Hi Gang:

Where in the Constitution does it give the President or our Government the authority to limit the maximum salary a person can earn???

I can understand why we have a minimum wage standard ,but now ,why a maximum wage standard???

How can this possibly help our country ,corporations and businesses,both large and small,to create badly needed new jobs???

How does stifling incentive help our country???

hippolips

When the government has a large equity share in a corporation, or when a corporation makes "a deal with the devil" to be bailed out by the government, then I have no qualms with the government having a say-so about executive pay.

If you have run your company so poorly that it needs to be bailed out by the entity on earth that operates at the single largest deficit, why should you be paid well?

These executives are getting the incentives they earned.

quote:

How does stifling incentive help our country???

Is there any evidence that these ridiculously huge salaries have been an incentive to run businesses more creatively, profitably or efficiently? In the 'good old days' of the fifties and sixties when US business was booming, there wasn't such a huge 'spread' in wages - bosses seemed to find incentive enough without being paid obscenely more than their workers.

Hippo are you earning millions a year? What motivates you to leap to the defence of these plutocrats?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by newnickname

Hippo are you earning millions a year? What motivates you to leap to the defence of these plutocrats?[/QUOTe

________________________________________________

Hi NNN:

For your information I worked for a living from the time I was 16 years old,I'm retired,live on my company pension,my Social Security ,which I paid into from the age of 16,and some bonds, which I bought by working two jobs for the greater part of my life.So I'm no millionaire by a long shot.

My point was this:

Any time the government gets big enough to give you everything you want...

they are also big enough to take away everything you have.

When the President or Government decided how much money you are entitled to earn they are already in the process of taking away everything you have.

What makes you think this gang is going to stop determining salaries with just the big boys???

What's to stop them from deciding that your salary is going to be next???

Where ,in the Constitution ,is the President or the Government granted these specific powers???

hippolips

I take it is not illegal for a bank, that bails out a business, to install its own directors, to take measures to protect its loan, and to stop the business fom paying out sums which are detrimental, in its view, to the business or to its investment (ie the finance) in it.That will include restricting bonuses or, if need be, declaring an end to the existing pay structure

Believe me,banks here are not shy to do that. I bet yours aren't ! What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Here the government is the banker and it happens to be banks, among others, that are the businesses.

What's wrong with that? It's standard business practice.

quote:

What's to stop them from deciding that your salary is going to be next???

Democracy?

This article manages to blame billionaires for the jobless recovery...

'...Perhaps the most dramatic measure of our emerging billionaire bailout society is seen by comparing compensation for the top 100 CEOs and to that of average workers (the 100 million or so non-supervisory production workers). In 1970 the ratio was 45 to 1. By 2006 it was 1,723 to one...

...Perhaps the most damaging feature of our billionaire bailout society is the "jobless recovery." This oxymoron refers to an economy that is growing, but that can't produce nearly enough jobs to reach full employment (an unemployment rate below 5 percent). Our current jobless recovery will be the worst ever. Right now the BLS (U6) jobless rate stands at 17.0 percent -- and climbing. (This counts those without work plus those who have part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work.) If the billionaire bailout society becomes permanent, we may never see full employment again.

Why is that? Because you don't need a full employment society to mint billionaires. Reflect for a moment on Goldman Sachs. They do not have individual depositors. They are not public brokers. They do not make loans to small business. They are in the business of making money by playing the financial markets, from mergers and acquisitions, from trading, and from creating and selling fantasy finance instruments.

In our billionaire bailout society these are unquestioned positive activities. But what value do they produce in the real economy?' Why Billionaires Should Pay for the Jobless Recovery

Hi Gang:

I'm still waiting to have someone show me where in the Constitution does Obama ,the Government ,or compensation special master Kenneth Feinberg have the outhority to limit the salary ceiling of any American CEO, business owner or any other working American.

I know many of you hate anyone who earns more money than you do,but last time I looked we still had a Constitution in this country.

hippolips

quote:

I can understand why we have a minimum wage standard ,but now ,why a maximum wage standard???

You say you can understand why we have a minimum standard, but not why we can have a maximum (for certain industries). Please show the part of the Constitution that gives the government the authority to establish a minimum standard. If you can't, then explain how the government has acquired that authority. If you do that, I am sure that how the government has the authority to limit the salaries of certain industries will be explained to you so that you can understand. If you don't, it means that you just want to complain about Obama again.

quote:

I know many of you hate anyone who earns more money than you...

I think the objections stem from the fact that these guys haven't 'earned' the money. They screwed up royally, and haven't changed their ways.

Speaking of waiting, Hippo, a while back (and several times after that), I asked you why you didn't want everyone to have the same health insurance as you have. I don't think you answered. I'll answer your "Where in the constitution" question as soon as you answer that question of mine.

Isn't the question 'Where in the Constitution is it forbidden ?'There are certain parts of that documeht which circumscribe the power of the government and some which forbid certain actions.It does not expressly permit all things e.g. federal speed limits, to take a trivial example, since it could not possibly cover all eventualities or needs or forsee them.

'Lloyds, Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock will be broken up and parts of their businesses sold off to create three new banks, it emerged last night.

Government sources said ministers were "determined" to see more competition in the market, following the £1.2 trillion bailout of the sector...

...The Government currently has a stake of 70.34 per cent in Royal Bank of Scotland and 43.44 per cent in Lloyds. That gives ministers the whip hand over both banks...' Government to break up the banks

Where in the British Constitution does it give the Government the authority to... oh, wait...

Well, we (myself included) have all ganged up on hippo enough. Because he is leading to a very good point.

The authority for the administration to control pay over bailed out firms comes from legislation passed by Congress earlier this.

However, most (if not all) of the executives have contracts with their companies. Thus there is the question of the government interfering with binding agreements, most of which I assume existed prior to the legislation.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:

quote:

I can understand why we have a minimum wage standard ,but now ,why a maximum wage standard???

You say you can understand why we have a minimum standard, but not why we can have a maximum (for certain industries). Please show the part of the Constitution that gives the government the authority to establish a minimum standard. If you can't, then explain how the government has acquired that authority. If you do that, I am sure that how the government has the authority to limit the salaries of certain industries will be explained to you so that you can understand. If you don't, it means that you just want to complain about Obama again.

Perfect post. I think you just sent hippolips running with that one.

Not the Constitution people; The Declaration of Independence.

The American Dream

Exactly what part of the Declaration applies to this discussion?

Um, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Prosperity my friend, prosperity. Hippo is saying that the government's actions are taking away our right of individual pursuit of prosperity.

Hippo may have wanted to say that, but he asked about the Constitution. In either case, I have to point out that

a) the Declaration of Independence is not part of the legal framework of how our government is required to operate. Since 1789, we operate under the US Constitution.

and

b) the actions of limiting executive pay (in the situation under discussion) has not been found unconstitutional, and, in fact, as Fuse points out, was made legal (if it wasn't prior to this) by legislation passed by Congress earlier this year.

There are many precedents to limiting salary in the US. Several major league sports do it, most (if not all) school districts do it, the government itself has done it for a very long time.

If you want to say that these actions are illegal, please point out which law you are using to base your claim on.