Your Pensions Are NEXT Socialism is HERE

Interesting twist, especially considering how so many top executives have to buy a piece of the company they work for with their own money before they even start. Perhaps they get the shares at a discount, but it's never really significant. The total compensation of the executives is a combination of the base salary and the value of stock they either receive as bonuses or options. My prediction is that, in a brilliant public relations coup, many of these "top executives" will voluntarily have their salaries reduced to $1 per year (like Iacocca) but they will not miss any meals or have late fees charged for their bill payments.

What fries me to no end are events like the Wells Fargo "all-expenses paid trip to Las Vegas" for their employees to "recognize them for their hard work". As I recall, Wells Fargo is getting bailout money; consequently, it appears that few, if any, of their employees really deserve the bonus trip. The management of Wells Fargo says the money for the trip isn't coming out of the bailout money, but think about this. Your worthless son-in-law asks for $500 to pay the rent and buy food, which you give. Then you catch him at the Wal-Mart, buying an X-Box, but he tells you he isn't using your money to pay for the video game. Perhaps someone can explain away the aroma of decaying fish, but it's doubtful.

Good points you made,,,,Zip.....

So, your definition of socialism is that when an insolvent institution needs money to stay afloat, the provider of those funds sets guidelines as to how it can be spent? In addition, you believe that the next step, after regulating the use of government handouts, is the confiscating of pensions and the government opening grocery stores?

The ruling does, if nothing else, put these companies at a disadvantage of not being able to pay for the best top level executives, which are a rare breed.

If the status quo in executive salaries is 5 million per year, why would a top level executive want to work for a company that can only pay 500,000?

We already know they will get around the rules with stock options or some other method. The law just sounds good.

The government now owns most of these companies, directly or indirectly and can tell them what they can do and what they can't. That's socialism. Telling a bank they have to loan to the poor is socialism. Medicare is socialism. Social Security is socialism. Funny thing about all these socialist programs they are all BROKE as is the US taxpayer. So yes, pensions are next and yes the government has already begun taking over pensions that fail and will eventually start with pensions that have not failed. It should be we the people and instead it's now we the government. Eventually there will be no incentive to make money and that is what will destroy capitalism. In the 80’s my father was paying as high as 80% in taxes and found every loophole he could find to cut his taxes. When you tax people to the point of no return you take away the desire to make money and we all know the government will waste our tax dollars so why work harder to pay them more.

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
The ruling does, if nothing else, put these companies at a disadvantage of not being able to pay for the best top level executives, which are a rare breed.

If the status quo in executive salaries is 5 million per year, why would a top level executive want to work for a company that can only pay 500,000?

Executives that perform are a rare breed not the ones who lead their company into bankruptcy and have to be saved by the government. I see nothing wrong with a salary cap if your company has to be shored up by my money. Executives in America have long had salaries out of line with their foreign counterparts. Never understood why only the American hourly or front line salaried worker had to compete with their foreign counterparts.

quote:

Originally posted by HIFLYER:

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
The ruling does, if nothing else, put these companies at a disadvantage of not being able to pay for the best top level executives, which are a rare breed.

If the status quo in executive salaries is 5 million per year, why would a top level executive want to work for a company that can only pay 500,000?

Executives that perform are a rare breed not the ones who lead their company into bankruptcy and have to be saved by the government. I see nothing wrong with a salary cap if your company has to be shored up by my money. Executives in America have long had salaries out of line with their foreign counterparts. Never understood why only the American hourly or front line salaried worker had to compete with their foreign counterparts.

And when they run the one off that caused the bankruptcy, they won't be able to hire a qualified, genuine CEO, who would be able to lead them to success.

First off, the Government shouldn't be bailing them out to begin with. Secondly, the Government should not be telling them how to run their company.

The cap is for future bailouts only. The government may not change contracts retroactively.

Most times, the goverment got non-voting preferred stock. This gives the government a higher ranking in case of bankruptcy, but no role in running the company.

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:

quote:

Originally posted by HIFLYER:

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
The ruling does, if nothing else, put these companies at a disadvantage of not being able to pay for the best top level executives, which are a rare breed.

If the status quo in executive salaries is 5 million per year, why would a top level executive want to work for a company that can only pay 500,000?

Executives that perform are a rare breed not the ones who lead their company into bankruptcy and have to be saved by the government. I see nothing wrong with a salary cap if your company has to be shored up by my money. Executives in America have long had salaries out of line with their foreign counterparts. Never understood why only the American hourly or front line salaried worker had to compete with their foreign counterparts.

And when they run the one off that caused the bankruptcy, they won't be able to hire a qualified, genuine CEO, who would be able to lead them to success.

First off, the Government shouldn't be bailing them out to begin with. Secondly, the Government should not be telling them how to run their company.

We agree they should have never been bailed out but if they want tax payers money they have to abide by the rules. The up side is hopefully they will be less inclined to take a bail out.

It is a PR thing, much like moments of silence in public schools. It plays well to the masses. Some people have to think about them every two years!

quote:

The government now owns most of these companies, directly or indirectly and can tell them what they can do and what they can't. That's socialism.

Fine, it's not really socialism, but I see your point. But, why are you blaming Obama? TARP was a product of the Bush administration. President Obama's demand for greater accountability doesn't suddenly make this a socialist policy.

quote:

the government has already begun taking over pensions that fail and will eventually start with pensions that have not failed.

The government has not interfered anywhere that they haven't been asked to help. Blame the people asking for the government handout, not the government. Also, there is virtually no chance that the government will ever be allowed to take over healthy pensions. That's just panic thinking.