Posted on 02/04/2009 3:00:06 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Pay cuts could be coming to a corner office near you, even if you're not the CEO of a troubled bank.
The new federal rules limiting executive compensation announced by President Obama Wednesday may affect only a handful of the nation's most battered financial institutions currently.
But experts say the moves could be a sign of more government action on the issue of executive pay in the future.
[snip]
Alexander Cwirko-Godycki, research manager for executive compensation research firm Equilar, said that the U.S. public, not just Corporate America, has been reluctant to accept anything that smacks of pay caps in the past. But he said that the mood is now changing.
"In this case, it's the first time it's palatable to most people. There's a total lack of trust on Main Street for Wall Street," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Karl ,et al are getting a big ol chub.
Exactly where does the Fed Gov’t get the authority to limit pay to CEOs of privately owned businesses?
whether one likes - or not - what ceo’s, sports stars, entertainers are paid, the market sets the value, not the government.
How about to all the lobbyists who make all their money off the government? At least the nationalized bankers only make some of from the Feds. Limit lobbyists pay while you are at it ;-)
Ok..how about a pay cap for leading man in a movie..say $250k. QB Pro team...Maybe $150k. VP of Community Relations for Non-Profit Hospital...$45k.
Journalist $2K
Why not? The government can do whatever it can get away with.
Jeez, if you are going to pay someone to take a SH@T, I’ll get in that line LOL
Correction: There's a total lack of trust on Main Street for Pennsylvania Avenue.
Only if we let them!
Doesn’t matter one bit. Years ago, people like corporate executives and Mafiosa figured out that just because you don’t own something, doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it.
Many people who would typically be very wealthy would have just “beer money” take home pay, but live in luxurious estates that they didn’t own, fly in private jets they didn’t own, be driven by chauffeurs they didn’t pay in luxury automobiles they didn’t own. On holiday, they would go out on luxurious yachts to expensive retreats, all paid for by someone else.
Everyone knew that they were in charge, however.
Eventually the IRS wised up to what was going on, and clamped down on such perquisites. However, at about the same time, taxes were reduced to more reasonable levels as well. So it was back to doing things the old way.
But if Washington wants to be greedy, then endless creativity will go into protecting assets from them. Love will find a way.
Why not.
If in any way the company or executives have benefitted from government actions, waivers of immigration limits, loans, bailouts, etc., etc., that are not readily available to every other business, then the company has opened itself up to greater government regulation and control.
>> But if Washington wants to be greedy, then endless creativity will go into protecting assets from them. Love will find a way.
You got it.
Didn’t work with campaign finance... won’t work with pay caps.
Since they are not privately owned, Did you over look the bailout ( stealth takeover) bill?
Not owned by the government merely well paid by the government.
With good reason, can anyone name all of the wall street scams of the past fifty years and the people involved.
I thought this was talking about extending the CEO pay limitations beyond businesses recieving bailout money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.