Deferred Compensation Package

Question: Tie business tax breaks to executive compensation? Was just reading about the Senate capping tax-deferred executive compensation at $1 million to pay for the new round of handouts to businesses, and came up with an interesting concept. It would seem to me that any business- big, small, incorporated or independent- at which an owner, executive or board member receives a compensation or severance package that exceeds $1 million is in no need of any additional tax breaks. Certainly, any business in this category that claims they'll have to cut jobs if the minimum wage is increased is lying; either they're swimming in cash or the executives are getting ready to bail out. Any additional tax breaks will not see their way to creating any more positions or increasing the base salary level; they'll just be funneled to those that are already millionaires. Why not pass legislation that, in addition to the proposal to cap tax-deferred earnings, would exclude any business that fits into this category from any additional tax relief or handouts?

Answer: I well understand your sentiment. JUST ASK YOUR SELF, HOW MUCH HAVE YOU GIVEN IN ACTUAL DOLLARS TO HELP A POLITICIAN ON ANY LEVEL GET INTO OFFICE IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS. If you are like most people the answer is less than 2% of our income. The people you are complaining about are the ones that put their money to work. Start small help your councilman make a better neighborhood then expand from there. You will make a big difference, join us where the tires meet the road instead of screaming from the nose bleed seats.

Question: Who thinks we can fix the economy (at least partially) by doing the following? What this economy needs more than anything else is JOBS. People need to work in order to pay their bills, or repay their debts, and if they don't have jobs they can't do that, and the economy will get worse before it gets better in that case. I think we need to create incentives for companies to hire people, or at the very least not fire them. The only way that will happen is if company executives have dis-incentives for firing employees and/or incentives for keeping and hiring them. Otherwise those executives will continue firing people while they collect massive bonuses. Here are my ideas: 1) Create a law that keeps the TOTAL COMPENSATION of the highest-paid EMPLOYEE in any company (this would include the CEO and other executives) to no more than 30 times the average total compensation of all the non-management employees in the company. In my mind, total compensation includes anything other than stock dividends, stock splits, or anything other than that which is granted to current stockholders/owners rather than employees. So things like deferred compensation, stock options, bonuses, paid country-club memberships, private use of the company jet, etc. would count toward this benchmark. This would give executives a reason to pay their employees more, as their pay would be tied back to how they are paying the front-line workers in their company. This law would include all contract, full-time, and part-time employees in any company (high-level executives usually work under a contract with their companies, essentially making them contractors) and their sub-contractors (to keep companies from farming out their work) including off-shore contractors. 2) Any company that wants to sell their goods or services in the United States must follow U.S. laws regarding wage and hour, safety, and environmental impact, even for their employees and contractors who work outside the U.S. This would reduce the advantage that comes from sending jobs off-shore and keep jobs here in America. 3) Disallow any compensation other than base salary to any executive who reduces staff in their company. If a company can't pay their front-line employees 40 or 50 thousand a year, how can they pay hundreds of thousands, or even millions, to their executives in bonuses? However, if a company increases head-count over a year, reward those executives with an extra 5% of their total compensation at the end of that year, which the company can pay in whatever way they like. 4) We've seen this "stimulus package" have little or no effect on job growth. I think maybe we need to do what FDR and Congress did in the 1930s: have the government hire people directly to perform essential public-works projects so that they work, earn money, then spend money. We have crumbling bridges and roads, and other infrastructure projects that we would benefit from long-term if we do this today. I don't love the idea of having more government employees, but I like seeing people starve even less. Needless to say, if you have ideas, let me know! Thank you for your logical and thoughtful replies.

Answer: America is burdened by tremendous trade and budget deficits. Any correction to the economy must address the transfer of wealth from America to (1) oil producing countries, and (2) manufacturing/export based economies. For the first problem: The USA must transition to a hydrogen based economy. The bridge fuel should be natural gas which is a clean, national resource. New homes should be constructed with fuel cell electrical energy as they are now doing in Japan. We also need more nuclear energy. By 2030 we should be using fuel cell technology to power our transportation systems. The infrastructure for this transition should begin now. The second problem: Nothing would stimulate the development of a manufacturing base in the USA as changes to the tax code. The USA has the highest corporate taxes of any developed country. We need to get rid of all corporate tax and all income tax with the FairTax. This would create the most amazing industrial boom in history. Next we need to set new control over our banking and financial systems. We need to discourage short term speculation and encourage long term investments. Get rid of short sales, and derivatives. Require mortgage companies to hold mortgages for 5 years before they can be resold or packaged. Stocks should not be bought and sold the same day. Health care is way too expensive in the USA. Costs must be controlled by limits on malpractice and insurance companies should be able to compete across state lines. Limit liabilities and increase competition. All citizens should be able to purchase the same insurance and enjoy the same rates as all government employees. The Federal government owns and leases millions of acres of land. To reduce the Federal deficit the government should sell more oil leases, and mineral rights to gain the maximun amount of benefit to the country. National forests should be commercialized to reduce the national debt. Where it would be advantageous to the interests of the country, we should sell government properties.