Skip to comments.McCain wants low corporate taxes, regulated CEO pay
Posted on 06/10/2008 9:14:16 AM PDT by pissant
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican White House candidate John McCain will promise on Tuesday to lower corporate tax rates if he wins the U.S. presidency and ease the tax burden on middle-class workers to help revive the faltering economy.
The Arizona senator, who has wrapped up his party's presidential nomination, also would propose a simpler, alternative tax system and insist that chief executives' pay and severance packages have shareholder approval.
"No matter which of us wins in November, there will be change in Washington. The question is what kind of change?" McCain will tell a conference for small businesses, referring to his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
"Will we enact the single largest tax increase since the Second World War as my opponent proposes, or will we keep taxes low for families and employers?" he will say, according to excerpts released before his speech.
McCain will pledge to act quickly to lower corporate taxes from "the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners to keep businesses and jobs in this country."
He will propose a law to allow companies to expense new equipment and technology in their first year.
He supports keeping capital gains taxes low, doubling a tax exemption for children, and phasing out the "alternative minimum tax" which he said would save some 25 million middle-class families up to $2,000 in a year.
On Monday Obama drew a sharp contrast with McCain, his opponent in the November election, accusing him of wanting to widen President George W. Bush's tax cuts and plunge the United States deeper into debt.
He charged that McCain's support for extending Bush's tax cuts would allow $2 trillion in corporate tax breaks.
U.S. taxes were too complicated overhaul, McCain will say in his speech, in which he will argue for an alternative system.
"As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so," he will say.
"Everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction."
McCain criticizes Obama for wanting to increase dividend and capital gains taxes and aiming to raise the minimum wage and link it to an index.
But he also takes aim at top corporate executives with big salaries and excessive severance packages.
"Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs ... bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," he will say, adding that some of those chief executives helped bring on the country's housing crisis and market troubles.
"If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders," he will say.
Why doesn’t McCain just switch parties and get it over with?
McCain also said that he was going to end corporate welfare....major plus....way to go McCain...finally....
I have no problem with this as long as the salaries of congress and the president are made equal to the median salary of working Americans (including illegals.) Also, I’d like their health coverage to be switched to the M-plan and their retirement should be social security.
What does he consider to be corporate welfare?
I think that idea will no longer be valid in the future.
But he's for the leetle peeple.
It's time for God-fearing, America-loving so-called silent majority to let liebrals know we are walkin the walk!!!
This is the guy Freepers want conservatives to support?
Why should he? The GOP has moved left with him.
“Somebody tell Juan that it is none of the government’s business what a CEO makes.”
Actually, this is where the government can and should make a difference. But the approach is wrong.
Regulating pay of CEOs? Bad idea, very bad.
A better idea is looking into the relationship of CEOs to boards of directors.
Don't trust MSM headlines
Someone should inform this jerk that the stockholders elect the Board who approves executive salaries.
If the stockholders don't like executive pay, sell the stock.
“And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO’s pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders,” he will say.”
Someone tell me why that’s bad?
Note to self: READ THE WHOLE POST before commenting. :)
It’s the way the MSM spins it.
“Someone should inform this jerk that the stockholders elect the Board who approves executive salaries.
If the stockholders don’t like executive pay, sell the stock.”
Yeah, and if a business is smart enough and powerful enough to get a complete monopoly, why should government interfere?! /< sarcasm>
So you’re saying, if I own XYZ Co. and the board hires a CEO that’s a nitwit for a huge amount of compensation, tough? So, when said nitwit tanks the company and makes Cramer’s list of buy when fired, too bad? And when I lose 50% of the value of my stock, but the CEO glides out on a golden parachute, that’s just how it should be?
Just what I was thinking...Gawd,it’s sickening that we have to resort to trying to get him elected. I am soooo pining away for Ronnie....I sure do miss him.
My thoughts also. Of course the multi-millionaire conservative talk show hosts don't want to see CEO pay regulated since they're in the big club themselves.
It seems hypocritical when Glenn Beck and others are hyperventilating over the "injustice" of regulating CEO pay, when their listeners are dealing with the discomfort of increased gas and food prices.
BINGO. The assent is built in - invest if you like the whole package, divest or stay away if you don't. There is plenty of room for improvement in the regulation of corporate (and I will give McCain credit for at least verbally supporting corporate tax reductions), for example, by deferring most regulations to the states, where the forces of downward harmonization will be able to keep regulations and taxes low, and prevent an exodus of capital and jobs to international business havens ("but we will be better off in our pure state without these unAmerican capitalist traitors!").
Ummm... no. I’ve sat on the board of several corporations. If executives don’t perform, we fire them.
“McCain wants regulated CEO pay”
Oddly enough I cannot find that in my copy of the Constitution.
“It seems hypocritical when Glenn Beck and others are hyperventilating over the “injustice” of regulating CEO pay, when their listeners are dealing with the discomfort of increased gas and food prices.”
Spin comes into play. I don’t think it’s the government’s business how much a CEO is paid. I think it IS the government’s business if that number is arranged in a questionable fashion. Often, the CEO is very good friends with some of the board members. This leaves the setting of the CEO compensation package open to the appearance of being unethical.
The shareholders are the real owners. Let them approve the compensation package. Seems to make sense to me.
However, you can find a right to bear arms, which McCain has been iffy on, and a right to free speech and association, which McCain wants to further regulate.
Did you actually read the article?? Or just the headlines?
If the government regulates the compensation of CEOs it is only fair that it regulate the compensation of actors singers, lawyers, athletes, doctors etc, and all damage awards. You can’t select out one group of people for unequal treatment under the law based on how much money they make and still claim to believe equal protection. We can do this either way, but everybody should be in the same boat under the law.
“Ummm... no. Ive sat on the board of several corporations. If executives dont perform, we fire them.”
Really? So Cramer’s buy if the CEO is fired list doesn’t exist? There are no incompetent CEOs who are hired under circumstances that look less than legit?
ALL corporations perform as to your experience? No need to involve the owners, (shareholders)?
Whew, that’s a relief. No need to pay attention then. If only the rest of the population where as trustworthy as business execs, right? (Pssst, nevermind about Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing... )
A voice of reason! Why not?
You notice that the true McCainiacs never have the ba!!s to show up on these threads and defend that POS?
how is he meddling???? do you own stock, mutual fund or have a 401K account???
are you sick and tired of watching a failed CEO retired into leisure while the stock he was in charge of retreats and hurts your account???
McCain is correct- these severance packages, stock options should be voted on by the stockholders- not the board of directors who want to feed their own pockets...
If yer party was running candidates this year, I’d be supporting it. I will most likely be voting CP this year and keeping one eye on you folks for coming elections.
Maybe he should ask Carly to return some of her money to the HP shareholders.
“If the government regulates the compensation of CEOs it is only fair that it regulate the compensation of actors singers, lawyers, athletes, doctors etc, and all damage awards. “
First of all, read it, I made that mistake too. McCain doesn’t want to regulate the amount, he wants the shareholders, the owners, to approve the amount. Why is that bad?
Secondly, this applies to public corporations only. If you’re a private company, and you don’t have any shareholders, you can do anything you please. Pay the CEO $1 billion a year, who cares?
Yes, most hate Obama more.
You are so late!
I already said my mea cupla.
exactly--i whole-heartedly agree... and neither should the Congress vote on their own salaries and pay raises...
Too busy writing daily Obama fearmonger posts- "Vote McCain or Else" to be concerned with Johnny's socialistic manuevers to woo the sheeple.
I was joking around.
So the idea is really OK, it’s just the way someone spins it, that’s bad?
I wish he had switched parties McCain-Lieberman v. whoever the Rep’s put up would be an election that would make me rest easy at night.
Actually State laws do regulate this activity, generally, in the absence of any given setforth regulations and policy. I have federalism issue with this, but the concept is not new.