Comments on: Netflix CEO's modest proposal: Tax me more!
Reed Hastings isn't fond of the proposed Obama compensation cap, so he instead offers an interesting alternative. Whether it will get a hearing is another question.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Coop's Corner
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. A graduate of Queens College and Columbia University, Cooper received the Excellence in Journalism award from the Northern California branch of the Society for Professional Journalists for column writing.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Coop's Corner topics
Should be translated as:
"Then, the next time a chief executive earns an eye-popping amount of money, we can safely assume that there's an even bigger pile of money hiding in Bermuda!"
Not gonna get good talent for under $500k? You're kidding, right? From here it looks like those companies aren't getting good talent for the multi-million dollar salaries.
Tax 50% on earnings over $1 million for the companies getting bailout funds isn't going to put that money back into gov''t coffers. What it means is that we, the taxpayers, are still paying them the other half.
Yeah, he could be Joe the Plumber. Joe wasn't a plumber and this guy is no financial whizz....
I thought the same thing when Hastings said "Pres. Obama should celebrate our success, rather than trying to shame us or cap our pay."
His salary isn't going to be capped, since they aren't getting any bailout money. However, I do agree that those who are receiving bailout money and have extremely high salaries should be taxed out of the whazoo! I mean, if the gov't taxed the top executives at 5 banks that got bailout money, I'm guessing it would cover about 1/3 of the stimulus package :)
"...capping compensation (for) bailout recipients will just make it that much harder for those boards to hire and hold on to the executives who can lead their companies to compete and thrive"
Not really. Take Steve Jobs, for example. Granted, he has a massive amount of Apple shares, but his salary is just $1 :)
I love it... he completely glosses over the fact that most highly-paid CEOs happily have their 'official' salaries at some normal-sounding rate, but take the majority in vested stocks, and/or have the majority of their money go to their Chapter S corporation as 'consultancy fees' or similar, all in order to avoid getting taxed on it.
Leona Helmsley may have been a total b!tch, but she was right about one thing: Only the little people pay (their full share of) taxes. You can thank Congress and its ever-growing pile of freshly-minted loopholes for that one.
/P
Example, the announcement is the CEO gets $500k in salary and $18M in stock options. The stock options number is bogus.
His award is 1,000,000 options @ $20 per share and the stock is selling for $20 per share. If the stock never goes up in value (or goes down) the options are worthless.
Accounting rules require that there is an assumption that the stock goes up 5% and 10% per year and this is reported in the financial documents of the public company. The news reports are that he's getting $18M in stock options. That's bogus.
Now, if the stock goes to $50, he's rolling in it. If the stock goes down and never again gets above $20, he has nothing but a bunch of news articles saying he got $18M. Bogus.
Warren Buffet a few years back complained about how low his property tax was in California and how those tax should be raised to make it "fair". I say, if you think you don't pay enough, simply make your payment larger, what you think is fair and send it, don't just complain about how low it is and give our dimwit representatives more ideas. They have plenty and just don't know how to not spend money...
they want to do it to teachers, so do it to execs.
if your company loses money, you get a base 100k. xxx amount more for every % of profit the company makes.....
By the way, know where that money is coming from to pay these overpaid execs? Your paycheck. In that, you're paid less so they can be paid more. Got stock options? Not as many as if the execs got "only" $10M/yr instead of $100M/yr. Is that fair?
The conservative view is that we need to continue to allow systems like this, because "someday I'll be at that level, and I want my $20M+/yr too". It's good to dream, but really, how realistic is that? Wouldn't you rather make 20% more now and every year as you climb the ladder than hold the lottery-mentality hope that someday you'll be the top dog? These are the same people who laugh at kids playing pickup ball rather than study, figuring someday they'll be making $20M+ in the NBA. What are their chances? About the same.
The nicest thing about Obama's economic views are that he's realized that the middle class in this country is continually getting screwed, and wants to at least attempt to help. Our middle-class society is so overworked, underpaid, and overstressed that we're losing our competitive edge.
It's my cousins and aunts, who are in the 'poor' region, who are having to starve themselves and their children, and that just isn't freaking right. That could be solved by making a LIVING WAGE and putting some price controls on items.
So if the mega rich don't earn income and taxing investments is a bad idea there are only two options left . . . 1) tax wealth -- everyone figures their net worth and gets taxed based on that -- very intrusive and a nightmare to calculate and enforce OR 2) tax consumption -- what is the point of being rich if you don't spend money? It is called the Fair Tax and if you don't like it you don't understand it.
The idea that there's a lot of rich people avoiding taxes isn't true. Yes if you own property that generates little income than you don't pay too much but then you don't have a lot of free cash. Bottom line is if you have income you pay taxes one way or another.
All taxes in all income brackets need lowered not increased!!! Cut the taxes and that will force a cut in big socialized government. Keep the money in the private sector where it can do some good. Good economy or bad economy should be the result of what is happening in the market place without government meddling. Personally, I don't think the government should be in the redistribution of wealth business. And this is basically what the Netflix CEO is suggesting. Oh, and by the way if he wants to pay 50% in taxes he can do just that. Uncle Sam will take your momey and keep if that's what you want to do.
As a side note... have you ever sat down and really figured out how much you really spend in taxes?
We have Fed Income, Soc Sec, Medicare, State Income(for most), Sales Tax(for most), Gasoline Tax, Personal Property Tax, School Levies, Fire Levies, Police Levies,... need I go on... For most people I think you will find that you are already at a 50% tax bracket when you add it all up.
BTW - All you whiney crybabies who don't think you earn enough, why don't YOU found a coporation and take advantage of the same tax benefits that many others do instead of conjecturing about how best to redistribute other's wealth.
I'm glad the US is crumbling around us. We're on our way out of the US permanently to live where people can still be free. THe US is a socialistic police state full of a bunch of lazy, inept crybabying fools. No wonder the world laughs at us. You did it to yourselves, and you're still doing it.
The Flat Tax is the only tax that is both fair and constitutional. The graduated tax scheme (theft) that is in place now is completely unconstitutional because it violates the eual protection clause, amongst other things. It's clear that the Government run "publik skool' (indoctination camps) have really done their social engineering well. Bunch of God Foresaken sheeple.
15% for a billionaire is a lot of money, no doubt. But it doesn't hurt him in any way having to pay it.
15% for a family of 4 making $40,000? That is extremely damaging.
I'm glad the US is crumbling around us. We're on our way out of the US permanently to live where people can still be free.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Your "solution" to run away when you see problems (and I'm not arguing that you do, nor debating what some of those problems are) is extremely lazy, unpatriotic and downright treasonous of you. We won't miss having your kind around, in fact we'll do better without you.
The rest of us will stick around, roll up our sleeves and work to fix our problems. Will we succeed? Who knows, but at least we'll try. We won't run away like children just because we don't like what we see.
Enjoy your life elsewhere. You should be honest though and stop calling yourself "honorable1". There is no honor in being a quitter.
_____
The only part I disagree with is "I'm glad"... I'm incredibly distressed (although not surprised) that the US is crumbling around us.
I totally disagree with the idea that your sentiments are "unpatriotic" -- this country was founded by those willing to foresake all the comforts of life that were offered by living in civilized Europe, with friends and family nearby. I applaud your decision to start your life anew...
My only question is "where?"
- by InklingBooks February 6, 2009 4:39 PM PST
- Why does he talk as if this is something he must wait for the government to do? There's absolutely nothing keeping him from giving as much money as he would like to the government. Until he's donating perhaps 70% of his income to IRS, there's no reason to take his remarks seriously. He's just blowing hot air to get attention.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (54 Comments)Our real problem lies elsewhere and is a creation of both parties. Some one-third of our working population (and growing) now pays no income tax, leaving them with no incentive to control waste and corruption and every reason to vote themselves benefits at the expensive of others. As with Rome long ago, that's not good for the long-term health of our country.