Capping the salaries of execs at bailed out institutions is one thing. Re-writing the Constitution of the United States is another thing entirely.

"There have been too few constraints on major financial institutions incurring far more liability than they could handle," Mr. Frank said.

Oh dear lord, the Irony meter just assploded.

Just give me all the money, and I will make sure it trickles down.

Um... you can't DO that. This idea will be shot out of sky.

Funny thing on the radio this morning about him.

"Don't choke on your drink...at the sperm bank."

Senescent Dawn: Um... you can't DO that. This idea will be shot out of sky.

These are two separate propositions. Let's examine them one at a time:

Um... you can't DO that.

Sure can. See? Doing it. A less flip response would be: the federal government can say it will refuse to recognize tax deductions for salaries of over $100.00 and companies will have to deal with it. Realistically, this will just lead to more options, perks and concealed income.

This idea will be shot out of sky.

By whom? The Democrats who are in the majority and being led by the likes of Barney Frank?

I think you meant to say something like "Well, the farking commies have won. Why did we bother to fight the cold war again?"

Senescent Dawn: Um... you can't DO that. This idea will be shot out of sky.

Today? yes it would. Two years from now? Maybe.

Guys and girls batten down the hatches this is going to suck!! Right now this airplane we call America is headed on a slight downward angle if this fark tard has his way he going to point it straight at the ground and kick in the afterburners.
But dont worry the government is going to take over big oil and the banks. Lord help us. In two years (or sooner) there are going to be some many people just trying to get by that they may actually support insanity like this. I hope Obama gets this guy under control or his mouthing off could tank the markets.

The volume of stupid in this thread.

It's enormous.

I hope he can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can.

Senescent Dawn: Um... you can't DO that. This idea will be shot out of sky.

nixon did it.

lunchinlewis: I hope he can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can.

The Boston PD has been notified, FYI.

Barney Frank, just go away, man. I might- might- support some sort of law tying executive compensation to that of their workers. Say... can't make more than 50x the lowest-paid employee. I remember working at Home Depot, and watching Nardelli (who's doing a fantastic job at Chrysler now) gut the company and leave with a cool $225 million, which he negotiated before he ever stepped foot into a Home Depot. So, $14,000 a year was the lowest wage, which would mean, what? $700,000 a year? Then let 'em get paid a bajillion dollars in performance based metrics, and let the shareholders decide what those are.

I don't think it is unreasonable to put a cap on business, say the highest paid person cannot make more than 50, 100, 200 times the lowest paid person, or say the same amount more than the average of the 50% lowest paid employees. CEOs are paid far too much. If you think you should be paid millions, pay everyone else more and you can.

ragekage: Then let 'em get paid a bajillion dollars in performance based metrics, and let the shareholders decide what those are.

Stock options. At today's price plus a bit and a long period, say three or five years, before they can be exercised, so they can't cook the books to look good for a while and then cash them in.

pandabear: ragekage: Then let 'em get paid a bajillion dollars in performance based metrics, and let the shareholders decide what those are.

Stock options. At today's price plus a bit and a long period, say three or five years, before they can be exercised, so they can't cook the books to look good for a while and then cash them in.

There ya go. Good idea. But do suggest everyone should have a pay cap is idiotic. Yeah, A-Rod getting a 250 million dollar multi-year contract is ridiculous, it's a lot of farking money. And he (and the other rich fatcats, no matter the industry) aren't going to "trickle" those funds to anyone other than Burger Boats for that new yacht, or on their own personal space program, or a $15,00o umbrella stand- which sucks. But there's a point when you have to say, stop. The government doesn't have a right to be buried that far in my business and my wallet.

Set the tax rate back to Clintonian levels, not even Reagan levels. And tell Barney Frank to get a clue.

Mostly agreed to by people that don't manage and take risk, except, maybe in Franks case a STD.

Chindit: Mostly agreed to by people that don't manage and take risk

Take risk? you aren't really that farking stupid are you? The myth that large company CEO's take any kind of personal risk is a joke. The only thing they risk is the possibility of being only very rich versus filthy rich.

If we offered CEOs the option of capped pay or to assume personal liability for the actions of their organizations, what do you think they'd choose?


Lt. Cheese Weasel: Re-writing the Constitution of the United States is another thing entirely.
Why would that be required?

tchamber: The volume of stupid in this thread.

It's enormous.

It has not even begun to truly emerge. Just wait.

Dinki- I know, Let's start with:

Basketball Players
Baseball Players
Football Players
Song Writers
Performance Bands

No risk there. They can all make 50x what, I don't know, how about the stage hand or hotdog vendor.

Everytime, you call me stupid. Every time, I realize you are disconnected from the reality of the world, there in your little cube.

You have got to be farking kidding me.

KIA: By whom?

By the SCOTUS. No way it passes Constitutional muster.

Pocket Ninja: It has not even begun to truly emerge. Just wait.

I thought it was all here?

KaponoFor3: By the SCOTUS. No way it passes Constitutional muster.

The fact that we're already seeing this kind of hysteria pour out of Washington is really worrisome, given that the real panic hasn't hit.

Definitely a step too far. But I might be amenable to the idea of letting shareholders have a say in executive compensation.

KaponoFor3: No way it passes Constitutional muster.

What does it violate? Unless the Supreme Court chooses to further blend the distinction between personhood and corporations, I don't see how this would violate a corporations "rights" anymore than SOX requirements.

Senescent Dawn: The fact that we're already seeing this kind of hysteria pour out of Washington is really worrisome, given that the real panic hasn't hit.

I agree. I shudder at what is going to be proposed when things continue to get worse, stimulus package or not.

fosborb: What does it violate? Unless the Supreme Court chooses to further blend the distinction between personhood and corporations, I don't see how this would violate a corporations "rights" anymore than SOX requirements.

I should preface that I'm not a Constitution specialist or anything, but I would be absolutely gobsmacked if this didn't represent an unconstitutional infringement by the federal government upon private business. The problem is that commerce clause cases are examined on rational basis review, which basically means as long as the government can come up with a remotely plausible explanation, they win. I have no doubt that law firms themselves, for example, would challenge such a regulation immediately if it were passed, as many partners at big firms make way over $1,000,000/year.

All businesses period. It is time to take America back from the greedy.

KaponoFor3: I should preface that I'm not a Constitution specialist or anything, but I would be absolutely gobsmacked if this didn't represent an unconstitutional infringement by the federal government upon private business. The problem is that commerce clause cases are examined on rational basis review, which basically means as long as the government can come up with a remotely plausible explanation, they win. I have no doubt that law firms themselves, for example, would challenge such a regulation immediately if it were passed, as many partners at big firms make way over $1,000,000/year.

It's called an income tax.

sloppy shoes: All businesses period. It is time to take America back from the greedy.

Yeah, but this idea of delivering punishment on the rich instead of focusing on helping the poor and balancing opportunity will not help things. It will make things much worse. Repairing our economy and restoring a stable middle class is the kind of thing that takes a delicate touch and years of hard work, not simply running at the Super-Rich with a chainsaw.

I don't understand why anyone would say this is not allowed. If a minimum salary is within the realm of congress, why not a maximum?

Senescent Dawn: Yeah, but this idea of delivering punishment on the rich instead of focusing on helping the poor and balancing opportunity will not help things. It will make things much worse. Repairing our economy and restoring a stable middle class is the kind of thing that takes a delicate touch and years of hard work, not simply running at the Super-Rich with a chainsaw.

It's not running a chainsaw at the super rich. It's putting restrictions on what people make. No one is that valued. Conservatives are always talking about morals- they should be all for this regulation. Excessive greed is bad.

Running a chainsaw at the super rich would be a far more extensive process. One, you could make this retroactive. Two, you could put moral boundaries upon those who make more than $250,000 (mandating they improve their communities, take care of the poor, due weekly community service, not display their wealth, do monthly good deeds, etc...)

It's amazing to me that we think freedom is the ability to act like a child. It's not. Frankly, CEOs and other wealthy persons should be feeling lucky we aren't at a revolution, for it would be their heads in the guillotine. Setting a wage maximum is not really revolutionary. We've been close to one before, and it worked out fine.

Chindit: No risk there. They can all make 50x what, I don't know, how about the stage hand or hotdog vendor.

Yu realize there is a salary cap on basketball players, right?

PoopStain: Oh, they can DO it, it's a question of whether they SHOULD.

That's a different issue. The first few comments were about how this was unconstitutional or not allowed.

DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would say this is not allowed. If a minimum salary is within the realm of congress, why not a maximum?

I am face palming that someone who is going to law school says something like this. What are they teaching you at NYU?

sloppy shoes: It's not running a chainsaw at the super rich. It's putting restrictions on what people make.

Aye comrade, everyone should make equal amounts of money regardless of skill! To each according to need, from each according to ability!

sloppy shoes: It's amazing to me that we think freedom is the ability to act like a child.

To me, freedom is the ability to go about my life and business without unreasonable government intervention.

Here's a hypothetical question to people who think there should be no limits on how much money someone should make:

Suppose a person is born with incredible brains, charisma, and passion. They turn into the single greatest entrepreneur in history. This person can make anyone buy anything for any price - he is an absolute master at making you want what he has. He makes people want to give him money. There's no fraud, no deception - he's just an amazing, amazing salesman. He's so good, in fact, that he makes an insane amount of money - he makes 10 billion dollars a year by age 25 and just keeps making more and more and more. Eventually, this one person alone accounts for, say, 25% of all the wealth in the country.

Should we let this happen? This is a hypothetical, so don't come to me with "this would never happen" - I'm presenting you with this situation. Should we let this occur?

KaponoFor3: KIA: By whom?

By the SCOTUS. No way it passes Constitutional muster.

The same SCrOTUS that just allowed big business to demand certain minimum prices for their products and caused DVDs to have a list price of $25.00 now?

KaponoFor3: I am face palming that someone who is going to law school says something like this. What are they teaching you at NYU?

That Lochner v. New York was overturned a long time ago and that the government is allowed to have its hand in economic issues.

DamnYankees: That's a different issue. The first few comments were about how this was unconstitutional or not allowed.

Yeah, and I don't think it is. I mean, any ruling that called a maximum salary unconstitutional would have to make minimum salary unconstitutional. I don't think it is possible to rule against one while allowing the other.

KIA: The same SCrOTUS that just allowed big business to demand certain minimum prices for their products and caused DVDs to have a list price of $25.00 now?

Yes, that exact same one.

DamnYankees: Should we let this happen?

Yes, we should. He worked hard for his money and earned it fair and square, he should get to keep it. All of it.

DamnYankees: That Lochner v. New York was overturned a long time ago and that the government is allowed to have its hand in economic issues.

Yes I'm well aware of Lochner. This is a giant step away from that, you and I both know it.

sloppy shoes: It's not running a chainsaw at the super rich. It's putting restrictions on what people make. No one is that valued. Conservatives are always talking about morals- they should be all for this regulation. Excessive greed is bad.

I'm not opposed to the rich paying more out of pocket. This isn't so much a moral quandary with me as it is a question of whether or not it will work, and I don't think it will. It's cutting off our nose to spite our face. Corporations are multinational, gigantic entities. What are you proposing? That any corporation with its headquarters in the U.S. has a wage cap? Or that no companies are allowed to do business in this country until they adopt wage controls? I'm sure that will do WONDERS for our outsourcing problem.

KaponoFor3: Yes, we should. He worked hard for his money and earned it fair and square, he should get to keep it. All of it.

So you literally thing the balance of society is completely irrelevant to how we shape laws? I just want to be clear.

KaponoFor3: Yes I'm well aware of Lochner. This is a giant step away from that, you and I both know it.

I really don't. I see no legal distinction, especially according to RBR. Please explain the legal difference between minimum wage and maximum wage in terms of government power to implement it.

Will the last business left please turn out the lights before leaving?

Senescent Dawn: It's cutting off our nose to spite our face. Corporations are multinational, gigantic entities. What are you proposing? That any corporation with its headquarters in the U.S. has a wage cap? Or that no companies are allowed to do business in this country until they adopt wage controls? I'm sure that will do WONDERS for our outsourcing problem.

Wasn't this the EXACT argument against minimum wage back in the day?

DamnYankees: Here's a hypothetical question to people who think there should be no limits on how much money someone should make:

Suppose a person is born with incredible brains, charisma, and passion. They turn into the single greatest entrepreneur in history. This person can make anyone buy anything for any price - he is an absolute master at making you want what he has. He makes people want to give him money. There's no fraud, no deception - he's just an amazing, amazing salesman. He's so good, in fact, that he makes an insane amount of money - he makes 10 billion dollars a year by age 25 and just keeps making more and more and more. Eventually, this one person alone accounts for, say, 25% of all the wealth in the country.

Should we let this happen? This is a hypothetical, so don't come to me with "this would never happen" - I'm presenting you with this situation. Should we let this occur?

This is an important question. Because there's no doubt that oppressive aristocracies are possible. I would argue that adopting new regulations from the ground up would be more productive and more impactful long-term than a crude and overt attempt to directly prevent him from making his income.

DamnYankees: So you literally thing the balance of society is completely irrelevant to how we shape laws? I just want to be clear.

Of course not, but we're using a hypothetical scenario (albeit a flawed scenario, but I'll roll with it). But the balance of society and this guy being a great salesman are not one in the same.

I don't think he should be compelled to give away the fruits of his labor under government threat of jail for, essentially, being a successful businessman.

DamnYankees: Please explain the legal difference between minimum wage and maximum wage in terms of government power to implement it.

Sure, the minimum wage deals with a uniform standard of living and was implemented in part to insure that everyone in the country will be able to have the basic necessities of life if they work a job (and won't be able to get paid pennies just because that's what the employer is offering to contract for). The maximum wage cap does not have anywhere near the same justification.

I'll turn it around -- what is the legal justification for such a wage cap?

Senescent Dawn: I would argue that adopting new regulations from the ground up would be more productive and more impactful long-term than a crude and overt attempt to directly prevent him from making his income.

Like what?

Can a person be CEO of more than one publicly-traded company?

Easy to say when your vase salary is $174,000 plus all you can steal.

DamnYankees: Here's a hypothetical question to people who think there should be no limits on how much money someone should make:

Suppose a person is born with incredible brains, charisma, and passion. They turn into the single greatest entrepreneur in history. This person can make anyone buy anything for any price - he is an absolute master at making you want what he has. He makes people want to give him money. There's no fraud, no deception - he's just an amazing, amazing salesman. He's so good, in fact, that he makes an insane amount of money - he makes 10 billion dollars a year by age 25 and just keeps making more and more and more. Eventually, this one person alone accounts for, say, 25% of all the wealth in the country.

Should we let this happen? This is a hypothetical, so don't come to me with "this would never happen" - I'm presenting you with this situation. Should we let this occur?

If you consider Warren Buffet, I'd say that scenario would never go that far. Because of the way things work (which are beyond me), there's like a de facto limit. Before the economy tanked, Buffet had to find ways to spend his money because he had too much.

Someone who understands Econ better could give you a more coherent explanation. But basically, I think at some point the system prevents growth.

Senescent Dawn: That any corporation with its headquarters in the U.S. has a wage cap? Or that no companies are allowed to do business in this country until they adopt wage controls? I'm sure that will do WONDERS for our outsourcing problem.

Any US citizen has a wage cap. Abroad or here. Any non-foreign citizen working here also has to accept the wage controls.

KaponoFor3: Aye comrade, everyone should make equal amounts of money regardless of skill! To each according to need, from each according to ability

Go back to Ohio, Joe the Plumber. Just because you can't understand the difference between a wage maximum and paying everyone the same wage, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.