41–50 of 91 posts
We need fair taxes.Not high, not low. We need to hit the sweet spot between "it does not pay off finding the loophole and transfer all the money elsewhere" and "not paying anything to the system".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well some CEO's maybe should; I don't know how it is to run companies with 50000+ employees; as a long term CTO myself, I look to work with CEO's who are not greedy and spread the wealth with the employees and who are not just out there to buy jets and ferrari's. (Actually, I have a natural aversion to people who buy sportscars with their wealth as I find it rancid and decadent in this day-and-age, but that's another…
> 200x is over the top I guess; I cannot see how you bring that much more value than your employees. Steve Jobs took over Apple when it was 90 days from bankruptcy and turned it into the most valuable company in the world. Apple had a series of CEOs before Jobs that didn't. Essentially, the CEO decides which hill to climb. The right hill, the company makes $$$. The wrong hill, the company languishes. That's worth a h…
Can we just please stop duct taping the broken system? We need fair taxes.Not high, not low. We need to hit the sweet spot between "it does not pay off finding the loophole and transfer all the money elsewhere" and "not paying anything to the system".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just cherry-picking one particular case with a positive outcome. The last few Boeing CEOs were also paid tens of millions per year and ended up running the company (and two planes) into the ground.
Yes, but this is in response to "nobody should make 200x their employees". But it's really not that simple. Some CEOs are that valuable. Some are not. You need to figure out if they're a Boeing CEO or a Steve Jobs and compensate them accordingly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Risky like when Adam Neumann was fired from WeWork with a $1.7 billion severance package? >If markets seem irrational, chances are good you don’t fully understand them. So not a racket then?
Neumann was a co-founder. Hired CEOs will almost never make it to billionaire status (Ballmer, Schmidt and Damon are the only notable exceptions I know of).
> According to reports, Wells Fargo, the bank headquartered in San Francisco, increased its CEO’s salary to $23 million in 2019. It would have to pay its median worker in the city at least $38,000 to avoid the highest tax rate and $230,000 to avoid the lowest tax rate.
Well the minimum wage in San Francisco is $33,425.60 annually, so the median wage is almost certain to be above that since I doubt more than half their employees are entry-level bank tellers making minimum wage.
Additionally since Wells Fargo is headquartered in San Francisco, I'm sure the number of highly-compensated key employees present locally is even higher.
> additional tax would only apply to companies with gross annual revenues of at least $1.7 million and executives who make at least $2.7 million annually
Again, minimum wage for a full-time employee is $33,425.60 annually, so this really could only apply to executives making more than $3,342,560 unless we're talking about part-time jobs. The net effect of this is going to be nil all but the largest corporations that have a large minimum-wage workforce based in the city and perhaps a handful of small corporations that employ a large number of part-time employees. So whereas I'm sure they passed this intending to make it sound like they're sticking-up for the little guy, the net effect is going to be the loss of a number of minimum-wage jobs. A couple big-box stores might either pay-up or move outside the city limits. And a lucky handful of employees might receive a modest raise. But probably not, since any small corporation could just as easily compensate their executives via dividends which are not covered by this legislation.
In short: This is the legislative equivalent of a puff piece. Designed to sound good on paper without actually effecting any meaningful change.
The fact that there are ceos who get paid 200x more, than an employee, is already outrageous.
Well some CEO's maybe should; I don't know how it is to run companies with 50000+ employees; as a long term CTO myself, I look to work with CEO's who are not greedy and spread the wealth with the employees and who are not just out there to buy jets and ferrari's. (Actually, I have a natural aversion to people who buy sportscars with their wealth as I find it rancid and decadent in this day-and-age, but that's another…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the number of CEO positions much lower than the number of people.
What do you mean? Everyone can start their own company and become a CEO overnight. The answer isn't what you said it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but this is in response to "nobody should make 200x their employees". But it's really not that simple. Some CEOs are that valuable. Some are not. You need to figure out if they're a Boeing CEO or a Steve Jobs and compensate them accordingly.
How do you figure that out? If someone is genius looking 20 years into the future like a time machine, they may look like an idiot today.
Some leaders are worth it. This is why blanket statements like “no CEO should make 200x another employee” or (in the same vein) “nobody should have $1B” are silly.
Constructive conversations don’t start with highly subjective absolutes.