6 ms·
I mean, we don't need to pay them that much. These obscene salaries weren't the norm a few decades ago. They're the end result of Reaganite tax policies failing
by KerrAvon 4y ago
I mean, we don't need to pay them that much. These obscene salaries weren't the norm a few decades ago. They're the end result of Reaganite tax policies failing to tax super-high-earners progressively.
- googlryas 4y agoThat's only one part of the equation. But simply because the individuals get to keep their cash doesn't mean the companies need to give it to them.
- robotresearcher 4y agoYou might think that paying a 45% marginal rate tax instead of 94% would mean you could be paid less while keeping more! How did lowering personal income tax increase compensation?
- sdiacom 4y agoI imagine it's much easier for a CEO to justify divesting money from the company's profits to himself and to the government at a 1:1 ratio than it is at a 1:20 ratio. I would posit that the CEO-to-government ratio acts, in a roundabout way, as a profit-to-pushback ratio. As a CEO, it may not be worth facing the board's reaction to spending two million dollars just so that you get an extra hundred thousand dollars.