8 top executives got 10 million dollars

[bullitpdq68]

I was listening to CNBC and they were talking about how well a company was doing. They mentioned that the board had given out 10 million dollars worth of stock options to the top 8 executives because of thier earnings report. I really don't know how it was broken down between all 8, but it peaked my interest. I remember how Neutron Monster always use to defend those sort of things when others would say you could spread that out among the other employee's He said it would not make a difference keeping jobs or giving out raises. Well I looked there are about 7000 employees in that company. So that would have worked out to about $1400 a year raise for all employees or even better healthcare whatever they could have spread those stock options to all employees? Nope that went to the top 8, basically less than the top .001 percent...I looked a many companies and several are the same. Just blows my mind.

 

[MGHS]

Disney CFO Christine McCarthy Gets Contract Extended Through 2022, Plus $11M Annual Incentive Award - WDW News Today

A daily-updated resource for news and information on the Disney resort around the world.

wdwnt.com

Disney Ex. get's 11 million dollar bonus.....on the Flip side the Disney food bank to help all the employee's who have been furloughed and let go is empty because of the Great need. If they applied that 11 million to the food bank it could fund it for 500+ weeks. I mean I don't begrudge her the bonus or her salary. I suppose she is earning it. But maybe apply 5 million of that to the food bank and fund it for 250 more weeks. Be a good PR move a the least.

13 Companies Paying Execs Millions as They Declare Bankruptcy and Slash Jobs

These CEOs are getting richer while their employees lose jobs.

finance.yahoo.com

I get that at times you have to lay of employee's but it's just bad form to do so and then hand out bonus in the Millions. At least take that money and reinvest into the company so if things turn around you will be ahead of the game.

 

[bullitpdq68]

Exactly there are just so many things they could have done especially when so many are hurting right now.

This is why I think tax cuts should be tied to how a company invest in it's employees. If a company is paying a good wage to it large work force then that takes a strain off the government to provide support, thus reducing a need for those taxes.

 

[bullitpdq68]

Walmart gave some of thier top 20 directors around 90 million in stock options. That is just crazy when you think of what the average worker makes there.

 

[MGHS]

You seem to know so I ask, are they not funding the food bank sufficiently? If they aren't, you have a point, if they are, the point is invalid.

Disney is not funding it...the Disney employees still working where funding it.

 

[kaskaskiakid]

"This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor." --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

So true!

 

[bullitpdq68]

While I see your point, Wal Mart doesn't seem to have trouble finding employees. They also hire a very diverse group, elderly greeters, college part timers, etc. Many places just aren't interested in those type employees. It really isn't Wal Marts job to make their employees lives easy. I can support them or not if I don't like their policies but many people are helped by shopping there as opposed to other places. Wal Marts "job" is to provide products their customers want at prices they can afford making the company strong and profitable.

Chris, if Walmart would spread that 90 million around think of how many of thier employee's would no longer need government subsidies. That is all I am saying, if companies would use these tax breaks to increase the average wages then many of the taxes that me and you rail against would no longer be needed and corporations taxes could also be cut.
While I can understand the push back and talking points when we talk about forcing a individual to spread wealth, but this is a corporation that is 90 million on top of the nice profits they made. So they handed out 90 million to just 20 people, again this is a corporation not individual wealth. I also see your point that walmart's job is to bring low prices, so how much could they have lowered prices had they used that 90 millions for that? We are not talking profits here... that 90 million was salary so they profited nicely on many of us during this pandemic and spread it to just 20 people.

 

[bullitpdq68]

I totally understand what COULD have been done with the 90M. I also don't see what you want done. Wal Mart shouldn't receive any subsidies from the government but they should not be punished for being successful. A low corporate tax rate should apply to all corporations regardless of profitability. Profitable corporations benefit everyone.

Where do profits come in? I am not talk about profitability, in fact I want profitable companies. I am talking about tying in corporate tax rates to how a company treats all employees not just the top 20.

 

[bullitpdq68]

Aren't you saying if you don't do X you get punished? Do you want the government deciding who is a worthy company and who isn't? Higher taxes won't lead to better wages.

No not at all...what I am saying is this would be just like another tax break that a company would get

 

[MGHS]

Chris, if Walmart would spread that 90 million around think of how many of thier employee's would no longer need government subsidies. That is all I am saying, if companies would use these tax breaks to increase the average wages then many of the taxes that me and you rail against would no longer be needed and corporations taxes could also be cut.
While I can understand the push back and talking points when we talk about forcing a individual to spread wealth, but this is a corporation that is 90 million on top of the nice profits they made. So they handed out 90 million to just 20 people, again this is a corporation not individual wealth. I also see your point that walmart's job is to bring low prices, so how much could they have lowered prices had they used that 90 millions for that? We are not talking profits here... that 90 million was salary so they profited nicely on many of us during this pandemic and spread it to just 20 people.

They also have a duty to their stockholders as well. I wonder how much of the 90 million is payouts is tied to stocks?

 

[bullitpdq68]

They also have a duty to their stockholders as well. I wonder how much of the 90 million is payouts is tied to stocks?

It is all stock options, however in order for a company to give out stock they have to purchase it back. So this is money spent then handed out.

 

[MGHS]

Where do profits come in? I am not talk about profitability, in fact I want profitable companies. I am talking about tying in corporate tax rates to how a company treats all employees not just the top 20.

That reeks of Gov. control. I want the Gov. out of business for the Most part. No bail outs or subsidy's unless it's for the Food supply and Military. If companies don't treat their employee's right let them Unionize or find a new job. Safety and Welfare is already covered by OSHA.

 

[bullitpdq68]

That reeks of Gov. control. I want the Gov. out of business for the Most part. No bail outs or subsidy's unless it's for the Food supply and Military. If companies don't treat their employee's right let them Unionize or find a new job. Safety and Welfare is already covered by OSHA.

Good in theory however that is not the way our system is set up. In America the market rewards companies executives for treating thier employees the way we do. I think we need to reverse that strategy and I am not talking about individual wealth I am talking corporate profits. Say a company A profits $200,000 pays its 10 executives on average a $200,000 salary and a 1 million in stock options and the average employees makes $20,000 no benefits so they qualify for food stamps and medicaid and currently with our tax code that company pay 13% in taxes with all the breaks they get. Now company B still makes $200,000 pays its 10 executives $250,000 salary no stock options. However instead of purchasing back stock for options it uses that money to increase it's average wage to $35,000 to it's employees, so they no longer need food stamps or medicaid, thus reducing that companies tax burden on the American people and it too pays 13% in taxes.
Do you really think that Company A & B should be taxed the same? Honestly Company B employees overall contributed more taxes because of the higher salary versus Company A. Company A also created a larger tax deficit to the American economy because it's employees need tax subsidies to survive however paid in the same taxes as the other company. Just something we are working on in economics class. It is very interesting to me.

 

[vbsideout]

We just need to be patient for some of those profits to trickle down to us! It's the republican way

 

[MGHS]

Good in theory however that is not the way our system is set up. In America the market rewards companies executives for treating thier employees the way we do. I think we need to reverse that strategy and I am not talking about individual wealth I am talking corporate profits. Say a company A profits $200,000 pays its 10 executives on average a $200,000 salary and a 1 million in stock options and the average employees makes $20,000 no benefits so they qualify for food stamps and medicaid and currently with our tax code that company pay 13% in taxes with all the breaks they get. Now company B still makes $200,000 pays its 10 executives $250,000 salary no stock options. However instead of purchasing back stock for options it uses that money to increase it's average wage to $35,000 to it's employees, so they no longer need food stamps or medicaid, thus reducing that companies tax burden on the American people and it too pays 13% in taxes.
Do you really think that Company A & B should be taxed the same? Honestly Company B employees overall contributed more taxes because of the higher salary versus Company A. Company A also created a larger tax deficit to the American economy because it's employees need tax subsidies to survive however paid in the same taxes as the other company. Just something we are working on in economics class. It is very interesting to me.

I understand what you are saying but one is a Moral thing and the other is a business issue. Companies shouldn't be regulated by the gov. to that degree in my opinion. Of course you disagree and that is fine. I have a Easy fix get rid of the Gov. benefits. Then I or you and the other taxpayers are not picking up the tab. Then those employees for company A can get a part time job work 60hr a week and not needed any gov. handouts as they now can pay for benefits and such.

I know harsh but let's be real working 60-70 hours a week is doable I do it all the time. You still have plenty of off time as well. And on principle people should pay their own way unless they have some catastrophic reason why they can't.

 

[bullitpdq68]

I understand what you are saying but one is a Moral thing and the other is a business issue. Companies shouldn't be regulated by the gov. to that degree in my opinion. Of course you disagree and that is fine. I have a Easy fix get rid of the Gov. benefits. Then I or you and the other taxpayers are not picking up the tab. Then those employees for company A can get a part time job work 60hr a week and not needed any gov. handouts as they now can pay for benefits and such.

I know harsh but let's be real working 60-70 hours a week is doable I do it all the time. You still have plenty of off time as well. And on principle people should pay their own way unless they have some catastrophic reason why they can't.

Yes let them eat cake...and while we are at it I am sure all thier kids could drop out of school and also get a job, hell you are starting to sound like the great Robber Barons.

 

[MGHS]

Maybe if you had worked as a Income maintenance worker you would have some insight into this.

We provide Free education to all, we provide free access to vocational classes, we have a voluntary Military that pays well. We provide Massive aid to Higher Education as well. People are free to Start up business and become entrepreneur as well and we provide loans for that as well.



While I might not like the business practices of some Companies. On principle it's not the Gov. job to meddle and control what they do with their Profits opening that Box is a dangerous thing. If the conditions are bad then move on and find another job.



But let's say you are working for 10 bucks a hour because you never took advantage of the free services provided by the taxpayer free education etc.... Or maybe you are not that up to snuff and 10 bucks is your ceiling and worth as a valued worker.

It's not the Taxpayers or the Employers responsibility to make up the difference to make sure that people have the same outcome.

To me if you work 40hr at 10 bucks and make roughly 20,000 grand then pick up a extra 20 hr in a week that puts you at 30 grand a year. With solid budgeting, no frills then this should be enough. IF you want more work harder and or develop better skills.

If you take away the Safety net Benefits of the Gov., how long will those employee's stay at the company? Will this not be a incentive to find a better job at Company B. And if Companies have continued turn over then possibly they might adopt Company B structure. Giving stuff away is never a good thing, earning things is. We try to engineer the economic structure way to much already to boost things.

I know a girl who came here from the South side of Chicago....who made around 11$ an hour at the time and then had a part time job as a house keeper for a hotel. She shopped at Aldi/Sams and Freight stores. Bought in Bulk, couponed etc. She like me had zero sympathy for the rabble. She had a nice car a decent apartment etc. She said some of her fellow House keepers would bust her chops because they thought she had a sugar daddy because of her nice car and other nice stuff.... so she Replied back no You Ghetto Ho's I don't waste my money on Cigarettes, Weed, and spend 10 dollars a day on Vending Machines Snacks and Soda. I have two jobs and do them the right way. I bring my lunch, I eat out once a week not everyday like you do. That is how I pay my bills and afford nice stuff.

The house keepers lifestyle is the Norm I experienced while working handing out Gov. benefits...the waste and frivolous spending was the reason for the Poverty.

I guess the difference between you and me is that I believe that people through hard work can and should support themselves.

Of course without a doubt I hate Bail outs for mega corporations who are never to big to fail . And in a perfect world the gov. wouldn't have any involvement in Private business but that is not the reality of the situation.

Also just a side note...Company A must be small less than 50 employees because by law if they are that big or bigger they have to provide Healthcare. If that was a example used in a Class then it's glossy over some of the details.

 

[3Rfan]

Maybe if you had worked as a Income maintenance worker you would have some insight into this.

We provide Free education to all, we provide free access to vocational classes, we have a voluntary Military that pays well. We provide Massive aid to Higher Education as well. People are free to Start up business and become entrepreneur as well and we provide loans for that as well.



While I might not like the business practices of some Companies. On principle it's not the Gov. job to meddle and control what they do with their Profits opening that Box is a dangerous thing. If the conditions are bad then move on and find another job.



But let's say you are working for 10 bucks a hour because you never took advantage of the free services provided by the taxpayer free education etc.... Or maybe you are not that up to snuff and 10 bucks is your ceiling and worth as a valued worker.

It's not the Taxpayers or the Employers responsibility to make up the difference to make sure that people have the same outcome.

To me if you work 40hr at 10 bucks and make roughly 20,000 grand then pick up a extra 20 hr in a week that puts you at 30 grand a year. With solid budgeting, no frills then this should be enough. IF you want more work harder and or develop better skills.

If you take away the Safety net Benefits of the Gov., how long will those employee's stay at the company? Will this not be a incentive to find a better job at Company B. And if Companies have continued turn over then possibly they might adopt Company B structure. Giving stuff away is never a good thing, earning things is. We try to engineer the economic structure way to much already to boost things.

I know a girl who came here from the South side of Chicago....who made around 11$ an hour at the time and then had a part time job as a house keeper for a hotel. She shopped at Aldi/Sams and Freight stores. Bought in Bulk, couponed etc. She like me had zero sympathy for the rabble. She had a nice car a decent apartment etc. She said some of her fellow House keepers would bust her chops because they thought she had a sugar daddy because of her nice car and other nice stuff.... so she Replied back no You Ghetto Ho's I don't waste my money on Cigarettes, Weed, and spend 10 dollars a day on Vending Machines Snacks and Soda. I have two jobs and do them the right way. I bring my lunch, I eat out once a week not everyday like you do. That is how I pay my bills and afford nice stuff.

The house keepers lifestyle is the Norm I experienced while working handing out Gov. benefits...the waste and frivolous spending was the reason for the Poverty.

I guess the difference between you and me is that I believe that people through hard work can and should support themselves.

Of course without a doubt I hate Bail outs for mega corporations who are never to big to fail . And in a perfect world the gov. wouldn't have any involvement in Private business but that is not the reality of the situation.

Also just a side note...Company A must be small less than 50 employees because by law if they are that big or bigger they have to provide Healthcare. If that was a example used in a Class then it's glossy over some of the details.

My tax bill says we don't provide "free education" to all. The school district is THE biggest part of my county tax bill. A smaller portion goes gone the local college. I/we pay state taxes that pays the administration and teachers too and my daughter is one of em.

 

[3Rfan]

What do you pay to the school? How much per kid?
What if you don't have kids? That is the point, it is socialism. Everyone works and pays "for the good of all" to have free education.

The specifics of my taxes ain't any of your business. It was YOU that said we "provide free education for all" and that just ain't true whether you have kids in school to not. Do you think only the people that have kids in school could support our education system? Do you think the country would be better off if we didn't have an education system? I don't have kids in school now and only had one when I did.

 

[3Rfan]

I believe that was MGHS

I can't much difference between you two these days.

Of course we need an education system but it doesn't need to be a government provided free to anyone system.

How do you propose we do it so that everyone has access to education?

 

[MGHS]

The specifics of my taxes ain't any of your business. It was YOU that said we "provide free education for all" and that just ain't true whether you have kids in school to not. Do you think only the people that have kids in school could support our education system? Do you think the country would be better off if we didn't have an education system? I don't have kids in school now and only had one when I did.

Are you saying we don't provide free education from K-12 grade? And by free the taxpayers pick up the bill not just the Parents of students.

And then I added we provide Massive Aid for...not free education for College and such.

 

[bullitpdq68]

I guess the difference between you and me is that I believe that people through hard work can and should support themselves.

Of course without a doubt I hate Bail outs for mega corporations who are never to big to fail . And in a perfect world the gov. wouldn't have any involvement in Private business but that is not the reality of the situation.

Also just a side note...Company A must be small less than 50 employees because by law if they are that big or bigger they have to provide Healthcare. If that was a example used in a Class then it's glossy over some of the details.

No there is no difference between you and I, I also believe that people through hard would can and should support themselves.

When we decided to have kids I worked two jobs, not a full time job and then a part time job, but 40 plus and then got off that job and worked another 40 every week. I had my kid kid then had my second kid I don't take handouts, I work very hard and it has paid off nicely for my family my kids and my career.

I grew up in the 80's were Reaganomics were big and I believed in it and in many ways still believe in trickle down theory. However thru my journey I have watched many of those corporates crap on 99% of the work force because they are run by 1% who get theirs and don't care about those who work for them. I watched a company I worked for fire 500 people because we shipped those jobs to Mexico just so we could save .01 per wiggett during the manufacturing process.

You said it best... in a perfect world government shouldn't need to be involved in Private business, but the reality of the situation if left on thier own companies CEO's would run a company into the ground if they if they could cut themselves a $50 million dollar check. That is why we have so much government involvement is because people are greedy and left on thier own many.... not all.... will do anything to make more money at the demise of others even their workers and customers...remember the ford pinto.

What I propose is not forced, it is like a tax break a company doesn't have to do it they just won't get a tax break that is all.

Anyways we probable won't agree and that is okay, I have included a link below to one theory on it, what I wrote down sort of dumbed it down.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/yes-corporate-tax-cuts-can-raise-wages-heres-how/

I will add this I could retire today, but that is not how our government is set up they want to make sure I have to work so that I still have to pay taxes, so I cannot touch a lot of my money that I worked so hard to save up until I reach that 59 year old threshold which I think sucks.

 

[bullitpdq68]

Access? Name something you can't learn on a phone browser.

Our public school is one on one, when the pandemic hit kids had to come home and luckily we had the technology to do it. But remember MGHS wants parents to work two jobs to support those kids.....So while those parents are away working those two jobs... who is at home making sure those kids are looking up on a phone "browser" what they are supposed too to get that edumacation.....

 

[3Rfan]

Are you saying we don't provide free education from K-12 grade? And by free the taxpayers pick up the bill not just the Parents of students.

And then I added we provide Massive Aid for...not free education for College and such.

I'd say most of those kids parents pay taxes just like I have all my working life and I haven't had a kid in school for the last 20 years. Do you really believe educating all kids is not of any benefit to those who pay taxes but don't have kids in school? How much would it cost us to take of those that didn't get an education?

 

[l_Pete_l]

I was listening to CNBC and they were talking about how well a company was doing. They mentioned that the board had given out 10 million dollars worth of stock options to the top 8 executives because of thier earnings report. I really don't know how it was broken down between all 8, but it peaked my interest. I remember how Neutron Monster always use to defend those sort of things when others would say you could spread that out among the other employee's He said it would not make a difference keeping jobs or giving out raises. Well I looked there are about 7000 employees in that company. So that would have worked out to about $1400 a year raise for all employees or even better healthcare whatever they could have spread those stock options to all employees? Nope that went to the top 8, basically less than the top .001 percent...I looked a many companies and several are the same. Just blows my mind.

Great discussion thread. I'll throw my thoughts in. As an employer I want to treat my people good to keep them. If I prosper, they prosper. This is the way I think it should be done. I'm not sure what the answer is with these huge corporations. I like employees banding together against the big corporation to push an issue. Getting a big enough group is all they can do. I don't like the government to regulate this because they usually impose unworkable rules. I don't like most organized unions because instead of representing the will of the people they end up dictating to the people and bullying them if they don't fall in like. I also think if you're good at something you should be compensated for it. I have a couple family members that work at Walmart home office. They were paid well but they were very good at what they did and they put in a massive amount of time doing their work. Again, good thread.

 

[MGHS]

No there is no difference between you and I, I also believe that people through hard would can and should support themselves.

When we decided to have kids I worked two jobs, not a full time job and then a part time job, but 40 plus and then got off that job and worked another 40 every week. I had my kid kid then had my second kid I don't take handouts, I work very hard and it has paid off nicely for my family my kids and my career.

I grew up in the 80's were Reaganomics were big and I believed in it and in many ways still believe in trickle down theory. However thru my journey I have watched many of those corporates crap on 99% of the work force because they are run by 1% who get theirs and don't care about those who work for them. I watched a company I worked for fire 500 people because we shipped those jobs to Mexico just so we could save .01 per wiggett during the manufacturing process.

You said it best... in a perfect world government shouldn't need to be involved in Private business, but the reality of the situation if left on thier own companies CEO's would run a company into the ground if they if they could cut themselves a $50 million dollar check. That is why we have so much government involvement is because people are greedy and left on thier own many.... not all.... will do anything to make more money at the demise of others even their workers and customers...remember the ford pinto.

What I propose is not forced, it is like a tax break a company doesn't have to do it they just won't get a tax break that is all.

Anyways we probable won't agree and that is okay, I have included a link below to one theory on it, what I wrote down sort of dumbed it down.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/yes-corporate-tax-cuts-can-raise-wages-heres-how/

I will add this I could retire today, but that is not how our government is set up they want to make sure I have to work so that I still have to pay taxes, so I cannot touch a lot of my money that I worked so hard to save up until I reach that 59 year old threshold which I think sucks.

Well then you and me agree that hard work is how things should be done....I can promise you that 99% of the Clients I had would not even think about putting in that type of work. Most of them don't even want to work they have a myriad of excuses as to why they can't and should get a hand out.

I recall the Ford Pinto and the GM bus.....simple math the cost of the Pay out to the victims was much less than the cost to fix the defect. I do think jail time and even the Death Penalty was warranted for all involved in both of those situations. Cold and Calculated negligence. I can get behind Gov. intervention on that.

Oh I hated Nafta it was a huge bi-partisan money Grab for both side.

I agree that a lot of CEO would and do run companies into the Ground for their Personal gain.....Hostess anyone recall that?

It's wrong and despicable.....but I'm not sure how and even if the Gov. should be involved in that type of behavior.

I also agree it's your retirement you should be able to take it when you want.

 

[MGHS]

I'd say most of those kids parents pay taxes just like I have all my working life and I haven't had a kid in school for the last 20 years. Do you really believe educating all kids is not of any benefit to those who pay taxes but don't have kids in school? How much would it cost us to take of those that didn't get an education?

I'm fine with the Free lower education....I'm even fine with the Grants and Loans for higher education. My point is that even with all that is available that many refuse to use the free resources and have no interest in taking advantage of all that is provided for them to better themselves.. They then scream and holler that they need handouts so they can live almost as well as the taxpayers providing them with the means and resources they have.

 

[MGHS]

Great discussion thread. I'll throw my thoughts in. As an employer I want to treat my people good to keep them. If I prosper, they prosper. This is the way I think it should be done. I'm not sure what the answer is with these huge corporations. I like employees banding together against the big corporation to push an issue. Getting a big enough group is all they can do. I don't like the government to regulate this because they usually impose unworkable rules. I don't like most organized unions because instead of representing the will of the people they end up dictating to the people and bullying them if they don't fall in like. I also think if you're good at something you should be compensated for it. I have a couple family members that work at Walmart home office. They were paid well but they were very good at what they did and they put in a massive amount of time doing their work. Again, good thread.

Unions in theory are good but they become another uncontrollable entity that more often than not hurt the employee's they are trying to protect. Not all unions are like this but some.

 

[bullitpdq68]

Great discussion thread. I'll throw my thoughts in. As an employer I want to treat my people good to keep them. If I prosper, they prosper. This is the way I think it should be done. I'm not sure what the answer is with these huge corporations. I like employees banding together against the big corporation to push an issue. Getting a big enough group is all they can do. I don't like the government to regulate this because they usually impose unworkable rules. I don't like most organized unions because instead of representing the will of the people they end up dictating to the people and bullying them if they don't fall in like. I also think if you're good at something you should be compensated for it. I have a couple family members that work at Walmart home office. They were paid well but they were very good at what they did and they put in a massive amount of time doing their work. Again, good thread.

I am trying to figure out how giving a company a tax break for paying it's employee's a certain wage and giving them certain benefits thru corporate profits is regulation by you and not a tax break?
However what do you considered regulation versus tax breaks?.... is letting a company get a tax break for investing in research and Development considered regulation in your eyes or a tax break? Is Accelerated depreciation a tax break or is it a regulation? So please tell me how is it that a publicly held corporation can give a few high-level executives stock options and get a huge tax break on it and it is considered a tax break...and nobody considers that regulation, but.... when it is proposed that those same stock options be spread thru out all the employees not just a few, in compensation and benefits....and for doing that the company gets to enjoy a tax break from it, you consider that a regulation and not a tax break?