Abigail Disney’s new crusade: Fixing the CEO-to-worker pay gap

this one is too good to pass up. a Disney grand-daughter supports this bill.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90453156...worker-pay-gap

A California bill that would increase taxes on companies proportional to the pay gap between the CEO and employees has passed its first committee hearing on Wednesday, meaning it will go to the California Senate for a vote on January 31, reports Fox Business.

Under the bill’s proposed tax rules, companies that make over $10 million in taxable income in the state would be liable for higher tax rates based on the pay disparity between the company’s regular employees and its CEO. As Fox Business points out, “The bigger the gap, the bigger the tax increase.”

The bill has found a big-name ally: Abigail Disney, granddaughter of Roy Disney. Disney has frequently criticized the disparity between Disney CEO Bob Iger’s pay and the average pay a Disney employee makes. This bill would make closing that pay gap more attractive to large companies—or at the very least help ensure the public makes more tax income from enormous CEO pay packages.

As Disney told lawmakers on Wednesday: “At the happiest place on Earth, they are paid so poorly that they rely on food banks, sleep in cars, or live so close to the bone that even a small problem could send them into a death spiral.”

I haven't read the bill but my guess it drives jobs out of the state and encourages Disney to convert employees to contractors.

The Disney dream. Complete with talking cartoon animals that don't eat each other like they do in natures.

Socialist state of kalifornia is anti-business - and will drive all the money-generating taxpaying entities out of the state.

And be left with only their hollywood minions and illegals and homeless to tax for their billions in revenue needed for socidalism.
It is a scheme - they are undermining the foundations of economics in kalifornia - more power to them.

Let all the businesses move the hell out of the crazy state of socialist kalifornia.

Abigail is one of the leaders of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of trust fund mutants who believe they should pay higher taxes, but not enough that they're willing to make voluntary contributions to the Department of the Treasury. She used to fly around on her family's Boeing 737, by herself. Which of course means she wants to clamp down on carbon emissions, or at least that was in a letter she signed.

But let her have at it. Californians should do what Californians want to do. As should Texans and Cajuns, instead of having federal politicians impose their views on the whole country.

Tiny - you post well.

And predict exactly what the Socialist kalifornia politicians want to do - inflict their socialism on the entire country.

with respect to the excessive CEO pay, how should this be handled?

would the CA tax idea work?

I can see a number of 2000 companies leaving for greener pastures.

personally, I think the CEO pay should be decided by the shareholders at large. this basically the shareholder's money the corporate board is playing with; there's no real check on how they spend on golden parachutes.

Disney to convert employees to contractors for sure

with respect to the excessive CEO pay, how should this be handled?

would the CA tax idea work?

I can see a number of 2000 companies leaving for greener pastures.

personally, I think the CEO pay should be decided by the shareholders at large. this basically the shareholder's money the corporate board is playing with; there's no real check on how they spend on golden parachutes. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I believe the Boeing CEO is getting a 63MM parachute. Outrageous.

Part of the problem is the CEO. Nobody can do the job Elon Musk does. Same with a younger Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Those guys built empires and earned their pay.

Some of these other large corporation CEOs are highly interchangeable. For a long time I worked for one of the top 10 biggest companies on the planet. We got a new CEO (from within) that said in an interview that he wasn't special - that the 6 or so other candidates were very well qualified. He lasted two years. Rumor was the operating board didn't like his lack of specialness. The next CEO was a retread from a very large bank. He lasted 5 years until certain things he did at his previous job came to light.

A lot of the latter guys just don't deserve their pay. Golf Course CEOs.

with respect to the excessive CEO pay, how should this be handled?

would the CA tax idea work?

I can see a number of 2000 companies leaving for greener pastures.

personally, I think the CEO pay should be decided by the shareholders at large. this basically the shareholder's money the corporate board is playing with; there's no real check on how they spend on golden parachutes. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Yeah, shareholders need to start exercising the rights and do something about this. They're the owners, and they have the power to prevent excessive compensation. Right now the CEO often determines who the directors will be, and then it's a case of "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", and they work together to increase their compensation.

I have no idea whether this is a good proposal, that she's making. I just don't like Abigail Disney.

I believe the Boeing CEO is getting a 63MM parachute. Outrageous.

Part of the problem is the CEO. Nobody can do the job Elon Musk does. Same with a younger Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Those guys built empires and earned their pay.

Some of these other large corporation CEOs are highly interchangeable. For a long time I worked for one of the top 10 biggest companies on the planet. We got a new CEO (from within) that said in an interview that he wasn't special - that the 6 or so other candidates were very well qualified. He lasted two years. Rumor was the operating board didn't like his lack of specialness. The next CEO was a retread from a very large bank. He lasted 5 years until certain things he did at his previous job came to light.

A lot of the latter guys just don't deserve their pay. Golf Course CEOs. Originally Posted by gnadfly

63 million parachute?? wow. totally outrageous.

Yeah, shareholders need to start exercising the rights and do something about this. They're the owners, and they have the power to prevent excessive compensation. Right now the CEO often determines who the directors will be, and then it's a case of "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", and they work together to increase their compensation.

I have no idea whether this is a good proposal, that she's making. I just don't like Abigail Disney. Originally Posted by Tiny

board directors, don't a majority of them own shares in the company they're representing? I know some of them don't have shares in the company they are representing. some of them are unknowns, but some of the others have name recognition.

CEO pay, there needs to be a law that CEO pay and golden parachutes need to be approved by shareholders.

the way i see it, there's too much leeway for the board and CEO to abuse the process.

btw, anyone know why the European CEOs pay and compensation aren't as high as American CEOs.

I'm seeing a similar situation with european doctors and american doctors on salaries.

Idiots

with respect to the excessive CEO pay, how should this be handled?

would the CA tax idea work?

I can see a number of 2000 companies leaving for greener pastures.

personally, I think the CEO pay should be decided by the shareholders at large. this basically the shareholder's money the corporate board is playing with; there's no real check on how they spend on golden parachutes. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

So does she have a point about CEO pay?

It sounds like many of you think she does.

There are many reasons why....just look at how our government helps the Stock Market and you'll see how fucked up the system is.

The Gini coefficient is getting back to 1930 levels.

The Gini coefficient is getting back to 1930 levels. Originally Posted by WTF

Ahhh, grasshopper. I try to set you on the path to Libertarian enlightenment but you come back to the same Progressive talking points.

The Gini coefficient once it's properly adjusted for transfer payments is much lower than it was in 1930. It would be great if you could click the link and read the whole article below, but anyway I'll include some excerpts.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myt...ity-1533855113

The Myth of American Inequality

America is the world’s most prosperous large country, but critics often attempt to tarnish that title by claiming income is distributed less equally in the U.S. than in other developed countries. These critics point to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which ranks the U.S. as the least equal of the seven largest developed countries. American progressives often weaponize statistics like these to urge greater redistribution. But the OECD income-distribution comparison is biased because the U.S. underreports its income transfers in comparison to other nations. When the data are adjusted to account for all government programs that transfer income, the U.S. is shown to have an income distribution that aligns closely with its peers....

But there are variations in how each nation reports income. The U.S. deviates significantly from the norm by excluding several large government transfers to low-income households. Inexplicably, the Census Bureau excludes Medicare and Medicaid, which redistribute more than $760 billion a year to the bottom 40% of American households. The data also exclude 93 other federal redistribution programs that annually transfer some $520 billion to low-income households. These include the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. States and localities directly fund another $310 billion in redistribution programs also excluded from the Census Bureau’s submission.

This means current OECD comparisons omit about $1.6 trillion in annual redistributions to low-income Americans—close to 80% of their total redistribution receipts. This significantly skews the U.S. Gini coefficient. The correct Gini should be 0.32—not 0.39. That puts the U.S. income distribution in the middle of the seven largest developed nations—the red bar on the chart.

The poorest fifth of U.S. households receive 84.2% of their disposable income from taxpayer-funded transfers, and the second quintile gets 57.8%. U.S. transfer payments constitute 28.5% of Americans’ disposable income—almost double the 15% reported by the Census Bureau. That’s a bigger share than in all large developed countries other than France, which redistributes 33.1% of its disposable income.

The U.S. also has the most progressive income taxes of its peer group. The top 10% of U.S. households earn about 33.5% of all income, but they pay 45.1% of income taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes. Their share of all income-related taxes is 1.35 times as large as their share of income. In Germany, the top 10% pay 1.07 times their share of earnings. The top 10% of French pay 1.1 times their share.


Even these numbers understate how progressive the total tax burden is in America. The U.S. has no value-added tax and collects only 35.8% of all tax revenues from non-income-tax sources, the smallest share of any OECD country. Most developed countries have large VATs and collect a far larger share of their state revenue through regressive levies.

When all transfer payments and taxes are counted, the U.S. redistributes a larger share of its disposable income than any country other than France. Relative to the share of income they earn, the share of income taxes paid by America’s high earners is greater than the share of income taxes paid by their peers in any other OECD country. The progressive dream of an America with massive income redistribution and a highly progressive tax system has already come true. To make America even more like Europe, these dreamers will have to redefine middle-income Americans as “rich” and then double their taxes.

Briefly...you link discusses progressive taxes but seems no to account for regressive taxes. I wonder why?

Care to comment on why CEO to worker pay has gotten so skewed?

Crony capitalism maybe?

Also...I can not click on the link....but was that analysis done pre or after Trump tax cuts?

Briefly...you link discusses progressive taxes but seems no to account for regressive taxes. I wonder why? Originally Posted by WTF

Because compared to other countries we have a very progressive tax system. Not only is our income tax system more progressive, but we don't have a huge regressive VAT (value added tax). Yes, U.S. sales taxes are regressive, but they're small compared to other countries' VAT's. The problem is in how the money's spent. I think you and I agree, too much goes to the military, and we'd like to see more help for poor children and single mothers. And efficiency of government programs needs to be improved across the board.

Also...I can not click on the link....but was that analysis done pre or after Trump tax cuts? Originally Posted by WTF

It was done post tax cuts, but probably using pre-tax cut data. The Trump tax cuts though were two edged. Small businessmen, and also big businessmen like Trump who have large deductions for depreciation or salaries and wages, really benefited. Other higher earners didn't get much -- for them the tax system became more progressive -- they're paying a higher % of the nation's total income tax burden than they were before.

Care to comment on why CEO to worker pay has gotten so skewed?

Crony capitalism maybe? Originally Posted by WTF

Yeah, "crony capitalism" usually refers to government playing favorites, but I think that might be a good way to describe it. Dilbert noted the same thing happens in medicine, with USA doctors receiving much higher incomes than European doctors. Free markets and competition should set the prices for CEO salaries and doctor's incomes, but they're not working. The institutions, like the pension funds and mutual funds, need to get more involved in setting executive pay. And they've got the power to do it. Some don't because if you're criticizing the CEO's pay, your analysts may not have as good of access to information. Some because they're active traders that don't stick in a stock long enough to be activists. I don't know the solution, I haven't really read or thought much about this.