Comments on: too big to fail does not mean too big to fuck us up royally http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/09/18/too-big-to-fail-does-not-mean-too-big-to-fuck-us-up-royally/ Federal, Washington State and Clark County Politics Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:02:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: John http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/09/18/too-big-to-fail-does-not-mean-too-big-to-fuck-us-up-royally/comment-page-1/#comment-46029 John Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:30:59 +0000 http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/09/18/too-big-to-fail-does-not-mean-too-big-to-fuck-us-up-royally/#comment-46029 I notice this morning there is some talk about limiting executive compensation as part of the bailout plan. Limiting upper management compensation would be even better than denying deductibility but legally it seems that would only be possible for public companies. There is already a provision, section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code that limits deductibility of officer compensation in excess of $1 million per year. However there is a performance based exception whereby a couple of outside directors can basically approve exceeding the $1 million cap. It has been my experience that upper management generally has the board of directors eating out of their hand so to speak so this exception imo serves to basically nullify the tax provision. I notice this morning there is some talk about limiting executive compensation as part of the bailout plan. Limiting upper management compensation would be even better than denying deductibility but legally it seems that would only be possible for public companies.

There is already a provision, section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code that limits deductibility of officer compensation in excess of $1 million per year. However there is a performance based exception whereby a couple of outside directors can basically approve exceeding the $1 million cap. It has been my experience that upper management generally has the board of directors eating out of their hand so to speak so this exception imo serves to basically nullify the tax provision.

]]> By: John http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/09/18/too-big-to-fail-does-not-mean-too-big-to-fuck-us-up-royally/comment-page-1/#comment-45982 John Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:46:51 +0000 http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/09/18/too-big-to-fail-does-not-mean-too-big-to-fuck-us-up-royally/#comment-45982 Bernie Sanders just stated on Hartmann that they are going to make sure the people that benefited from the insolvency of the banking system are going to have to pay it back. And I have a pig that flies. Bernie Sanders just stated on Hartmann that they are going to make sure the people that benefited from the insolvency of the banking system are going to have to pay it back.

And I have a pig that flies.

]]> By: missy http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/09/18/too-big-to-fail-does-not-mean-too-big-to-fuck-us-up-royally/comment-page-1/#comment-45979 missy Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:21:28 +0000 http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/09/18/too-big-to-fail-does-not-mean-too-big-to-fuck-us-up-royally/#comment-45979 Wow! That's a great idea and I've never heard it before. (That's probably why you're a CPA and I got a D+ in pre-calc.) Wow! That’s a great idea and I’ve never heard it before. (That’s probably why you’re a CPA and I got a D+ in pre-calc.)

]]> By: John http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/09/18/too-big-to-fail-does-not-mean-too-big-to-fuck-us-up-royally/comment-page-1/#comment-45977 John Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:00:09 +0000 http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/2008/09/18/too-big-to-fail-does-not-mean-too-big-to-fuck-us-up-royally/#comment-45977 <blockquote>We need to reinstate the separation of banks and insurance companies, enforce anti-trust laws in finance and in media (so we can finally hear what’s truly going on), and limit the number of corporate boards any one person can serve on anytime.</blockquote> And I would add denying the income tax deductibility of officer compensation in excess of some formula. The best method would probably be based on average wages of the company for large employers. How come we never hear our candidates or elected representatives discussing implementing these reforms? Could it be that advocating such actions would be damaging to their electibility? If so, how do we overcome that? Just thinking out loud.

We need to reinstate the separation of banks and insurance companies, enforce anti-trust laws in finance and in media (so we can finally hear what’s truly going on), and limit the number of corporate boards any one person can serve on anytime.

And I would add denying the income tax deductibility of officer compensation in excess of some formula. The best method would probably be based on average wages of the company for large employers.

How come we never hear our candidates or elected representatives discussing implementing these reforms? Could it be that advocating such actions would be damaging to their electibility? If so, how do we overcome that?

Just thinking out loud.

]]>