I’m guilty of usually seeing the world through a rigid prism of right vs wrong. But I think that’s understandable since I’m often writing about clear-cut issues such as the corrupting nature of big government or the foolishness of class-warfare tax policy.

But I periodically come across topics where I’m not sure about the right answer. So I throw these topics out there to see what other people think.

Previous editions of “you be the judge” include: Putting politicians on trial, vigilante justice, brutal tax collection tactics, child molestation, sharia law, healthcare, incest, speed traps, jury nullification, and vigilante justice (again).

Now I’ve come across another example. Over in France, the socialist government says it wants to impose pay caps on corporate executives. That seems like a very bad idea, but there’s a catch. The proposal applies to government-owned companies.

Here’s a description from the Financial Times.

1
Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
95 Comments So Far
« Previous123Next »
truepatriot12 Wrote: Jun 14, 2012 6:26 PM
The GOVERNMENT should not owne companies.
Seabiscuit Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 2:55 AM
Daniel J. Mitchell,
You have shown the fault of violating the tenth amendment to the Constitution.
Recently, Obama was reported as complaining that he needed the freedom to ignore the Congress as well as the Constitution. Here we see the risk and truth of "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. Some of us have spent the time of the war with Germany and Japan in military service.
Churchill and Patton were quite right in wanting to to take out Stalin while we were about it. The "Cold War" should have been over when the first trip by United States citizens to the Moon was completed. Several years after that, a Russian submarine was salvaged from an extremely deep part of the Pacific ocean. The truth about Project Jennifer should be told, now!
Michael49 Wrote: Jun 04, 2012 6:50 AM
Instead of caps on executive salaries, the gov needs to change policy for company bailouts. Before a company can receive a bailout all top execs' who were responsible for the companies failure need fired, and they need to sign an agreement eliminating all bonuses that are due (it makes no sense that a corporation offers bonuses for reasons other than helping the company be successful) Then they can accept business plans from the remaining employees and the one with the most successful plan gets promoted to CEO at the salary or wages he was already earning. If the company eventually gets out of the red they can hand out bonuses of 5% of profits to the new CEO and 5% of the profits can be divided up between the remaining employees
Michael49 Wrote: Jun 04, 2012 6:55 AM
It might seem simplistic but it's more of a comment on the ridiculousness of govenment bailouts allowing bonuses for helping a company fail.
oldervoter68 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 10:57 PM
I would assume that a Government owned Company (which should not exist) would come under the jurisdiction of the Dept of Commerce. Hence the pay of the CEO and other high ranked management of that Company should receive no more than 85% of the salary of the Secretary of Commerce.
Blair31 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 9:24 PM
Yes, it should. Let's privatize Fanny, Freddy, and Amtrak.
David4 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 9:14 PM
Governments shouldn't own companies and lots of their functions should not be done at all, or could be done by the private sector better.

IMHO, governments usually mismanage what they do. I expect they mismanage pay policy and would mismanage paycaps too. And I wouldn't be surprised to discover that a paycap is just for show, and that those employees would continue to get very nice pay in other ways; just as govt. employee unions get very nice benefits and pensions "instead" of higher pay.
ThasicAlambra Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 8:12 PM
Executive pay at government owned companies should not even exist. Government should not own companies. Pay for government workers should be capped as they tend to be jobs for life.
Sorceress Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 7:39 PM
There is really no such thing as a "government owned" company. That "government" is you and me. You know, the tax payers? Personally, if we are paying these executives, I think pay caps are appropriate. but then, I think we ought to cap the pay of Congress and any other government employee. Remember when they used to cry about being paid less than the non-government employees in the same categories? Then they all got together and unionized and now they make a lot more than the private sector. Note that I did not call them government workers. We all know why. Anyway, where in the enumerated powers part of the Constitution does it say that government should own any company? Period. I can't find it. Time to divest?
ThasicAlambra Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 8:12 PM
So true. Your mouth to Gods ears.
Dan 292 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 6:53 PM
Well, Dan, you're right on the money!! In your first premise, Government should be out of the ownership/subsidy market in any way, shape or form. Given that, we are not there, so, do we take our finger out of the Dike? I'm with you, yes. But, do it in such a way that these "servants of the people" are hog tied to restrict their restrictions to the very things discussed herein. Then, with the finger extracted, immediately begin the repairs to the Dike by the much needed shrinking process.
M.K. Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 6:13 PM
The only way government should cap executive pay is to pass a law that says if the company is in the red, the executives cannot receive anymore than their regular salaries. Why allow someone to be rewarded for failure? If the company is in the black the executive should be allowed bonuses but not to exceed any amount that would threaten the liquidity of the company. I am surprised that the bylaws of corporations do not reflect this kind if control without any outside influence.making them do it. To ignore this common sense solution is to court disaster.
DirtyDaveyDownEast Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:22 PM
Hello. Im DirtyDaveyDownEast & I believe we can build a bettah brightah future for all AMERICANS. Ta begin w/ throw out tha 'bama Bum, Nasty Polecat & Scarry Wied then cap tha # of govrnt owned corps @ 0.

For AMERICA, tha Greatest Nation Evah, ta remain tha Greatest Nation Evah we must get our game face on & get back ta basics; back to tha Founding Father's "ancient principals" which are self perpetuatin' therefore constantly rejuvenatin' & still tha boldest freshest ideas known to man.

AMERICA needs a "3rd Great Awakening"! ! !

L-E-T U-S P-R-A-Y ! ! !

Ayah!
bbtruth Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:19 PM
Government shouldn't own companies in the first place.
M.K. Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 6:14 PM
Absolutely correct. The government can hardy run its fat butt,
JasonCharleston Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:17 PM
I think this is right:

Heliocentrism was the belief that the universe revolved around the sun. The ancients would come up with increasingly complex math equations to prove it was right only to be disproved. This lasted about a 1000 years and equations pages long.

Heliocentric thought is creating/complex wrong justification for a false premise and continuing to do so even when its been disproven.

I could have just said liberal thought process.
Louie13 Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 2:09 PM
Jason, you are joking, right? There is no such thing as absolute motion. Motion is relative to an observer, and relative to an observer in the reference frame of the sun, the universe does revolve around the sun; that is what the observer sees, just as the observer in the reference frame of the Earth sees the Universe revolving around the Earth. It is senseless to speak of motion without referencing the observer. In your post, you failed to specify the observer.

Louie
Michael2677 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:07 PM
I disagree with your premise that there should be a government owned company.
Dan 292 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 6:56 PM
J Rutter Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:06 PM
There already exists a pay scale for Govt employees, all the way up to the President. It shouldn't matter if your job is running Fannie/Freddie, or sweeping out the office at night. The same should apply to any company that sells itself to the Govt. Can you imagine the squeals from the UAW, if they were forced from the trough, and placed on the GS system?
That being said, I see no justification whatsoever for Govt subsidies of any kind. I just re-read Art 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution to make sure, and there is nothing there which authorizes the Govt to hand out money to private corporations, or farmers, nor is there any authority to function as an investment bank.
Arley2 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:02 PM
Since I'm an Old F- - t, I see things this way:
1. There should be no government subsidies to any private enterprise AT ALL.
2. Therefore government would have no rationale to regulate the pay of private companies.
3. There ought to be NO quasi-government agencies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or the Federal Reserve.
4. Any "company" the ACTUALLY IS entirely a government entity, then cap CEO pay.

As the article points out, government is invasive................like a virus.

The Federal Government should restrict itself to those responsibilities assigned it by the Constitution. As relates to business, the FED ought to restrict itself to establishing a legal framework (law, not money) that requires citizens and businesses to treat
Arley2 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:03 PM
contin.

each other with fairness, and then let capitalism and the free market work out the detail.
Raymond166 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:37 PM
I have always beleived that our so called reps salary should reflect the average salary of thier district with say 20% increase for housing allowance
Raymond166 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:38 PM
please forgive the spelling
Arley2 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:04 PM
Don't worry about it Raymond, I (for one) can't spell well either.
Arley2 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:05 PM
PS: Interestingly, there have been all kinds of studies to show that if most of the letter of a word are present people can read them even if the letters are out of proper order.
ThasicAlambra Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 8:15 PM
Wow, you're harsh. But that seems extremely fair. Then maybe we wouldn't have lifetime politicians.
Roy323 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 8:38 PM
"Spell Checker" IS or can be your friend! I KNOW!
John1324 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:16 PM
The Evangelical Council for Fiscal Responsibility (ECFA) founded by Billy Graham and others has a rule that the highest compensated individual cannot be paid more than 10 times the lowest paid individual. So, if the janitor gets $10 an hour then the President can't get more than $100 and hour.

The ECFA was founded to stave off regulation of non-profit ministries, after abuses by a few "televangelists".

Is there a lesson here for profit businesses?
Pamela166 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:35 PM
HMMM;
40 x $10/hr = $400 per week
40 x $100hr = $4000 per week

$20,800 per year
vs
$208,000 per year
Let us also NOT forget the other benefits and perks that the higher paid executive gets like free trips, rental cars, fancy meals and expense accounts.
How about REALLY being fair and paying them ALL at the same rate Janitor to fancy pants "Evangelist" .
Arley2 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:07 PM
I don't care about the Evangelists, but paying everyone the same in the real world would never work and has bee tried to some degree in the USSR, China, Cuba.
ThasicAlambra Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 8:16 PM
If the government did that then janitors would get their pay raised to 500 bucks and hour.
blaki02 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 2:21 PM
Agree with Daniel about what might (or probably would) occur if Congress is allowed to cap Government owned companies' executive pay. As soon as there is a law on the books, then sometime soon, there will be a push to then start dictating private sector CEO's pay. And in this over-regulating administration, more probable than possible.
The fact that the courts rule in favor of bonuses or pay hikes (in the matter of those companies who have filed bankruptcy) is also a travesty. But if Congress gets involved, you can bet that sooner than later, any CEO's pay will come under fire.


JasonCharleston Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 2:13 PM
The answer is simple. There shouldn't be a government controlled company. Problem solved.

I find the author's question similar to: How should I stack this deck of cards so I can grower it bigger and more secure than brick or something with real foundation?

Your trying something that is destined to fail because your initial premise is based on a false reality. All you are really doing is coming up with a more complex Heliocentric thought process...which we know how that ended.
Pamela166 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:35 PM
GOOD POINT !!! No Government owned companies.
Arley2 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:09 PM
How about a little education here. What the hell does "Heliocentric" mean? I guess I'll have to look it up.
DebbieB Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 2:02 PM
Yes. If it is a government entity, they are public servants. Nobody should make more than the President's nominal salary. And most public employees are worth a good bit less.
Fredom4u Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:36 PM
The public sector CEO's always make more than high positions in the government. Because the private sector can always be more efficient than the government in anything they do.

Just a few days ago a US private sector company docked with the space station for ONR THIIRD the cost of NASA. Those private executives DESERVE more in salary because they are better at what they do.

Obama should be paying the taxpayer and receive zero salary he has cost us THAT much in mistakes. That's what happens when, as Barry said in his own book, you spend your Junior and Senior year using, selling, and buying drugs on the beaches of Hawaii.

Romney didn't take a salary when he was Govenor. He cared THAT much about the country, he did it free.
Fredom4u Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:37 PM
bbtruth Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 4:22 PM
David3036 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 1:45 PM
The post office should revert to being a government agency, because delivering the mail is one of the few constitutional responsibilities of the federal government -- as opposed to investing in Solyndra, bailing out companies and other things that the Constitution does NOT grant the government the authoritiy to do.

An executive of any company that enjoys a measure of government support, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should be compensated on a civil service pay scale, or paid about the same as a top Army general.

In the private sector, it should be the responsibility of boards of directors to limit pay, but for some reason they think they have to spend outrageous amounts to get the best leaders. Not only that, but they write the...
David3036 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 1:46 PM
...contracts in such a way that the CEO makes out like a bandit when he leaves, even if he's fired for cause.
wayne566 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 1:26 PM
Another agreement for your stack.

If you cap salaries, your best talent will flee to higher-paying companies.
Thus, capping salaries at government owned businesses guarantees that private businesses will get the best talent, and the mediocre talent goes to government.
The difference will be a great lesson to people who persist in refusing to see that government cannot run things as well as the free market.
Private business will avoid subsidies like the plague, knowing that their salaries will be capped.

Is there a down-side?
Louie13 Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 2:26 PM
Wayne, too often, it is not WHAT you know that counts but WHO you know, CEOs included, and that is especially true of government.
Anthony305 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 12:41 PM
There should be no government-owned companies and no government control of compensation paid by private companies, either maximum, or minimum.

The very existence of a government-owned company should be an affront to the general public. They are confiscating the wealth of people who are actually producing useful (and saleable) goods and services and directing it toward non-viable enterprises (if anyone wanted whatever they're producing, enough to pay the price, there would be no need of government involvement), for political purposes. Or, in some cases they take over what was, or could be a viable business and run it in a wasteful and corrupt manner in order to provide jobs and money to their supporters, again for political purposes.
wiseone Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 12:55 PM
Thank you Anthony, for saving me the trouble of posting EXACTLY the same thing.
Fredom4u Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:38 PM
Fredom4u Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 12:39 PM
I f they don't want the best and the brightest the cap away. If they do want the best, then they havebto compete with private sector market wages. Off the government caps those too, then we no longer live in a free country and those affected will pack up and move where the attitude towards business is friendly.

Right now, the US taxes business at the highest rate in the world.

Would YOU want to open your new business here? That will change when President Romney takes charge. That businnes friendly atmosphere will create jobs for everyone who wants one. If they DON'T want a job and they simply want a free ride then - GET OUT OF HERE! Freeloaders never made ANY country great!
Pamela166 Wrote: Jun 03, 2012 3:38 PM
NO GOVERNMENT OWNED BUSINESSES< then NO PROBLEM WITH PAY.
Louie13 Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 2:32 PM
Freedom, I disagree that Romney would be much better than Obama (and Obama IS absolutely awful). Romney is not a Conservative, he is a big government, socialist, and globalist.
« Previous123Next »