$53.4 Million Bonus

[Ixolib]

That's just exceedingly ridiculous, IMO.

I mean, I'm all for the "American Dream", but come on........

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003488074_execbonus21.html

[TexasStooge]

GIMME SOME OF THAT MONEY!!! I can put it to good use!!

[gtalum]

He led his company to make more than $9 Billion in profits. It's a well-deserved bonus.

[Pburgh]

Oh shoot, that's nothing --------------- I got a Lenox vase!!!!!!! lol

[JenBayles]

He led his company to make more than $9 Billion in profits. It's a well-deserved bonus.

Ditto!
I've never really understood the whole "class envy" thing myself. Why should there be an arbitrary limit to what someone can earn? Achievement should stand as an example to all of us as to what we can do in this country.

[Yarrah]

Pfah, way too much IMO. One can easily live a luxurious life with less and the money could be used for better things.

[gtalum]

Pfah, way too much IMO. One can easily live a luxurious life with less and the money could be used for better things.

That depends on your definition of luxurious. Someone could make an argument for living luxuriously for much less than your family makes. Are you willing to take a pay cut?

[JenBayles]

And just because someone uses their money for something I may not agree with, doesn't mean they make "too much".

[angelwing]

All i know is if I had gotten that for a Christmas Bonus, I would have gotten my house!

[Tstormwatcher]

All I know is that as a peon, I have never ever gotten a Christmas bonus.

[Yarrah]

Pfah, way too much IMO. One can easily live a luxurious life with less and the money could be used for better things.

That depends on your definition of luxurious. Someone could make an argument for living luxuriously for much less than your family makes. Are you willing to take a pay cut?

Maybe my definition of luxury is different. I think it's more based on knowledge/wisdom, happiness and being able to do the things you want. I consider my life quite luxurious, even while I'm just a 'poor' student, because everything's working out just fine. But don't you agree that 53 million is a bit much for one person, even if he transformed his company in a highly profitable company? A 5 million bonus is IMHO a way more suitable bonus. The remaining 48 million could then be used for socially responsible investing.

And yes, I'd be willing to take a pay cut or pay more taxes (i.e 65% instead of the 40% I'm now paying) if I knew my money would be invested in a good way.

[Regit]

In that kind of situation, I just think you should be paid in line with what you contribute to the company. If your leadership gets the company $10 billion dollars, I think $53 million is great. Probably too little if anything. However, if you're one of the CEO's who inflates earnings or just lets your company drag along, it's insane.

I do agree with paying people a lot if they make the company a fortune. I know a lot of people used to scream about how much Michael Jordan got paid in the 90's. He's arguably the most underpaid athlete of all time.

It all boils down to economics. Capitalism is the best system we've figured out so far.

[gtalum]

But don't you agree that 53 million is a bit much for one person, even if he transformed his company in a highly profitable company? A 5 million bonus is IMHO a way more suitable bonus. The remaining 48 million could then be used for socially responsible investing.

How do you know this guy doesn't do "socially responsible investing" of the money he gets from his salary and bonuses? I am a big fan of capitalism.

[Yarrah]

But don't you agree that 53 million is a bit much for one person, even if he transformed his company in a highly profitable company? A 5 million bonus is IMHO a way more suitable bonus. The remaining 48 million could then be used for socially responsible investing.

How do you know this guy doesn't do "socially responsible investing" of the money he gets from his salary and bonuses? I am a big fan of capitalism.

I don't know what he's going to do with his money, only he knows. But why not use the money directly for socially responsible inesvting, instead of giving it to him first and hoping he does something good with it. I just think that these huge bonusses are ridiculous. If 5 million or even 1 million as a bonus doesn't motivate a person, something's really wrong with him. I think capitalism is decent economic system, as long as it has some socialism mixed with it.

[Derek Ortt]

Maybe my definition of luxury is different. I think it's more based on knowledge/wisdom, happiness and being able to do the things you want. I consider my life quite luxurious, even while I'm just a 'poor' student, because everything's working out just fine. But don't you agree that 53 million is a bit much for one person, even if he transformed his company in a highly profitable company? A 5 million bonus is IMHO a way more suitable bonus. The remaining 48 million could then be used for socially responsible investing.

And yes, I'd be willing to take a pay cut or pay more taxes (i.e 65% instead of the 40% I'm now paying) if I knew my money would be invested in a good way.

NO NO AND NO!!!

Why should one have a limit on how much one can make. That is Communism and was soundly rejected here a long time ago. If anything, that bonus is on the low side. If one makes a corporation a 9 billion dollar profit, IMO, he deserves a lot more than 53.1 million.

Also, the gov't should not be the one giving money to charity or forcing people to. The taxes are quite high enough and we don't need corporations being forced to shell out 48 million, just so an underpaid CEO cannot receive a fraction of the bonus he deserves. Forced giving violates Christian Law, which states that people should be giving in secret, and the American way of voluntary charatable contributions

[Derek Ortt]

I think capitalism is decent economic system, as long as it has some socialism mixed with it

I think you just took 50 years off of my life.

There will never be socialism in the USA, NEVER. And if there is, I'll gladly turn in my US citizenship and head to the Caribbean where capitalism reigns supreme (taxes in the Fatherland are also too high)

[JenBayles]

I think capitalism is decent economic system, as long as it has some socialism mixed with it

I think you just took 50 years off of my life.

There will never be socialism in the USA, NEVER. And if there is, I'll gladly turn in my US citizenship and head to the Caribbean where capitalism reigns supreme (taxes in the Fatherland are also too high)

I hate to bust your bubble, Derek, but it's been here since the Income Tax got passed by Congress. We've been taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers for several decades now, but it's just called "social programs" instead of outright Socialism. Unfortunately, our friend from The Netherlands has probably never experienced life under anything other than a Socialistic society, and understandably, can't fully understand economic freedom and Capitalism.

If you ever do find that island free of social economic theory, let me know and Dave and I will gladly follow you there!

[Derek Ortt]

I have no problem with an income tax... just not for the purpose of redistributing wealth. If we are going to use it for defense and science purposes... then I'll gladly pay

[Yarrah]

Unfortunately, our friend from The Netherlands has probably never experienced life under anything other than a Socialistic society, and understandably, can't fully understand economic freedom and Capitalism.

Erm...I wouldn't call my country a 'socialistic society' As far as I know, there's still an open economy over here.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa ... .html#Econ

And I know very well what is to live in economic freedom, not only from living here, but also from my trips to the USA and Asian countries which are rapidly adopting a capitalist economy.

But as long as we're both happy with our own economic systems and they're both causing a good amount of economic growth, I'd say that all is well.

[x-y-no]

I'm sorry, but CEOs are way overcompensated nowadays. And the argument regarding how much profit they allegedly brought the shareholders is bogus - no CEO is solely responsible for the performance of a corporation and besides, short-term per-share return does not neccesarily reflect the long-term health of the company.

Here's a chart of what has happened to the ration between CEO income vs. average worker income over the last 40 years:



Now will anyone seriously try to tell me that CEOs are more than 10 times as valuable relative to average workers today than they were in 1965? How can such a claim be squared with the fact that worker productivity has steadily increased throughout that time period? Are we to believe that "CEO productivity" has increased at more than 10 times the rate worker productivity has? Nonsense!

No, what goes on here is an incestuous relationship between CEOs and corporate boards, which have steadily become less the representatives of the shareholders and more the representatives of their cronies.