The Forum > Article Comments > Nothing over a million dollars > Comments
Nothing over a million dollars : Comments
By Valerie Yule, published 14/12/2010CEOs are paid far too much, especially when they oversee banking disasters: it is time they were reined in.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by Mitchell, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 8:21:19 AM
| |
Of course you are right in principle, Valerie. Whether the cap be one million $ or higher or lower is moot. The important thing is the principle of much greater equality and wealth distribution.
But, while the majority of people in our society might agree with you about salary caps for CEOs, Directors and the like, how would it ever be brought about? The cold hard truth is that governments at all levels are intimately linked with the big end of town, and will NEVER be what governments should be: INDEPENDENT and UNBIASED! And that’s really the end that! Shareholders might on occasion express outrage at the huge commission that their CEO is receiving, and that might translate into it being lowered a little. The general community might even express enough outrage to result in some form of political action. But the most we could ever hope for is the implementation of some meaningless cap, like perhaps 100 million $ per annum, and not without enormous loopholes. It’s HOPELESS! The lack of independence of government, or more precisely; the terrible pandering of governments to the wishes of vested-interest big-business, not only assures massive fiscal inequality but ensures that our society, and most others around the world, will remain on a highly unsustainable path…. until it all comes crashing down. [ some of my recent comments on this theme: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4118 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11330#192320 ] Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 9:46:48 AM
| |
An interesting article and I couldn't help agreeing with much of what is said. However it strikes me as an article written with socialist attitudes that proclaim more of a level playing field. It makes me wonder where we should stop in this whirl-wind of greed (incentive) that is a capitalist society after all. Not perfect by any means, but better than an alternative of rules and regulation.
If you regulate salaries in private enterprise, do you regulate the even bigger salaries that sports people earn? The fact that they can endorse products of which they have often no connection with or knowledge, just because the public are obsessed with celebrities. What about actors who are able to demand enormous payments because they are well known and arguably could be replaced by lesser known but equally talented substitutes ? In the case of company CEO's salaries, regulation should be done by the share holders (owners) of the organisation, but if they are happy (or stupid enough) then they are the ones to vote against them. Put the onus on them. We don't live in a perfect world and nothing is fair and equal. If you want to reduce these absurd payments tackle the people who are ultimately responsible for paying these sums, the public. As they say, vote with your feet. Personally I have no desire to consider anything that doesn't appeal to me whether endorsed by Operah W. or Shane Warne. I just pay money when I think I shall get value. That applies to films, sport, banks, or concerts. Ultimately, I think most people do the same. Posted by snake, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 10:29:18 AM
| |
Nothing over 1 million dollars...why stop there?
If wealth disparity is the problem, the 3 billion people who earn less than $2 a day would look at everyday Australians like we are millionaires too. Do you exclude yourself from limits imposed onto your earnings? If the world economy is valued at aprox. US$ 70 trillion/annum, with a population of 6.8 billion then a truly equitable divide would be earnings of about $10,000 per year. Would you agree to this or does social engineering only apply to those wealthier than yourself? "We (who?) should set out a supposed budget for these rich people (you?). It could help bring their view of money closer to the real (3rd?) world." Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 12:41:37 PM
| |
*Our own country is full of people who could be content to be CEOs with incomes of less than a million dollars.*
Ah Valerie, if only life were so simple! If your hard earned life's savings were on the line, who would you entrust them to? Somebody content to do the job? If you go back in Australian business history a little, you'll find that by international standards, businesses here were very badly managed. The tiny market, with huge tariff barriers, let everyone go to sleep. Westpac nearly went broke in the 90s. BHP was a stodgy, conservative, poorly managed affair. Coles was a flop. In each case its taken an overseas CEO to come in, get rid of the dead wood, bring in innovative business practises as are practised in many overseas countries, reorganise the whole lot really. If our companies arn't up to international standards, they won't survive in the international marketplace. A board needs the flexibility to employ the best potential candidate for the job. People arn't going to move family and country, for a gold watch. Today most contracts are tied to performance. If the company performs and achieves results, CEOs are paid large bonuses. The base salaries of most CEOs are much lower, then what many eventually achieve. So are you suggesting Valerie, that if a CEO turns a dud company around and shareholders benefit handsomely, that this person should not be paid for effort and skills? Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 1:22:33 PM
| |
That’s taking it right to the end of the spectrum, Stezza.
So I presume you are a strong proponent of international aid and of Australia considerably boosting its aid effort, and targeting it much better towards basic quality of life issues of the most needy. THAT would be the way to try and address the global wealth disparity, NOT by fiscal equilibration: lowering our income in the western world and raising it in the third world to the same level… as if that could ever happen anyway. Perhaps there should be an aid tax, which rises sharply with big incomes, so that the super-wealthy have to pay a highly disproportionately large amount to the desperately poor via our aid programs. But then, of course that would never happen, because of the fundamental problem that I outlined in my last post – the very cosy relationship of governments and the big end of town. All us middle-class Australians should be forking out a bit more towards international aid as well. This looks like it is going to happen as Rudd overhauls and increases our aid input….. while the super-rich continue to contribute a pittance and just become super-richer! \ :>( Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 1:33:58 PM
|
If enough countries signed up to such a protocol there would be few countries to flee to.
Such measures could transform Earth's disgusting human plague overnight, and despite those who chant COMMUNISM! there are no difficulties in it that couldn't be worked out--except that power might devolve to the people!