31–40 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an expert, but wouldn't this almost all be taxed at capital gains rates? And those aren't changing. Even if they are taxed as income, the top rate is (probably) changing from 39.6% to 38.5%, so he'd saving less than 1% on $499 million of this. So where is he getting a big tax cut?
edited: I was saying AMT means higher rate, but I was wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
Right, because those 50,000 employees were making the major directional decisions for the company, not the C level execs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
Right, because those 50,000 employees were making the major directional decisions for the company, not the C level execs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
Say I start building a house. I realize I can't do it all by myself, so I get other people to do all the labor involved in building it. All the while providing all the details, instructions, and architectural guidelines to get a good finished product. Not to mention sourcing the materials required, getting the plans approved by the city, and making sure that on-sight construction passes inspection by the city. Who "o…
A CEO's job would be someone who makes a small number of very broad, directional choices (should the home be Victorian, or Brutalist?) then hires and manages a team of people to hire and manage teams of people to hire and manage teams of people to build a house.
Given that the only decision they made was "Victorian vs Brutalist" and then hiring some decent managers, should they still receive that much compensation just for (in this case!) happening to have made the right choice?
Oligarchy at its best: Aetna/CVS workers mostly making minimum wage and doing all the work while the CEOs earning insane paychecks. Would this guy really be worse off if he only made 50M and the other 450M would go to the employees?
Well, he led the company while its value went from $10 billion to $69 billion in 7 years. Doesn't seem ridiculous.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
But:
- Had the company declined, the CEO would have gotten all the blame and been crucified. Can't give blame if you can't also give credit.
- The CEO negotiated this deal, the employees did not.
- A good portion of this $500M is from the value of his stock, which is part of his compensation. I don't know the percentage of this payout that comes from stock (WSJ paywall...), but we certainly can't take stock AWAY from him to reduce his payout.
- Employees who have cashed in their options will also make money from this deal. Other stockholders will make money too.
Again -- I am NOT condoning our American trend of over-paid CEOs. More money in the working class is good for the economy. But this event specifically is not ridiculous.
Oligarchy at its best: Aetna/CVS workers mostly making minimum wage and doing all the work while the CEOs earning insane paychecks. Would this guy really be worse off if he only made 50M and the other 450M would go to the employees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
Say I start building a house. I realize I can't do it all by myself, so I get other people to do all the labor involved in building it. All the while providing all the details, instructions, and architectural guidelines to get a good finished product. Not to mention sourcing the materials required, getting the plans approved by the city, and making sure that on-sight construction passes inspection by the city. Who "o…
Oligarchy at its best: Aetna/CVS workers mostly making minimum wage and doing all the work while the CEOs earning insane paychecks. Would this guy really be worse off if he only made 50M and the other 450M would go to the employees?
$450m would work out to $900 per employee (assuming 50k employees), not bad for a bonus. edit: As commenters below pointed out correct number is $9,000 per employee, which would have made for a pretty awesome Christmas bonus. If we also include CVS employees (240k) the bonus drops to $1,552 which is still pretty good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Aetna employees almost 50,000 people. Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.
Say I start building a house. I realize I can't do it all by myself, so I get other people to do all the labor involved in building it. All the while providing all the details, instructions, and architectural guidelines to get a good finished product. Not to mention sourcing the materials required, getting the plans approved by the city, and making sure that on-sight construction passes inspection by the city. Who "o…
Great analogy for a company too. Whether it's a start up or growing a large company to be even larger. There is no automatic force that just makes a company grow, innovate, grab market share. Things don't just happen without the leadership and direction from the top.