Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What presidential candidates need to understand about income inequality [View all]RiverLover
(7,830 posts)13. A start would be repealing Bill Clinton's act incentivizing basing CEO pay on stock performance.
...The story begins during Bill Clinton's earliest days in the White House. Soon after his election, he worked with Congress to limit corporations' ability to deduct executive compensation from their taxes, as they do for ordinary workers' wages and other expenses of doing business. A limit of $1 million was set for deductions for executive compensation. There was a big exception, though. Compensation that was dependent on the firm's performance was exempt from the threshold.
...As a result, the new limit didn't prevent executives from receiving ever fatter paychecks -- but they got the money in stock and options, rather than in cash. Clinton and Congress had failed to solve the problem.
"My cynical opinion is that they were trying to look like they were doing something," said Steven Balsam, a professor at Temple University.
Some, like Warren, say the provision was worse than useless. In a speech last week, she called on her colleagues in Congress to change the rules, although without discussing how they'd come about.
"This tax incentive has encouraged financial firms to compensate executives with massive bonuses bonuses that too often reward short-term risk-taking instead of sustained, long-term growth," she said. "We can close that loophole and stop pushing companies to reward short-term thinking."
Lynn Stout, a law professor at Cornell University and an outspoken skeptic of today's corporate governance, says the Clinton-era shift led executives to try to boost stock prices in the near term by laying off employees and spending less on research and development. These measures, according to this line of thinking, made firms more profitable in the short term because their costs were lower, which resulted in high stock prices, but less able to generate value in the long term for investors and the economy....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/27/bill-clinton-tried-to-limit-ceo-pay-but-elizabeth-warren-thinks-he-made-it-worse/
...As a result, the new limit didn't prevent executives from receiving ever fatter paychecks -- but they got the money in stock and options, rather than in cash. Clinton and Congress had failed to solve the problem.
"My cynical opinion is that they were trying to look like they were doing something," said Steven Balsam, a professor at Temple University.
Some, like Warren, say the provision was worse than useless. In a speech last week, she called on her colleagues in Congress to change the rules, although without discussing how they'd come about.
"This tax incentive has encouraged financial firms to compensate executives with massive bonuses bonuses that too often reward short-term risk-taking instead of sustained, long-term growth," she said. "We can close that loophole and stop pushing companies to reward short-term thinking."
Lynn Stout, a law professor at Cornell University and an outspoken skeptic of today's corporate governance, says the Clinton-era shift led executives to try to boost stock prices in the near term by laying off employees and spending less on research and development. These measures, according to this line of thinking, made firms more profitable in the short term because their costs were lower, which resulted in high stock prices, but less able to generate value in the long term for investors and the economy....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/27/bill-clinton-tried-to-limit-ceo-pay-but-elizabeth-warren-thinks-he-made-it-worse/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
25 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What presidential candidates need to understand about income inequality [View all]
RiverLover
May 2015
OP
Thanks, River Lover. IMO, wealth inequality is a bigger subject than income inequality.
merrily
May 2015
#1
I agree! Its the unequal distribution of assets. They bought our govt "representatives" and we are
RiverLover
May 2015
#5
A start would be repealing Bill Clinton's act incentivizing basing CEO pay on stock performance.
RiverLover
May 2015
#13
I think there's still a bit of a disconnect there, in terms of government working for the public.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
May 2015
#14
In a way, limiting executive compensation and increasing the minimum wage seem to me like
merrily
May 2015
#22
LOL! If I had 'em, I'd tell Justice Roberts to do the same!! Outright baldfaced lie.
RiverLover
May 2015
#15
I've always thought that the american dream was impossible or unsustainable anyways.
delrem
May 2015
#3
Exactly. Its about equalizing LOW WAGES globally & maximizing profits for corps.
RiverLover
May 2015
#7
Equalizing LOW WAGES globally - maybe they should take about a 1000 years to make that part
jwirr
May 2015
#20
"Globalization has stolen the American Dream." And the Clintons, Bill AND Hillary, are prime movers
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#21
I couldn't agree more. The whole thing is one giant slap in the face of all that is good & right.
RiverLover
May 2015
#24
'You really have to read the entire article to get the complexities. And then Shapiro's paper as
Joe Chi Minh
May 2015
#25