Skip Nav
Relationships
The Sexiest Music Videos of 2016 Are Setting Our Computers Aflame
Wedding
This Refined Utah Wedding Could Not Get Any Classier
Nostalgia
You Definitely Crushed On These 16 Guys From Disney Channel Original Movies

Should the Government Limit Executive Pay?

Executives might think twice before asking the government to bail them out — the Obama administration is set to announce new rules that will limit executive pay for companies receiving "exceptional assistance" from a bailout. The restrictions will most likely prohibit severance payments to a corporation's top-55 executives, and also cut bonus pools by 40 percent from the 2007 level.

In reaction to news that Bank of America spent $10 million on its NFL sponsorship and that Wall Street gave itself $18.4 billion in bonuses last year, many of you said that the government shouldn't give these corporations a blank check and then complain about how they use the money.

Do you think limiting executive pay is a smart way to make sure taxpayer money is spent responsibly?

Source

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
nylorac nylorac 7 years
... just another reason not to pay taxes.
geebers geebers 7 years
I agree with Steph- we want restrictions on welfare because it is tax-payer money yet feel it is unfair for businesses that took the bail-out money? No way -you take government money you better deal with the consequences.
PinkNC PinkNC 7 years
I really feel for all those poor people that are struggling. The ones that don't know how long they'll be in their homes, and worried as hell about where they can go with their children. And for older people that have been paying for their homes for years and just now are running into finance troubles are the worse as well. And of course they're worried about job loss and cut paychecks too. Americans are far past simple worry these days. These executives need to feel more than just ashamed for spending money the wrong way.
PinkNC PinkNC 7 years
After these companies begged for money and then spent 10 million on a new jet, and 18.4 BILLION for their executives to have personal bonuses, then yes, I can absolutely see where Barack is coming from. . Something has to be put into place so that the government can see where the money is going, or at least make sure that it's not going towards unneeded bonues for executives that already live pretty wealthy. . Don't ask for bailout money in the high millions knowing you just want to get another added personal payday and a luxury business jet for your company. The American people don't have time for that kind of ignorant money spending.
PinkNC PinkNC 7 years
After these companies begged for money and then spent 10 million on a new jet, and 18.4 BILLION for their executives to have personal bonuses, then yes, I can absolutely see where Barack is coming from. .Something has to be put into place so that the government can see where the money is going, or at least make sure that it's not going towards unneeded bonues for executives that already live pretty wealthy. .Don't ask for bailout money in the high millions knowing you just want to get another added personal payday and a luxury business jet for your company. The American people don't have time for that kind of ignorant money spending.
fcseamstress fcseamstress 7 years
My favorite thing I've heard being tossed around with all this is allowing people in bad mortgages to refinance at a fixed 4-5%, thereby saving the average homeowner $400/month and allowing them to stay in their home. Home prices would stabilize because you wouldn't have 6 houses on the same block foreclosed on (that's seriously what's happened on my parents 12 house street), homeowners would be spending more because their mortgages would be lower and it would generally stabilize the backbone of our economy, the working class. Cutting payroll taxes needs to be a part of this too. Yeah, less $ would go to SS if we did this, but most people aren't relying on it for retirement anyway (and if you are you're crazy or retiring soon). But it would give workers AND employers more $ in their pockets. We could nearly halve the payroll tax and still pay for Medicare and other basic social services, and for someone with a $30,000 income it would give you an extra $3,000 or more. I think I've been paying too much attention to financial stuff...
fcseamstress fcseamstress 7 years
My favorite thing I've heard being tossed around with all this is allowing people in bad mortgages to refinance at a fixed 4-5%, thereby saving the average homeowner $400/month and allowing them to stay in their home. Home prices would stabilize because you wouldn't have 6 houses on the same block foreclosed on (that's seriously what's happened on my parents 12 house street), homeowners would be spending more because their mortgages would be lower and it would generally stabilize the backbone of our economy, the working class.Cutting payroll taxes needs to be a part of this too. Yeah, less $ would go to SS if we did this, but most people aren't relying on it for retirement anyway (and if you are you're crazy or retiring soon). But it would give workers AND employers more $ in their pockets. We could nearly halve the payroll tax and still pay for Medicare and other basic social services, and for someone with a $30,000 income it would give you an extra $3,000 or more.I think I've been paying too much attention to financial stuff...
fcseamstress fcseamstress 7 years
outtajo is right, the bonus stipulation only applies to the second half of the bailout money getting ready to be spent; it is not retroactive. And thumbs up Stephly, if we can put restrictions on 'poor people' welfare, why shouldn't we on 'rich people' welfare? Yeah, I don't like corporate bailouts (especially since my grandchildren will be paying them off), but I don't like the idea of the whole economy collapsing either. What really gets me is the fact that taking away corporate bonuses, jets, etc. will only solve about 1% of the problem. The real problem (with banks) is how they've been lending, where they've been investing and how they've been collecting on debt. So generally how they've been running their business in general. And IMHO, someone running a company so badly it's on life support doesn't deserve a million dollar bonus or severence anyway.
fcseamstress fcseamstress 7 years
outtajo is right, the bonus stipulation only applies to the second half of the bailout money getting ready to be spent; it is not retroactive.And thumbs up Stephly, if we can put restrictions on 'poor people' welfare, why shouldn't we on 'rich people' welfare?Yeah, I don't like corporate bailouts (especially since my grandchildren will be paying them off), but I don't like the idea of the whole economy collapsing either. What really gets me is the fact that taking away corporate bonuses, jets, etc. will only solve about 1% of the problem. The real problem (with banks) is how they've been lending, where they've been investing and how they've been collecting on debt. So generally how they've been running their business in general. And IMHO, someone running a company so badly it's on life support doesn't deserve a million dollar bonus or severence anyway.
Jazz-Z Jazz-Z 7 years
I think it is a good if the President is successful in implementing rules for buyouts ~ being that companies who accept them are crying they are on a sinking ship and threatening to take the economy with them ~ because apparently as soon as the big wad is delivered they go out and buy a new jet or give out $18.4 billion in bonuses ~ which makes their dire need a little hard to swallow; however, as much as I would like it I don't think these "rules" should be retroactive. I think it might have been better spent in some cases giving the tax payers a buyout to stimulate the economy.
Jazz-Z Jazz-Z 7 years
I think it is a good if the President is successful in implementing rules for buyouts ~ being that companies who accept them are crying they are on a sinking ship and threatening to take the economy with them ~ because apparently as soon as the big wad is delivered they go out and buy a new jet or give out $18.4 billion in bonuses ~ which makes their dire need a little hard to swallow; however, as much as I would like it I don't think these "rules" should be retroactive.I think it might have been better spent in some cases giving the tax payers a buyout to stimulate the economy.
0fashionqueen 0fashionqueen 7 years
I am so against the government aiding executives looking to be bailed out of their taught situations, but it is not the problem of the government to help those executives with all of their problems, but I am against businesses going out of business without the fact that government should help in many different ways. However, I think that the government should limit the help that they are giving these executives.
liliblu liliblu 7 years
"If we can put restrictions on welfare recipients, we can certainly restrict corporate welfare recipients.":highfive:
liliblu liliblu 7 years
"If we can put restrictions on welfare recipients, we can certainly restrict corporate welfare recipients." :highfive:
kscincotta kscincotta 7 years
Well said, outtajo. I found the whole discussion about releasing the second half of the TARP funds to be really interesting. Almost everyone was complaining that we spent the $700 billion recklessly and without any oversight. In actuality, if there had to be a second vote to release the second half of the funds, then it means that there was a review and oversight built into the plan. And after reviewing the results of the first $350 billion, there are new regulations like these being put in place to make sure that the bailout money is being used appropriately. Maybe the TARP money should have been released in more than two chunks, but all in all, this sounds pretty okay to me. And Steph's right, if we can put restrictions on individual welfare recipients, then we can put restrictions on corporate welfare recipients.
kscincotta kscincotta 7 years
Well said, outtajo.I found the whole discussion about releasing the second half of the TARP funds to be really interesting. Almost everyone was complaining that we spent the $700 billion recklessly and without any oversight. In actuality, if there had to be a second vote to release the second half of the funds, then it means that there was a review and oversight built into the plan. And after reviewing the results of the first $350 billion, there are new regulations like these being put in place to make sure that the bailout money is being used appropriately. Maybe the TARP money should have been released in more than two chunks, but all in all, this sounds pretty okay to me.And Steph's right, if we can put restrictions on individual welfare recipients, then we can put restrictions on corporate welfare recipients.
Nina_79 Nina_79 7 years
No, but taxes for the rich should to up substantilly. This way everyone can profit from it.
genesisrocks genesisrocks 7 years
If they're in such a crisis then they can give up their 18 million dollar raise or whatever it is.
stephley stephley 7 years
Whether the government should have given the companies money is moot - it's out there, they took the help. These CEOs don't give away anything for nothing in their business dealings and neither should taxpayers. If we can put restrictions on welfare recipients, we can certainly restrict corporate welfare recipients.
stephley stephley 7 years
Whether the government should have given the companies money is moot - it's out there, they took the help. These CEOs don't give away anything for nothing in their business dealings and neither should taxpayers. If we can put restrictions on welfare recipients, we can certainly restrict corporate welfare recipients.
SillyGirl SillyGirl 7 years
While I am against any sort of salary caps, the businesses are getting what they asked for. They should have refused the bailout money (besides the fact that it shouldn't have been offered in the first place). There aint no such thing as a free lunch. You take govt money, expect there to be strings. Dont ever borrow money from someone that is allowed to change the rules midgame.
SillyGirl SillyGirl 7 years
While I am against any sort of salary caps, the businesses are getting what they asked for. They should have refused the bailout money (besides the fact that it shouldn't have been offered in the first place). There aint no such thing as a free lunch. You take govt money, expect there to be strings. Dont ever borrow money from someone that is allowed to change the rules midgame.
Pegona Pegona 7 years
YES, there's should be executive pay limits, and not just for companies receiving bailout money. 100% taxation for all income over $3M/year. (Yes, that three million is a very exorbitant number, I agree, it should be much lower, but I'm thinking politically...)
wren1 wren1 7 years
I think definitely if they took the bailout they should have to be restricted. They begged to be put in the government's pocket.
bastylefilegirl bastylefilegirl 7 years
No, because the business are private. With one exception if the business took "bailout" money the government has an obligation to the lenders i.e. tax payers/us to make sure the money is being spent wisely and someone who can't run a business (i.e. or they wouldn't be in this mess) should be having there salary lowered, receive no bonuses, and at the least take a pay cut!
Anthony Bourdain Eats With President Obama in Vietnam
What Will and Kate's Home in Kensington Palace Looks Like
Barack and Michelle Obama at Nordic State Dinner 2016
Obama on Transgender Bathroom Laws (Video)
Barack Obama Meets Girl Who Wrote Him Letter in Flint, MI
Barack Obama's Joke About Meeting Prince George
President Obama Funny Couch Commander Video

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X