Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#41

Post by jessaustin »

SFIsDying wrote: post #3

Its sad that people don't understand economics. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella for example has created tremendous value for Microsoft over the last 6 years and deserves every penny he is paid. Whereas on the other end its kinda a no-brainer that the McDonalds CEO is paid significantly more than the average fry cook... like come-on. Again a reason I am never going back. This city is a piece of shit. Good luck with the ex…

Most of the legend of Nadella seems to be how much better he is than his predecessor. Has Nadella been paid significantly more than Balmer was paid? If not, this is a poor argument in support of the excess pay.

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#42

Post by ineedasername »

jawns wrote: post #36

Unfortunately, this hits companies from the wrong direction. Even if it incentives good behavior (which is debatable), the good behavior it incentivizes is to lower one person's enormous compensation so that it's slightly less enormous but still quite large. What the law should promote is upward pressure on the lowest earners' compensation rather than downward pressure on the top earners' compensation. Minimum wage h…

Well it might help upward pressure (though I'm skeptical) because for every $1k more a year in median income, a CEO can pay themselves an addition $99,000 without running afoul of this law.

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#43

Post by Supermancho »

arthurcolle wrote: post #38
gentleman11 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the legal system really so inflexible that it can’t prohibit this using general statements? Do you really need a 10 page long comma separated list of every possible situation?

> Is the legal system really so inflexible that it can’t prohibit this using general statements? Yes. > Do you really need a 10 page long comma separated list of every possible situation? Yes.

> Is the legal system really so inflexible that it can’t prohibit this using general statements?

> Yes.

That's not correct, although it doesn't seem like it to everyone because there is so much abuse. Intent matters. Lots of cases have been brought against abuses to circumvent existing laws, which have been successfully litigated.

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#44

Post by sjg007 »

wittyreference wrote: post #4

I’m confused. What’s to stop these orgs from shuttling all their lower paid employees into a distinct staffing solutions LLC and just use them to “hire” staff for a parent company comprised of executives? Other fields do this regularly - hospitals often organize their physicians into a distinct staffing org, for instance. It’s entirely legal. So is this anything other than a feel good law that will push some minor co…

Any hospital that does that for doctors is probably a bad one.. no way the doctors would sign on to a bad deal like that. Nurses however always get a raw deal.

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#45

Post by socmedia99 »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #14

Idiocy. If they want to tax high-income people, set an income tax. Why does an arbitrary subset of other people's income matter? This pairs hilariously with Prop 22 making all Uber's low wage employees non-employees.

If the outcome is the same how does it matter which way it’s annotated?

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#46

Post by trjordan »

satisfaction wrote: post #23
srtjstjsj wrote: post #14

Idiocy. If they want to tax high-income people, set an income tax. Why does an arbitrary subset of other people's income matter? This pairs hilariously with Prop 22 making all Uber's low wage employees non-employees.

They would then have to redefine income. many of these ceos are not paid salaries, they use more creative vehicles.

They mostly use stock grants and options, both of which are taxed as income on they day they vest. Are there other vehicles you’re referencing?

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#47

Post by holidayacct »

Those positions don't work the way people think they do. Some CEOs have to spend obscene amounts of money defending themselves from frivolous lawsuits and people constantly screwing around with their lives. You should be looking to see how much the CEO is actually keeping, not how much they are making.

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#48

Post by roseway4 »

holidayacct wrote: post #47

Those positions don't work the way people think they do. Some CEOs have to spend obscene amounts of money defending themselves from frivolous lawsuits and people constantly screwing around with their lives. You should be looking to see how much the CEO is actually keeping, not how much they are making.

Please provide a reference. It is customary for the company to purchase Directors and Officers insurance which covers litigation and liability for CEOs and often other executives.

Edited: grammar

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#49

Post by ffggvv »

roenxi wrote: post #5

This is going to have unintended consequences. Chances are it brings in a trickle of revenue and triggers silly behaviour rather than making anyone better off.

99 percent of california laws are virtue signaling. “that’s right stick it to rich tech ceos”

Re: “Overpaid Executive Tax” in SF hits firms that pay CEOs 100X more than workers

#50

Post by rmrfstar »

wittyreference wrote: post #4

I’m confused. What’s to stop these orgs from shuttling all their lower paid employees into a distinct staffing solutions LLC and just use them to “hire” staff for a parent company comprised of executives? Other fields do this regularly - hospitals often organize their physicians into a distinct staffing org, for instance. It’s entirely legal. So is this anything other than a feel good law that will push some minor co…

The way GAAP tackles shams like that is "consolidation". [1] For example, you report wholly owned subsidiaries as if they are part of the parent organization.

Clearly, accountants and lawyers can engage in fuckery as they did at Enron. But the law is fully capable of calling out a sham, even it it has recently become reluctant to do so.

[1] https://www.pwc.com/us/en/cfodirect/publications/accounting-...

Post reply on HN