.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Your sentences do not make sense. You leave people trying to guess what you mean.


Sorry I will work on that


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Your sentences do not make sense. You leave people trying to guess what you mean.


 I’ve gone back over my entries and tryed to understand what you’re having trouble with ,could you quote the individual sentences that you do not understand?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> The dynasty tax is a replacement for the income tax it would be a tax of 100% on your estate when you die instead of at tax of a percentage of what you earn every year.


Then how was I mischaracterizing it? If you inherit an old valuable gun or recipe it has value. You don't get (as you say) nothing from your parents. It all goes to the government. 

If you don't do it this way then what would happen is people would buy expensive stuff that has "sentimental" value and the government gets nothing still. 

The only fair tax is a consumption tax. Business would not get off. People would not get off. Rich would pay more. Poor would pay less.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> The dynasty tax is a replacement for the income tax it would be a tax of 100% on your estate when you die instead of at tax of a percentage of what you earn every year.


Yeah, that'll work. You are joking right?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

It seems he needs to verbalize things sometimes in order to flesh out the details. Just hang on for a few dozen more posts.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Good point I don’t usually think I need to explain every tiny detail of something.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Good point I don’t usually think I need to explain every tiny detail of something.


When you find yourself deep in a hole, my advise is to quit digging.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I guess it reflects the type of person that would come to HT.


Or maybe it means the media lies.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or maybe it means the media lies.


Say it ain't so Joe


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Say it ain't so Joe


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Cabin Fever said:


> When you find yourself deep in a hole, my advise is to quit digging.


Or keep digging until you find a country that speaks the same language.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> Yeah, that'll work. You are joking right?


No
Why wouldn’t it work


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cabin Fever said:


> When you find yourself deep in a hole, my advise is to quit digging.


I’m standing on top of the mountain with a clear A clear vision


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> I’m standing on top of the mountain with a clear A clear vision


China


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I’m standing on top of the mountain with a clear A clear vision


Mexico


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mreynolds said:


> Just thought of something. This lady is limiting my pay on this job.


Oh come on, you know you'll do a drywall job regardless of how many times you say you won't.
It's a special kind of sick but I do understand it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> No
> * Why wouldn’t it work*


I will spell it out for you. 

You seem to think that when someone dies just a lot of money exchanges hands. That is not the case 95% of the time. It is usually real property and assets. 

So I asked do we sell off these assets and give it to the government?

If yes then the only fair way is to sell ALL things that could be handed down including personal items. Guns, clothes, tools etc. Then we have to sell the real property. Dad's house been in the family for ten generations? Not anymore. when he dies sell it. A Farm that has been in the same family for ten generations? Nope, the family loses their job when Dad goes away. SELL IT.....Get another job Bucko!!!! When Warren Buffet dies give all his shares to the government. Pretty soon the government will own everything. All it would take is one or two generations to die. Sell it you say? Well who could afford to buy it all?

See how many cats are out of the bag already? Unless you are the best cat cowboy in captivity this is a terrible idea. You really have to be pulling our leg. You cant be serious. 

Show me how you think it will work.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Duplicate. I needed 2 copies anyway for the IRS.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> Duplicate. I needed 2 copies anyway for the IRS.


The entire US would look like the Norman Bate's place. Except there would be 3 or 4 generations of skeletons in the rocking chairs. No, great, great grandma is still alive. Don't take my house.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

elevenpoint said:


> Oh come on, you know you'll do a drywall job regardless of how many times you say you won't.
> It's a special kind of sick but I do understand it.


Just don't tell my Mom. She thinks I play piano in a massage parlor. It would really disappoint her.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> The forbearance of the iPhone.
> 
> So don't buy one then.


What?
And give up my 15 year old, ever reliable flip phone?
Not a chance, even if it was free.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

TripleD said:


> Thank you! The only thing we don't do ourselves is drywall installation and roofing. I did my last roof over ten years 12/12 metal. If it hadn't belonged to dad I wouldn't have gotten on it. 30 feet to fall rattles my nerves....


Sounds like my roof, which is about 10 years overdue, I'd like to put metal on over the shingles and hopefully it will outlast me, lol.
30 ft. fall in the front, but on the back side, it might be 50 to 80 before your 1st bounce.
I don't mind the fall, it's that sudden stop that worries me.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Just don't tell my Mom. She thinks I play piano in a massage parlor. It would really disappoint her.


As long as those piano lessons she paid for you to take aren't wasted, she'll always be proud of ya.




mreynolds said:


> I think he believes the people need to set the wage of the CEO. Some believe we need to confiscate estates instead of being willed to the heirs.
> 
> Let's take a vote and ask how much I should charge for my job?


Probably $3,000-$4,000 plus materials.
(10 squares, right?)
But you'll probably do it for less and let her make payments too.
You're like me, a sucker for the nice old cat lady.



> Let every one turn in their grandfather's gun, grandmother's recipe and everything we have every accumulated by way of probate. Then we can auction it all off and give the money to the poor.


I don't know about all that.
But i don't think anyone has figured out how to take it all with them.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mreynolds said:


> I will spell it out for you.
> 
> You seem to think that when someone dies just a lot of money exchanges hands. That is not the case 95% of the time. It is usually real property and assets.
> 
> ...


Well said. You have more patience than I do.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> As long as those piano lessons she paid for you to take aren't wasted, she'll always be proud of ya.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, the CEO's make 10 million/year so that means 27,397.26 per day. I promise I wont drag it out for more than 2 days.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

no really said:


> Well said. You have more patience than I do.


You have more places to hide the bodies.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> I will spell it out for you.
> 
> You seem to think that when someone dies just a lot of money exchanges hands. That is not the case 95% of the time. It is usually real property and assets.
> 
> ...


 I take it you just live in some fantasy land where when you don’t agree with someone you can just make up all kinds of lies about them?
we have been through this all before again and again and again.
So starting at the very beginning and using tiny words I’ll see if I can explain
I know that some people die with significant amounts of physical assets. 
That’s partof the point. 
I’m sure the revenue service of the United States will need a large staff to deal with that but probably not as big as staff as they use now after all they are essentially only processing one tax return per lifetime. 
Yes the estates will be sold ,items will be sold they will move out of the family again that’s kind of the point. 
But they don’t have to be ,you can buy something from your father ,your father can give you something while they are alive. 
I suspect a reasonable clawback provision Will be needed just like Medicare now uses. 
And of course there’s nothing at all that will prevent you from going to the auction and buying back that toolbox that your father made when you were six.
But the really key thing that you said who’s going to have that money to buy those kind of things?
Answer is a lot more people
Without the government siphoning off money during your productive years you’ll be able to put it to use and create more wealth than the government ever could with it. 
You will save money to you won’t have to hire accountants to deal with tax problems he won’t have to throw chunks of money into tax avoidance plans you’ll just do straightforward business


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I take it you just live in some fantasy land where when you don’t agree with someone you can just make up all kinds of lies about them?
> we have been through this all before again and again and again.
> So starting at the very beginning and using tiny words I’ll see if I can explain
> I know that some people die with significant amounts of physical assets.
> ...


But that's my whole point. Every piece of asset will be given away before death so the law can't take it. It's what already happens now anyway. 

Consumption tax is the only fair tax for all.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I take it you just live in some fantasy land where when you don’t agree with someone you can just make up all kinds of lies about them?
> we have been through this all before again and again and again.
> So starting at the very beginning and using tiny words I’ll see if I can explain
> I know that some people die with significant amounts of physical assets.
> ...


And I do live on the candy rock mountain here in Texas. It's quite the fantasy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> But that's my whole point. Every piece of asset will be given away before death so the law can't take it. It's what already happens now anyway.
> 
> Consumption tax is the only fair tax for all.


 No I think the people being what people are they won’t give away their assets until perhaps on their deathbed, by that time with a clawback provision it’s too late. 
Sure there will need to be a few little tweaks of the water like outlawing retaining a lifetime estate or creating trust funds 

But it would be a far more fair tax than the consumption tax which is the least fair tax since it most heavily taxes the poor


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> But that's my whole point. Every piece of asset will be given away before death so the law can't take it. It's what already happens now anyway.
> 
> Consumption tax is the only fair tax for all.


Truthfully, I could never figure out how the 16th amendment ever passed, and have doubts that it ever did, legally that is.
Consumption tax is only way to go and as far as the whole gov't one time death tax thing.....
I don't trust the IRS now while I'm alive to watch 'em.
I can only imagine what they'd get away with after I'm gone.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Generally a board of directors answers directly to the shareholders. Sometimes such things are voted on by share holders. Either way is fine. Talk of legislation to limit how much a private company pays any of its employees is wrong.


You sure that is how it works? While it may seem like that, the problem is the board of directors are usually made up of retired CEOs of other companies - or big wigs with-in the company. 

Being a retired CEO from another company, they are accustomed to big a big salary. While I understand that a CEO is chosen to be a board of director because of their experience in running their previous company - doesn't always translate into being a "good" board of director for this company.

As a shareholder, the only vote I have is whether this board of director should be hired or continue as a board member. We aren't given a pool of people for the board of directors. If the company needs 5 board of directors for this year, we are given 5 people to vote for. I'll be honest, I don't know where the "pool" of candidates is chosen from - but my guess would be the CEO has an indirect say in who.

As far as the CEO's salary - that isn't even the biggest expense of the company. Don't forget all the big perks the CEO gets - use of the company's jet for personal use, all the benefits - health care, private car and chauffeur, body guards, etc. And don't forget the bonus - which is usually tied to some list of "goals" which always seem to be met - and where the yearly bonus can be even larger than their yearly salary! AND . . . . . don't forget the hundreds of thousands of shares of the company they get in addition, as well as the golden parachute they are given, that if their service is no longer required (even if they have done something underhanded) - they then walk away from the company millions of dollars richer!

Of course, the board of director's aren't much better. They are usually given a certain amount of money for each board meeting they attend - in addition to the thousands of free stock they get in the company too.

In short, the board of directors of the company are just more overpaid executives who are in the position of scratching the back of the CEO, so the CEO can then scratch their backs.

Should the general public have a say in CEO pay? No. Should legislation? No.

While the shareholders "have a say", it's usually in the form of a vote of "compensation". And even that is fixed, because not all shareholders vote. And the majority that do vote, don't even read what they are voting on - they just approve it because the board of directors states they should approve it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Truthfully, I could never figure out how the 16th amendment ever passed, and have doubts that it ever did, legally that is.
> Consumption tax is only way to go and as far as the whole gov't one time death tax thing.....
> I don't trust the IRS now while I'm alive to watch 'em.
> I can only imagine what they'd get away with after I'm gone.


 You’re going to be dead and gone at the time how much do you think you will really care?

Chi they’re going to get all of it anyway how How are they going to pull a dirty trick with that?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> You’re going to be dead and gone at the time how much do you think you will really care?
> 
> Chi they’re going to get all of it anyway how How are they going to pull a dirty trick with that?


Oh, i didn't say I would care after I'm gone. But after fighting the bastards all my life, I'd hate to just hand it over to them on my deathbed.
Nope, they won't get that lucky if I can help it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> I will spell it out for you.
> 
> You seem to think that when someone dies just a lot of money exchanges hands. That is not the case 95% of the time. It is usually real property and assets.
> 
> ...


It works fine that way now in communist countries. The government owns everything, everyone works for the government. Great system if you like equal shares of nothing for everyone!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Truthfully, I could never figure out how the 16th amendment ever passed, and have doubts that it ever did, legally that is.
> Consumption tax is only way to go and as far as the whole gov't one time death tax thing.....
> I don't trust the IRS now while I'm alive to watch 'em.
> I can only imagine what they'd get away with after I'm gone.


The sixteenth passed because it only involved the very wealthy. "Those lying, thieving scum should have to pay their share!" was the battle cry, sound familiar?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Oh, i didn't say I would care after I'm gone. But after fighting the bastards all my life, I'd hate to just hand it over to them on my deathbed.
> Nope, they won't get that lucky if I can help it.


 So you should love the dynasty tax you wouldn’t have to fight with thim all your living days taxes wouldn’t affect you during your lifetime


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> But that's my whole point. Every piece of asset will be given away before death so the law can't take it. It's what already happens now anyway.
> 
> Consumption tax is the only fair tax for all.


I keep saying to myself, don't do it, don't do it, and yet, you do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Michael W. Smith said:


> You sure that is how it works? While it may seem like that, the problem is the board of directors are usually made up of retired CEOs of other companies - or big wigs with-in the company.
> 
> Being a retired CEO from another company, they are accustomed to big a big salary. While I understand that a CEO is chosen to be a board of director because of their experience in running their previous company - doesn't always translate into being a "good" board of director for this company.
> 
> ...


I think your post nails it!. CEO salary just isnt held in check by anyone with an interest in holding it in check.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Michael W. Smith said:


> You sure that is how it works? While it may seem like that, the problem is the board of directors are usually made up of retired CEOs of other companies - or big wigs with-in the company.
> 
> Being a retired CEO from another company, they are accustomed to big a big salary. While I understand that a CEO is chosen to be a board of director because of their experience in running their previous company - doesn't always translate into being a "good" board of director for this company.
> 
> ...


I could pick a number of nits, but for the sake of argument, let's go with what you wrote.

You say no to legislation. I take it you are reasonably satisfied with how things work?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Why? We limit the bottom why can’t we limit the top?


We should not limit either.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> We should not limit either.


There is an echo in here


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Michael W. Smith said:


> You sure that is how it works? While it may seem like that, the problem is the board of directors are usually made up of retired CEOs of other companies - or big wigs with-in the company.
> 
> Being a retired CEO from another company, they are accustomed to big a big salary. While I understand that a CEO is chosen to be a board of director because of their experience in running their previous company - doesn't always translate into being a "good" board of director for this company.
> 
> ...


All that to say that stock holders do, indeed, get a say? Just because many do not concern themselves with wielding that power, means nothing. If the owners of a business want to get together in their board room and stack billions of their dollars in a suitable vessel and set it on fire, it is of no business of mine, unless I am a stockholder.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> All that to say that stock holders do, indeed, get a say? Just because many do not concern themselves with wielding that power, means nothing. If the owners of a business want to get together in their board room and stack billions of their dollars in a suitable vessel and set it on fire, it is of no business of mine, unless I am a stockholder.


True enough, but he does hit on a very important point. The relationship between the BoD and the Cs is very cozy. I have seen boards turn on a CEO. It can be quite Machiavellian, but on the whole, they are scratching each other's back.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> We should not limit either.


Why not ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I think your post nails it!. CEO salary just isnt held in check by anyone with an interest in holding it in check.


Why all this interest in other people's money?


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t think most people really hate the wealthy it’s just they see the unfairness of how some people have accumulated wealth


Or maybe just you? Obviously not most people, as per your poll...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Why? We limit the bottom why can’t we limit the top?


The bottom isn't limited.
We are all free to earn more than minimum wage, and employers are free to pay more.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Just remember as a consumer you pay that CEO's way more than adiquite salary and the golden parachute most have it removed from their post.

Lets take a look at Job perforance. some that come to mind off hand it Toys R Us, gone.
Radio shack stores, gone
Sears dieing a slow death.
Kmart I heard only one store remains in Michigan.
PC pennies dieing a slow death.
Circuit City, gone.
Best Buy dieing a slow death also.

There are lots of reasons why, most have to do with over priced goods, crappy coustomer inter action and service too.

We should also not for get the salarys of the so called sports stars.
Personaly I think high school and college sports is more fun to watch.
Those college coaches are over paid too.

 Al


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I keep saying to myself, don't do it, don't do it, and yet, you do.



New definition of insanity?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> The bottom isn't limited.
> We are all free to earn more than minimum wage, and employers are free to pay more.


 Yes but in theory there is a minimum wag.
The bottom is limited


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I take it you just live in some fantasy land where when you don’t agree with someone you can just make up all kinds of lies about them?
> we have been through this all before again and again and again.
> So starting at the very beginning and using tiny words I’ll see if I can explain
> I know that some people die with significant amounts of physical assets.
> ...


Who gets the money from the sale?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The US treasury of coarse


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why all this interest in other people's money?


I know it is a waste to reply to you, but I will say this for others' benefit.

The world evolves, and sometimes devolves. As much as we have moved away from child labor, dangerous working conditions, etc, there will be more changes, some good, and we will have missteps. I expect working kids in dangerous jobs is OK with you, but other people have a concern. As such, other people do care.

Me personally, I do not think a law can limit pay. People can get around the law very easily.

Me personally, I do not think you can limit pay with taxes. People can get around taxes very easily.

Unfairness and fairness cannot be legislated. All laws and rules have negative unintended consequences.

Bezos will collect money, until he stops. All people suck, some suck more than others.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> The US treasury of coarse


It sounds like I should sellout today and spend it all before I die !!!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> The US treasury of coarse


Why?
Isn't that counter to the American way?
Don't we work and save and invest so our kids and grandkids will have it a little better than we did?
What did the treasury do to deserve our hard earned property?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TripleD said:


> It sounds like I should sellout today and spend it all before I die !!!


Maybe I'll sell everything, buy a nice house in town and give it to my kids


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

TripleD said:


> It sounds like I should sellout today and spend it all before I die !!!


Come on now. You know you will wait for your deathbed before you sell anything just like everyone else will. 

Besides, it's the law remember?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Why not ?


It is not a power a government should have and to do so only serves to increase inflation.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> True enough, but he does hit on a very important point. The relationship between the BoD and the Cs is very cozy. I have seen boards turn on a CEO. It can be quite Machiavellian, but on the whole, they are scratching each other's back.


Unless one is a stockholder, it is none of our business.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> Why?
> Isn't that counter to the American way?
> Don't we work and save and invest so our kids and grandkids will have it a little better than we did?
> What did the treasury do to deserve our hard earned property?


Not to mention all the business that will close forever after a death. It will all have to be started anew with each new generation.

Ford motor company? Too bad, so sad. Start a new car company with each generation.

It's the law dude.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

This boils down to one over-arching theme. Do you want the government to mostly butt out of your life, or, do you want to use government as a weapon against people who have made a better go at it than you have?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mreynolds said:


> Not to mention all the business that will close forever after a death. It will all have to be started anew with each new generation.
> 
> Ford motor company? Too bad, so sad. Start a new car company with each generation.
> 
> It's the law dude.


It would kill incentive IMHO, why start a business if it will just be taken apart.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Unless one is a stockholder, it is none of our business.


I hold a LOT of stocks.

Plus, all those expenses, inflated, or otherwise, are factors in the selling price.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> This boils down to one over-arching theme. Do you want the government to mostly butt out of your life, or, do you want to use government as a weapon against people who have made a better go at it than you have?


Government involvement will not diminish, it will not recede. It will only grow.

The only hope is that the government does smart things, and not pretend things, dramatic things, drastic things, just to placate noisemakers.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Government involvement will not diminish, it will not recede. It will only grow.
> 
> The only hope is that the government does smart things, and not pretend things, dramatic things, drastic things, just to placate noisemakers.


So, you are saying there is no hope?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I hold a LOT of stocks.
> 
> Plus, all those expenses, inflated, or otherwise, are factors in the selling price.


Then let your voice be heard. If you can convince enough stock holders to your way of thinking, perhaps you can get what you want.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

TripleD said:


> It sounds like I should sellout today and spend it all before I die !!!


 Lol Yes if you desire. And what would happen? 
You would stimulate the economy increase wealth and Create a larger tax base.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why all this interest in other people's money?


Lol you are A part of the conversation Why are you so interested in other people’s money?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> This boils down to one over-arching theme. Do you want the government to mostly butt out of your life, or, do you want to use government as a weapon against people who have made a better go at it than you have?


Why does it have to be one or the other ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> Not to mention all the business that will close forever after a death. It will all have to be started anew with each new generation.
> 
> Ford motor company? Too bad, so sad. Start a new car company with each generation.
> 
> It's the law dude.


 That makes no sense

Lots of the stockholders of Ford motor company have died over the years and lots of their estates have been transferred and yet the Ford motor company continues on.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Why?
> Isn't that counter to the American way?
> Don't we work and save and invest so our kids and grandkids will have it a little better than we did?
> What did the treasury do to deserve our hard earned property?


 You’re right we shouldn’t have to pay any taxes.

But it seems that we do so it just makes sense to pay taxes in the best way possible that will have the least impact on our life


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> The only hope is that the government does smart things, and not pretend things, dramatic things, drastic things, just to placate noisemakers.


So there is no hope?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> The US treasury of coarse


80 grit


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> That makes no sense
> 
> Lots of the stockholders of Ford motor company have died over the years and lots of their estates have been transferred and yet the Ford motor company continues on.


But under the new law it would have to be sold. Nothing will be transferred anymore after death remember?

Unless you are saying that all my billions that I don't want the government to get I just need to open a corporation and put it into stock then transfer it over so they don't get it. 

Can you spell loophole?

This was my while point. If you draw taxes this way it has to be all or nothing. There can be no loopholes or it is dead before it hits the ground. Consumption tax offers absolutely no loopholes for anyone. No way around it at all. Everyone pays their fair share everyday.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> So there is no hope?


LMAO


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

po boy said:


> 80 grit


If some of those others get elected it will be closer to 20 or 40 grit.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> So, you are saying there is no hope?


I am

That said, I will, and I expect you will, keep plugging along, doing good when we can, and doing the best we can.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Why does it have to be one or the other ?


Because they are mutually exclusive.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The sixteenth passed because it only involved the very wealthy. "Those lying, thieving scum should have to pay their share!" was the battle cry, sound familiar?


Um, no.
The 16th has no language about the amount of wealth to be taxed. 
It doesn't say wealthy income, it says all income.
It has enabled almost 100 years of continuos wars for this corrupt gov't both Democrat and Republican.
Based on past experience discussing the English language used in the constitution, your statement doesn't surprise me however.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> So you should love the dynasty tax you wouldn’t have to fight with thim all your living days taxes wouldn’t affect you during your lifetime


Um no.
I don't offer comfort to my enemies, either while alive or dead.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> But under the new law it would have to be sold. Nothing will be transferred anymore after death remember?
> 
> Unless you are saying that all my billions that I don't want the government to get I just need to open a corporation and put it into stock then transfer it over so they don't get it.
> 
> ...


OK, I can't let it go any longer. You have offered up the consumption tax as a fair tax. I was going to let it go. This is all mental masturbation anyway. Let me ask how you would handle this situation.

I have saved a ton of cash. It is all post tax cash. I paid my income tax on it. I have minimum income, but I have a pile of cash. 

Now I spend that post tax money, and *you want to tax it again*? You want to tax the same money twice. Maybe even tax it three times if I take my post cash money and buy stocks and some of my money came from dividends.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Um, no.
> The 16th has no language about the amount of wealth to be taxed.
> It doesn't say wealthy income, it says all income.
> It has enabled almost 100 years of continuos wars for this corrupt gov't both Democrat and Republican.
> Based on past experience discussing the English language used in the constitution, your statement doesn't surprise me however.


If you will look to how it was sold to the public, you will fine that it was never supposed to affect more than the top 2% of wage earners. I know how it is worded, but, that is not what we are talking about. Much like any such ideas on how to get the (fill in the blank with what ever mean booger that some politician says you should be angry at), they sell such stupidity as a way to get those other guys, and the silly public tends to not see the three other fingers pointed at them while they point at that scary mean booger.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> OK, I can't let it go any longer. You have offered up the consumption tax as a fair tax. I was going to let it go. This is all mental masturbation anyway. Let me ask how you would handle this situation.
> 
> I have saved a ton of cash. It is all post tax cash. I paid my income tax on it. I have minimum income, but I have a pile of cash.
> 
> Now I spend that post tax money, and *you want to tax it again*? You want to tax the same money twice. Maybe even tax it three times if I take my post cash money and buy stocks and some of my money came from dividends.


Because it wouldn't be post tax cash anymore. All of your cash would be pre tax. It wouldn't be taxed until you spend it.

What you are talking about is that we have already. You take home money that was taxed already before you got it. Then you pay more tax when you spend it at Walmart.

Consumption tax would be like TripleD getting all his rent money and keeping it until he had to go buy a new roof on one of his houses. Not having to file taxes in April either.

A single mother who makes 10 bucks an hour would take home 400 dollars instead of 300 then paying sales tax on top of that. Of course she would not get that income credit either but would still be better off in the long run.

Bill Gates buys a 20 million dollar boat and pays tax when he buys it.

Of course this will never happen anyway because there government has slowly turned is into a double and triple tax society. You get paid on already taxed money. Then you pay a consumption tax at Walmart. Then you pay property tax too. And you have to pay the last two on money already taxed.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Because it wouldn't be post tax cash anymore. All of your cash would be pre tax. It wouldn't be taxed until you spend it.
> 
> What you are talking about is that we have already. You take home money that was taxed already before you got it. Then you pay more tax when you spend it at Walmart.
> 
> ...


You ain't getting it. You said eliminate income tax. Understood. Replace it with a consumption tax. Got it. I know I pay sales tax now, very little, maybe 7 or 8 percent.

My savings is all post tax. I ALREADY paid income tax on it. I know I will pay sales tax when I spend it, but you want me to pay a consumption tax with a rate on par with an income tax.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It works fine that way now in communist countries. The government owns everything, everyone works for the government. Great system if you like equal shares of nothing for everyone!


Name one communist country, just one in the whole world.
Before you submit your extensive list make sure they have transitioned all the way to communism, meaning the gov't owns nothing and the people own everything.
Otherwise, what you have is a list of Socialist countries, where the gov't owns everything and the people nothing.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> You ain't getting it. You said eliminate income tax. Understood. Replace it with a consumption tax. Got it. I know I pay sales tax now, very little, maybe 7 or 8 percent.
> 
> My savings is all post tax. I ALREADY paid income tax on it. I know I will pay sales tax when I spend it, but you want me to pay a consumption tax with a rate on par with an income tax.


You would still come out ahead in the long run. Yes there would be those that have prepped and played by the rules that would get bit some. 

I would prefer no tax at all but as far as fairness across the board, the consumption tax is the most fair.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> You ain't getting it. You said eliminate income tax. Understood. Replace it with a consumption tax. Got it. I know I pay sales tax now, very little, maybe 7 or 8 percent.
> 
> My savings is all post tax. I ALREADY paid income tax on it. I know I will pay sales tax when I spend it, but you want me to pay a consumption tax with a rate on par with an income tax.


BTW, I am in the same boat as you on this type of tax.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> You ain't getting it. You said eliminate income tax. Understood. Replace it with a consumption tax. Got it. I know I pay sales tax now, very little, maybe 7 or 8 percent.
> 
> My savings is all post tax. I ALREADY paid income tax on it. I know I will pay sales tax when I spend it, but you want me to pay a consumption tax with a rate on par with an income tax.


Sorry, just because we've had idiots paying income taxes for 100 years, don't blame us, the people that know it's a criminal enterprise.
If you guys had fought instead ofd surrendering to the IRS thieves then you would have all that money PRE tax now.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> You would still come out ahead in the long run. Yes there would be those that have prepped and played by the rules that would get bit some.
> 
> I would prefer no tax at all but as far as fairness across the board, the consumption tax is the most fair.


How would I come out to the good? Sounds like I get screwed twice.

You are the second Texican I have argued this with. WTH is going on down there?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Sorry, just because we've had idiots paying income taxes for 100 years, don't blame us, the people that know it's a criminal enterprise.
> If you guys had fought instead ofd surrendering to the IRS thieves then you would have all that money PRE tax now.


Nonsense.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Nonsense.


Nonsense that the 16th is criminal or nonsense that people who have been paying that tax have financed criminal activity or nonsense that that makes them useful idiots?
I say it's all 3.

I'm sitting on non taxed money now and have no intentions of letting that money finance the criminal enterprise known as the U.S. gov't.
Is that nonsense too?
Cuz that "nonsense" sure looks good to me.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> How would I come out to the good? Sounds like I get screwed twice.
> 
> You are the second Texican I have argued this with. WTH is going on down there?


Some of us would rather fight than bend over, but different strokes for different folks, pardon the pun.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> How would I come out to the good? Sounds like I get screwed twice.
> 
> You are the second Texican I have argued this with. WTH is going on down there?


Because of our high IQ here?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

I don't think the IRS is a US government office.
It is just a collection agency without any checks and balances ?? Correct me if I am wrong
(in a nice manner)


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

keenataz said:


> Our society willpay out of the nose to be entertained.


 Distracted......programmed,mislead…... are better terms.



AmericanStand said:


> Why not why shouldn’t the shareholders of a company have some say in how much the CEO siphons out of it?



Likely it is just the opposite, if not for the fool being the CEO there would be no company because frankly many can`t or won`t do that job...…..many refuse due to the share holders unrealistic expectations and pure ignorance.

Who would want to captain a ship when some trust fund baby down in the bilge is allowed to call the shots and then its your fault when their "Visions" do not come to fruition...….


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> I don't think the IRS is a US government office.
> It is just a collection agency without any checks and balances ?? Correct me if I am wrong
> (in a nice manner)


That's the way I understand it too. Not sure though.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Something else people seem to be forgetting is that a company exists at the forbearance of the citizens of the country.
> 
> If the country is going to grant you some special rights why shouldn’t they have a say in limiting how you are exerting those rights ?



No one grants them rights, they are free for all people of this country and the reason the constitution was written and the citizens were armed...…..that granted rights logic is from a place of misconception and how people get the "Subject" mindset...….


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

the reason that the shareholders don't get the final say is usually because they don't collectively control over 50% of the stock.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> I think you posted this thread to stir the pot
> There is no muddy water here I’ve made it quite clear that most CEOs are CEOs of their own company.
> Are you forgetting this or simply trying to muddy the water?


 In those cases is it not the right of the owner to take as much profit as he sees fit...…..since it is a very rare happening for a person to start a company to just help people, its usually done for money. 

The socialist programming is so engrained and entrenched in society people do not even know they have been programmed, it just seems natural and normal...…..flows out the mouth like water .


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Because of our high IQ here?


Something like that


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

On a flat or consumption tax...................................
There would have to be a grandfather system set up for money (not cash) on hand with strict verifiation of those funds. 
Poor would get a rebate of a portion of what they pay.
This would end all those IRS guidelines and could end the IRS. 
*Don't yell at me!*
People working under the table would pay taxes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> the reason that the shareholders don't get the final say is usually because they don't collectively control over 50% of the stock.


Sure they do. Rarely to the executives own a majority interest. Most often majority interests are held by mutual funds. You can bet your bottom dollar they vote their shares. 

Every once in a while you get what is called an activists investor, who really swings votes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

po boy said:


> On a flat or consumption tax...................................
> There would have to be a grandfather system set up for money (not cash) on hand with strict verifiation of those funds.
> Poor would get a rebate of a portion of what they pay.
> This would end all those IRS guidelines and could end the IRS.
> ...


I can't argue against flat tax. But, a flat tax, and a consumption tax are two very different things.

People would still go underground with a consumption tax. Some agency would track transactions, just like they do now for sales tax. I have seen people get between that grindstone. Ain't pretty.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes but in theory there is a minimum wag.
> The bottom is limited


Not really, we have lots who earn nothing, some going further in debt so earning less than nothing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol you are A part of the conversation Why are you so interested in other people’s money?


I'd like to see them keep as much as possible. Anything wrong with prosperity for all?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'd like to see them keep as much as possible. Anything wrong with prosperity for all?


 Then we are on the same side !


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I can't argue against flat tax. But, a flat tax, and a consumption tax are two very different things.
> 
> People would still go underground with a consumption tax. Some agency would track transactions, just like they do now for sales tax. I have seen people get between that grindstone. Ain't pretty.


Sorry, I am running on one cylinder and speaking about the Fair Tax and my comments are based on Nathan Deal's book I read about a dozen years ago.
People are underground now that are being paid cash for work. On a Fair tax system, taxes would be collected at the point of sale just like sales taxes. Cash sales between individuals would not be taxed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Then we are on the same side !


Taking 100% of a mans wealth isn't letting him keep much.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Taking 100% of a mans wealth isn't letting him keep much.


The Dynasty tax doesn’t take any of the Man’s wealth. 
The current tax system can take 1/3 of his income for 50 years that makes it difficult for him to accumulate wealth.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> The Dynasty tax doesn’t take any of the Man’s wealth.
> The current tax system can take 1/3 of his income for 50 years that makes it *difficult for him to accumulate wealth*.


A few seem to still overcome


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> The Dynasty tax doesn’t take any of the Man’s wealth.
> The current tax system can take 1/3 of his income for 50 years that makes it difficult for him to accumulate wealth.


It takes it all!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> A few seem to still overcome


 This is true. But do you really think it’s the best system ?


Yvonne's hubby said:


> It takes it all!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It takes it all!


 The man has his entire income and wealth his entire life. 
Why do you want to take 1/3 of it 50 times ?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> You’re right on those first three Life isn’t fair ,life never has been fair it never will be fair,
> But you are way way way so wrong on that fourth one life should be fair it’s something we should strive for


Fairness and equality are both a fairy tail pushed by preachers and political thieves. Both of whom are trying to get into your pocket. Survival of the fittest is the fairest rule there ever was. And it was made my mother nature, not man.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> The man has his entire income and wealth his entire life.
> Why do you want to take 1/3 of it 50 times ?


I don't! How about letting him keep all of his money except the little that is necessary to provide our defense?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Divide our expenses by our population, everyone pays the same amount once a year. Watch expenses drop!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Divide our expenses by our population, everyone pays the same amount once a year. Watch expenses drop!


That is really the whole point. We should see an expense report every year. As it is they just keep saying we need more every year but can't tell us where it's all going.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> That is really the whole point. We should see an expense report every year. As it is they just keep saying we need more every year but can't tell us where it's all going.


 You can get a copy of the budget if you want to


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't! How about letting him keep all of his money except the little that is necessary to provide our defense?


We both want the smallest possible taxes but that’s not what we’re talking about.
What we are talking about is the best way to get those taxes.
You’re away takes money away from him when he needs it the most.
On my way takes money that he will never use or need.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> We both want the smallest possible taxes but that’s not what we’re talking about.
> What we are talking about is the best way to get those taxes.
> You’re away takes money away from him when he needs it the most.
> On my way takes money that he will never use or need.


My way ends up taking a tiny amount. Ever. Your way simply takes everything from everyone... Forever!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

A tiny amount ?
Lol
Your way takes far more than mine does.

What do you think $24,000 in taxes taken from you at 21 is worth when you die at 78?
If you do as good as the stock market average that one year cost you over $1 million!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> You can get a copy of the budget if you want to


The one they want you to have sure. I want to know why they take 160 dollars a square for blue tarp and only takes 60 a square to get it done. Where are those figures?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It’s in there
Probably under administration


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I could pick a number of nits, but for the sake of argument, let's go with what you wrote.
> 
> You say no to legislation. I take it you are reasonably satisfied with how things work?


Absolutely NOT!! As a shareholder of several corporations, it really makes me mad when I see my small minuscule dividends vs what the CEO's salary and benefits are, as well as thousands of shares of stock the CEO also gets. The board of directors is just as bad with their salary per meeting as well as getting thousands of shares of stock as well.

I always vote NO on the compensation plans. I usually also write a note on the ballot that the CEO salary and benefits is way too high. But nobody listens.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Do you go to shareholder meetings?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Michael W. Smith said:


> Absolutely NOT!! As a shareholder of several corporations, it really makes me mad when I see my small minuscule dividends vs what the CEO's salary and benefits are, as well as thousands of shares of stock the CEO also gets. The board of directors is just as bad with their salary per meeting as well as getting thousands of shares of stock as well.
> 
> I always vote NO on the compensation plans. I usually also write a note on the ballot that the CEO salary and benefits is way too high. But nobody listens.


When indirect ownership of shares of corporations (mutual funds and now ETF's) became the norm is where the explosive growth of executive compensation began. Direct owners are a tiny fraction of the available float of public companies today. Pension funds, mutual funds and ETF's control the voting rights, or in some cases, there are dual ownership structures. In the end, if you have a problem with executive compensation, you should become an executive, not own shares/be a customer or find something more constructive to do with your time, imho.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Divide our expenses by our population, everyone pays the same amount once a year. Watch expenses drop!


That was explicitly addressed in the 1789 constitution and prevented the income tax until the 16th amendment.


https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/64/direct-taxes


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hiro said:


> When indirect ownership of shares of corporations (mutual funds and now ETF's) became the norm is where the explosive growth of executive compensation began. Direct owners are a tiny fraction of the available float of public companies today. Pension funds, mutual funds and ETF's control the voting rights, or in some cases, there are dual ownership structures. In the end, if you have a problem with executive compensation, you should become an executive, not own shares/be a customer or find something more constructive to do with your time, imho.


The government has created this problem . Why should t the government be used to solve the problem ?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> The government has created this problem . Why should t the government be used to solve the problem ?


Seriously? Government caused problems are not solved by government. My point was the explosive growth of executive compensation happened when direct ownership/voting rights were voluntarily surrendered. A lot of people are lazy and can't be bothered with such trivial matters of handling their own interests or they are also getting just fine returns even with the CEO getting too much compensation.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> That is really the whole point. We should see an expense report every year. As it is they just keep saying we need more every year but can't tell us where it's all going.


Those numbers are but a mouse click away.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> This is true. But do you really think it’s the best system ?



Once again, my VERY unpopular belief that we will never be free or break free of the endless cycles of society we have been repeating all over the world since recorded history ….until we eliminate money.


I am sure the person who suggested we would get rid of horses faced the same opposition at one time.


Until we evolve past money, we will never break free as humans from the endless cycle of rise and fall.


Feel free to throw rocks, I am used to it,...……


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

You understand, right, that no one is handing CEO's a paycheck that big? They get their paycheck, but a lot of that is stock options and insurance.

While you are limiting what people earn, food has gotten too expensive and that is hard on the poor. Maybe we should limit farmers to $1.25 an hour to bring down the price of food. Or better yet, simply divide up what they grow into equal portions and hand it out for free. It's not fair for them to have so much food when people are going hungry.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> It’s in there
> Probably under administration


No all that's there is the 160 spent.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Those numbers are but a mouse click away.


Not all of them. Just the totals.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> The government has created this problem . Why should t the government be used to solve the problem ?


Based on experience, I've found that asking the one who screwed something up to help fix it, is one of there least productive things you can do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Not all of them. Just the totals.


Ok, two or three mouse clicks. I've seen numerous graphs and charts that break our budget down into individual departments. Those numbers can be further broken down by searching on any particular department. Remember though, we spend trillions, it may take a while to track each and every dollar.... But the data is available.


----------



## ridgerunner1965 (Apr 13, 2013)

I don't have a lot of thoughts about ceo salarys. as long as the market can stand it I guess its good.

whats crazy stupid is im considered wealthy here making about 40k. people ask me for money all the time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ridgerunner1965 said:


> I don't have a lot of thoughts about ceo salarys. as long as the market can stand it I guess its good.
> 
> whats crazy stupid is im considered wealthy here making about 40k. people ask me for money all the time.


Not crazy stupid at all. Folks think I'm wealthy too! Never made 20k any year of my life! If memory serves my big year hit right at $16k. And yep, I am the "go to" guy when freinds, neighbors and kinfolk need money. Funny how that werks!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol Half the people in Town think I have never worked a day in my life those are the same half who think I am wealthy enough to of paid for my son‘s multimillion dollar farming operation and businesses.
I drive a $500 S 10 quite a bit if I’m not driving that I’m driving at 92 Ford F750 ,my wife drives $1000 crown Victoria. 
Currently I live in a house that I bought at the sheriffs auction
I heat with scrap wood. I raised garden have a few chickens
What part of that screams wealthy come borrow money from me?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

oregon woodsmok said:


> You understand, right, that no one is handing CEO's a paycheck that big? They get their paycheck, but a lot of that is stock options and insurance.
> 
> While you are limiting what people earn, food has gotten too expensive and that is hard on the poor. Maybe we should limit farmers to $1.25 an hour to bring down the price of food. Or better yet, simply divide up what they grow into equal portions and hand it out for free. It's not fair for them to have so much food when people are going hungry.


are you going to guarantee that 125 an hour for farmers? A lot of farmers are going to be very happy!


essentially farmers do give their food away for free. They have a lousy union

Think about it ,right now with corn paying about six cents a pound is there a dime worth of farmer product in your cornflakes that sold for $4.50 a box?

I bet the CEO of the cornflake company made more than that.
And that’s why people are upset


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Limit anyone's salary? What are you, a socialist?
Absolutely not, although how rich does someone need to be?

You (you in the general sense, not you specifically) could have gone to school, became better educated, studied harder, or started your own business...don't hate because you don't make that kind of money...neither do I


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Do you go to shareholder meetings?


I remember prep for a number of shareholder meetings. Quite often a vocal person would be there, maybe the same person a few times. They might get labeled a nut, or a trouble maker, or just noisy, but I can tell you, the Cs cringe when the SH starts to speak. The Cs will even have people watch as people file in to see if a known SH shows up.

I can't say the vocal SH holds sway, they don't, but they are noted.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> are you going to guarantee that 125 an hour for farmers? A lot of farmers are going to be very happy!
> 
> 
> essentially farmers do give their food away for free. They have a lousy union
> ...


 Yet they will buy another box of cornflakes and complain...…...

Most problems are self inflicted, even if we refuse to see it,.....when you make it some one else`s problem it relieves you of the duty and responsibility to do anything and that's just the way most like it.


----------



## michiganfarmer (Oct 15, 2005)

HDRider said:


> If you were in charge of such things would you limit CEO and other "C" level executive's pay?
> 
> How?
> 
> ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Assuming the worker makes $8 per hour, doing the math, you'd limit the CEO to $1.6M.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Assuming the worker makes $8 per hour, doing the math, you'd limit the CEO to $1.6M.


There goes that boat I've been wanting to buy.....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> There goes that boat I've been wanting to buy.....


When our company was acquired our CEO got a $54M payout. 

He bought a giant sailboat.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> There goes that boat I've been wanting to buy.....


Don't worry you can buy mine for $200.
It's a 3 seater canoe.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> When our company was acquired our CEO got a $54M payout.
> 
> He bought a giant sailboat.


Quite a lot of money for selling out.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> Don't worry you can buy mine for $200.
> It's a 3 seater canoe.


I have an ocean kayak. It's pretty cool. been about 2 miles out with it. Got 2 rod holders and a live well. I didn't set the hook that far out though lol. Hammerheads are pretty aggressive down here.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I have an ocean kayak. It's pretty cool. been about 2 miles out with it. Got 2 rod holders and a live well. I didn't set the hook that far out though lol. Hammerheads are pretty aggressive down here.


That sounds scary. Lots of big things to tip you over and eat you out there. 

Im definitely more of a lake boater. Less scary and I get seasick out of sight of land.(only when I go below)
Way, way back...DH wanted to cross the Atlantic in his sailboat. But my seasickness put the kibosh on that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I have an ocean kayak. It's pretty cool. been about 2 miles out with it. Got 2 rod holders and a live well. I didn't set the hook that far out though lol. Hammerheads are pretty aggressive down here.


You need to reread


----------

