Quick Links:

Freeloading At The Boardroom Trough

by: TwoPuttTommy

Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 11:41:55 AM CDT


It's on the front page of today's Strib

Executive perks are piling up
There's chauffeuring, country club memberships and more.

By CHRIS SERRES and PATRICK KENNEDY, Star Tribune staff writers
Last update: April 2, 2011 - 11:23 PM

At Hormel Foods Corp., top executives looking for a scenic getaway can relax at a company-owned condo in Vail, Colo. On the way, they can grab a cocktail at an airport lounge where the Austin-based food maker takes care of the membership dues.

At Ameriprise Financial Corp., Chief Executive Jim Cracchiolo receives free chauffeur service, a home security system, personal use of a corporate aircraft and a $35,000 "executive perquisites allowance" -- on top of his $18 million in salary and stock options.

And at 3M Co., CEO George Buckley last year received $632,673 in total perks, nearly double his previous year's take. That included $167,574 in security services.

Executive perks have not just survived the worst economic downturn in five decades. They are flourishing.

Let's look at that last line again:  "Executive perks have not just survived the worst economic downturn in five decades. They are flourishing."

And those perks are going to guys in the Boardroom who really aren't suffering financially during this economic downturn, such as Best Buy's Brian Dunn, who's  compensation has gone up the last three years.

In the Strib's Opinion section is "commentary" from Jason Lewis, "Minnesota's Mr. RightWingNut" - a proud defender of the GOP's Boardroom Base :

The rich pay the taxes -- that's a fact
The data is right there in the state's biennial Tax Incidence Study.

By JASON LEWIS
Last update: April 2, 2011 - 7:21 PM

Every two years the department releases its study, ostensibly designed to show the state's overall tax burden. And every two years, the tax-and-spend crowd proclaims that the rich are getting off easy.

Gov. Mark Dayton and his fellow "progressives" have been busy pointing to the study in support of their $3 billion tax hike on the state's top 5 percent of income earners.
.
.
The left cites the study's findings on taxes as a percent of income as a measure of tax fairness.

Thus, should your household income go up, why, so should your taxes, lest the burden of government fall disproportionately on those left behind. Since sales and property taxes don't rise with earnings, income taxes must be raised to offset this windfall for the "fortunate few."

Lewis is full of BS - that's "B" as in "bull" and "S" as in (stuff) - that Tax Incidence study he's referring to shows that as income for the very well compensated (i.e., the GOP's Boardroom Base) goes way up, the percentage of income taxed for all taxes goes down.

Then, in that front page story is this:

Executives worried about the tax bite of these corporate goodies can often rest easy. The reason: Corporate boards often reimburse senior managers for taxes owed on fringe benefits -- essentially a "perk on a perk."

Now THAT is a "windfall" - a Boardroom Perk where the corporation not on only tosses some extra dough at the executive - it picks up the tax tab, too!

That's the kind of BS that's just swell in Kochzellerstan, where today's GOP protects the Boardroom at the expense of everybody else.

TwoPuttTommy :: Freeloading At The Boardroom Trough
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Tweet This!
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

So what? (0.00 / 0)
I'm quoting Lewis, "So what?" That's his response to rich people paying less than anyone else. He compares it the government to a business providing a service. Rich people do of course use more, but their apologists apparently feel though oughtn't have to pay for it. Just so I'm not taking it out of context,

But can you imagine any business entity charging you a fee based on your salary and not on what they actually provide? It is quite true that the wealthy have more disposable income, but then again, it's also quite true they pay a smaller portion of their income for everyday living expenses as well.

So what?



a challenge (0.00 / 0)
I'd love to have someone break down how much more you think people with high incomes use of government expenditures than everyone else.  The biggest items in the budget are defense and the entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid) and they don't seem to be things which the rich use more of than everyone else.  They aren't able to use up more of the rods by driving more car than one at a time and they pay more gasoline tax and property tax for the additional gas for their SUVs and large houses.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you think it's matter of morality to charge the wealthy more in taxes, as they don't deserve their wealth.  You seem shocked at the benefits that the CEO's get, but you don't seem to question in your head whether or not they earned it based upon their value to the company.  It's funny to list off the benefits they enjoy, but wouldn't they demand more money if the benefits were lower?


[ Parent ]
"Correct me if I'm wrong,..." (0.00 / 0)
You're wrong.

And I had a funny feeling you'd be the first to defend the GOP's Boardroom Base, AO.

Here's something I rarely see GOPers acknowledging:  when you have a guy like "Billion Dollar" Bill McGuire taking home all that dough from the Corporate Treasury, who's money is he taking?

The short answer:  the stockholders.

From that Strib link:

The company told the Star Tribune this week that the board of directors had to approve the selected dates and that the practice was halted in 2005.

Still, some securities lawyers say, such practices may violate securities laws, because they allow insiders to benefit from knowledge not available to other shareholders.

"Dollar Bill" has made lots of news with cash-and-stock paydays that have topped $100 million in recent years -- and he's still sitting atop stock options valued at $1.6 billion. (emphasis added)

Gentle Readers, Today's Corporate Robber Barons are fleecing their stockholders and screwing your average income (read="Middle Class") taxpayers - and bootlickers like AO will defend them all day long.

Which, of course, is but one reason why GOP now stands for Greed Over Principles.

As far as other stupid questions AO asks but is either too dumb to know the answer to - or, so incredibly dishonest that he knows the answer but asks the question annyway - let's look at this statement by AO:

The biggest items in the budget are defense and the entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid) and they don't seem to be things which the rich use more of than everyone else.

Complete and total BS - that's "B" as in "bull" and "S" as in "(stuff)."

One of the main purposes - although you rarely hear GOPers admit it - for the US Military is to ensure safe and predicable international commerce.  Why do we have a "Seven Seas" Navy?  

One reason, these days, is so Wal-Mart can get raw materials to China, and cheap finished goods from China to the nearest Wal-Mart store.

But bootlickers like AO don't feel The Walton Family should pay their fair share of taxes to ensure their company's business model works as well as it does.

Greed Over Principles, Gentle Readers - that's what AO defends; it's what the GOP defends.

The GOP proects the Boardroom at the expense of everyone else.

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"


[ Parent ]
twoputt: (0.00 / 0)
The shareholders of UnitedHealthGroup are the ones with ultimate authority over Bill's compensation.  It may be a bad deal for the shareholders, but you don't have to buy stock in UnitedHealthGroup if you don't want to.  Obviously the insider trading allegations are different, and need to be looked at further, but it's not as if Bill stole from the company.  These options he bought aren't worth much if the stock price goes down, so he's still got to earn his money.  

This isn't world war II, ships aren't being attacked on their way from China to the US.  The majority of defense spending is happening in the middle east.  Have you seen a lot of made in Iraq or made in Afghanistan stickers on your wal-mart products?  Besides, even if we spent more to ensure the china-u.s. shipping lanes stayed open, we all benefit from the lower prices, not just the retailers.


[ Parent ]
damn, you're dumb. Or, incredibly dishonest. (0.00 / 0)
"Obviously the insider trading allegations are different, and need to be looked at further,..."

Make up your mind, AO.  Either you want to increase oversight, or you want to reduce the size of government.

Obviously, you want the latter, because it allows your Boardroom Base to CHEAT.

"These options he bought aren't worth much..."

Damn, your dumb.  Or, incredibly dishonest.

McGuire didn't "buy" them; that most rarified union the world has ever known - corporate Boards of Directors - GAVE them to him.

Why?  So that the Boards McGuire sat on would allow THEM to loot their corporate treasury, er, 'scuse me, "return the favor."

"This isn't world war II, ships aren't being attacked on their way from China to the US."

One out of two, AO - it ISN'T world war II (one). As far as two goes:

Damn, your dumb.  Or, incredibly dishonest.

Google "Piracy somalia" or "piracy south china sea" and get back to me, pal.

All in all, and once again, AO - you're today's example that reasonable people shoudn't believe anything a GOPer says.

Because either they're just (cheney)in' dumb, or they're incredibly dishonest.

With you, I'd say both.



"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"


[ Parent ]
cheat? (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't talking about increasing oversight, I was trying to respond to your specific example about Bill McGuire which I am not an expert in.  If there was illegal insider trading being done, our justice system will deal out the punishment--we sent Martha Stewart to prison for goodness sakes!! :D

fine, he didn't buy the options--he exercised his right to obtain them as a part of his contract.  if he wouldn't have had that as part of his contract he would have been able to demand more money and then would have to buy the stock on his own.

I'm not saying that the seas are pirate free.  I'm saying that they're not nearly as dangerous as they have been and as a portion of the defense budget, the money spent ensuring shipping from China to the US is pretty small.  Furthermore, the benefits of open shipping lanes is received by the American public at large through the lower prices for goods, not just by the retailers.


[ Parent ]
Value (0.00 / 0)
If you look at the escalation in the growth of CEO pay over the last three decades versus the largely stagnant pay for everyone else, do you ever question whether or not CEOs really deserve that much?  Are we to believe that all the growth in the economy over that time is based solely on the incredible wisdom of CEOs?

[ Parent ]
Yes, they're worth it. (0.00 / 0)
There is more competition for the high performing CEOs today than there was 30 years ago.  If you don't think they're worth it, you're free to start or buy your own company and hire a cheaper CEO.

[ Parent ]
The problem with that is... (0.00 / 0)
What's the evidence that there's "more competition" today than before at a level that justifies current levels of executive compensation?  Sure, there's more international movement among senior executives than before, but that also made the pool bigger, too.

And, for that matter, where's the evidence that CEO performance has risen enough to justify those gains?  CEO compensation has grown faster than corporate profits, faster than productivity, faster than just about any measure of business performance out there.

It just seems to me that the notion that CEOs and other senior-level executives are the ones responsible for all good to come out of business the last 30 years (and as such, it's perfectly OK for them to reap all the gains) is frankly absurd.


[ Parent ]
the answer is right in front of you (0.00 / 0)
The proof of the greater competition is the higher pay.  In order to believe that they're not worth it, you have to believe the conspiracy that the owners are willing to give up more of their own money than they have to because they like the CEO, even if he/she doesn't deserve it.

The great part about this debate is that it happens within every company all of the time, rather than being settled through some piece of legislation.  You might be able to prove that a particular CEO wasn't worth his pay, but if the owners keep wanting to pay that CEO more than they're worth, we merely have to watch the owners fail from afar.


[ Parent ]
damn, you're dumb. Or, incredibly dishonest. (0.00 / 0)
"The proof of the greater competition is the higher pay. "

ROFLOL!!!

With you, AO - I'm going to say you're both.

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"


[ Parent ]
prove me wrong (0.00 / 0)
If there wasn't greater competition for CEOs today, the pay would not be more.

[ Parent ]
damn, you're dumb. Or, incredibly dishonest. (0.00 / 0)
"...greater competition for CEO's today..."

Complete BS.

For instance, while you GOPers were cheering while Sherson bought Lehman to get acquired by Hutton to be merged with AmEx to be bought out by CityGroup....

... a WHOLE BUNCH of CEO positions were eliminated.

There's plenty of talented people out there, and not nearly as many slots as GOPers strive to take us to a "Rollerball" world economy.

Go google "mergers and acquisitions" and then get pack to me, pal.



"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"


[ Parent ]
But... (0.00 / 0)
... greater competition doesn't always lead to higher pay.  Our manufacturing sector has been exposed to greater competition and wages there have gone down and jobs eliminated.

Let's also discuss the reality that shareholders don't really have a whole lot of say over executive compensation.  The rules of corporate governance give most of the power to the hand-picked board, which is made up of senior executives from other companies who want the same sort of packages they're voting on as board members.  And the number of major companies where a shareholder revolt has caused major changes in leadership or compensation is pretty darn small over the years.  About the best that has occurred in most companies are the non-binding "say on pay" votes.


[ Parent ]
different competition (0.00 / 0)
I'm referring to competition between firms for a small number of ceos, not competition among manufacturers who have found ways to build things more efficiently with less labor.

The board is elected by the shareholders.  A majority of shareholders will always be able to control the CEOs pay.  


[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
The number of publicly-traded companies is declining -- down some 20% over the last 15 years.  Shouldn't there be some excess CEO capacity out there?

Regarding governance, your statements are true in the business school textbook version.  In reality, the shareholders don't control the board, though.  Most corporate governance moders don't allow the shareholders to organize and insert their own candidates into board elections -- they have to pick from candidates vetted by the current board.  Can you name some prominent U.S. shareholder revolts that forced changes in a CEOs pay?


[ Parent ]
revolt not supported (0.00 / 0)
We haven't seen the shareholder revolts because there simply isn't that sort of support for the revolt.  I'm sure you think that CEO pay is a big issue, but the majority of shareholders in most companies don't see it that way.

[ Parent ]
google mergers and acquisitions? (0.00 / 0)
Wouldn't a CEO of a company that has acquired other companies be paid more than the CEOs of those companies if they remained separate?  Doesn't the modern CEO have a more diverse global marketplace to deal with as compared to the 1970 CEO?

As I have said before, it makes sense to me why the modern CEO is paid more than 1970s CEO, but my judgment of their value isn't worth squat unless I'm an owner of the company.


damn, you're dumb. Or, incredibly dishonest. (0.00 / 0)
You claim to be a conservative, but:  you ignore the law of supply & demand.

With you, I'm going with "both."

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"


[ Parent ]
twoputt: (0.00 / 0)
Which is fine if you believe that the role of CEO hasn't changed over the years.  You may think there is a wide supply of qualified CEOs out there willing to work for less, but the market forces say otherwise.

[ Parent ]
damn, you're dumb. Or, incredibly dishonest. (0.00 / 0)
"...but the market forces say otherwise."

Yeah, "right."

You must of not have understood the part where I talked earlier about the most rarified of all unions, the incestuous brotherhood of boardroom thieves.

Or, you're incredibly dishonest.

I'm going with "both."

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"


[ Parent ]
twoputt: (0.00 / 0)
How incredible these thieves must be to steal despite being elected by shareholders and having every single dime reported to the public.  

Here are a couple of solutions for you:
1: invest in a company that pays hires cheaper CEOs
2: sit and hope that the company that paid a lot for their CEO fails


[ Parent ]
Books AO Never Read (0.00 / 0)
"The Smartest Guys In The Room" - Enron

"Barbarians At The Gate" - RJR Nabisco

"Liar's Poker" - Salomon Bros.

And that's just for starters....

Damn, AO is dumb.  Or, incredibly dishonest.

I think I'll go with "both."

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"


[ Parent ]
unrelated (0.00 / 0)
Did Enron and Nabisco have CEOs whose compensation wasn't disclosed?  Do you think that executive pay was what brought Enron down?

[ Parent ]
Do You Own Stocks? (0.00 / 0)
Fund managers run the funds that own the majority of stocks in corporations.  Fund managers are wealthy and have no reason not to support others in their "class", such as CEOs and Board members (usually CEOs of other corporations), and many reasons to support them.  The individual who buys into those funds has no say.

[ Parent ]
your logic escapes you (0.00 / 0)
Fund managers aren't focused on supporting their "class", they're trying to make money.  If paying the CEO less gets them more money, they'd advocate for less pay.

[ Parent ]
Let's Review: (0.00 / 0)
GOPers say:

"we've all suffered during this economic downturn, we can't raise taxes on anyone."

Complete BS.

As this post, and many more like it, demonstrate:  the GOP's Boardroom Base has done just fine.

Which demonstrates reasonable people simply cannot reasonably believe what GOPers say.

GOPers stapled tea bags to their hats, carrying signs that said: "Taxed Enough Already."

Complete BS.

From the story quoted in the post:

Executives worried about the tax bite of these corporate goodies can often rest easy. The reason: Corporate boards often reimburse senior managers for taxes owed on fringe benefits -- essentially a "perk on a perk."

The GOP's Boardroom Base is NOT "taxed enough already" - they're getting reimbursed for taxable events that those NOT in the GOP's Boardroom Base aren't - and that's just fine with bootlickers like AO.

GOPers are always claiming that they want to shrink the size of government - which means that there will be LESS oversight on a Boardroom Base that has demonstrated over and Over and OVER that it is perfectly willing to CHEAT.

So what you have is bootlickers like AO wanting to give the greenlight to MORE corporate cheating.

GOPers are always saying they believe in competition - except they sat and  cheered while Sherson bought Lehman to get acquired by Hutton to be merged with AmEx to be bought out by CityGroup....

...and Mobile and Exxon became MobileExxon...

...and on and On and ON....

GOPers are always saying they believe in the law of supply and demand - EXCEPT when it comes to executive compensation.  I don't know what color the sky is on Planet Denial - where bootlickers like AO live - but here on terra firma, it's blue.

GOPers are doing their damndest to bust unions - EXCEPT for busting the most rarified of all unions, the incestuous brotherhood of boardroom thieves - i.e., the GOP's Boardroom Base.

It's an acknowledged fact that the GOP's Boardroom Base does NOT pay the same percentage of their income for all taxes as the Middle Class does - and bootlickers like AO want to keep it that way.

Reasonable people cannot reasonably believe what GOPers say, and GOP now stands for Greed Over Principles.

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"


that's quite an assortment of talking points! (0.00 / 0)
You're all over the place, so let me try to diagnose the root of it all.

It's not that we couldn't tax the wealthy or middle class more.  We certainly could.  They wouldn't starve or become homeless.  What we're saying is that we shouldn't.  You may think it's morally wrong to take money away from meals on wheels or welfare, but economically, that money is better off in the hands of someone with a profit motive.

On the issue of CEO pay, you can bust up any boardroom by buying the company, or by convincing everyone to take their investments elsewhere.  This isn't a matter of moving to a different country or state if you don't like GOP reforms, this is a matter of simply moving to another company if you don't like a particular one like Hormel.


[ Parent ]
James Cracchiolo earned his $20m (0.00 / 0)
During 2009, AMP's stock went from 24 to 41; the company's market capitalization nearly doubled, adding more than $4 billion to shareholder wealth.

Paying Cracchiolo $20m may well have been money well spent.


Whether the money was well spent is debatable.... (0.00 / 0)
..what isn't is the fact that the average employee in AMP pays a greater percentage of income on taxes than the guy that made $20 million.

Today's GOP says that "we all are suffering" - which is BS -  and the guys in the Boardroom can't afford to pay the same effective rate as the average employee.

That too is complete BS.

They can afford to pay more, so they pay at the same rate as the average employee.

In the original post, I linked to the Tax Incidence Study which clearly shows that as income for the very well compensated (i.e., the GOP's Boardroom Base) goes way up, the percentage of income taxed for all taxes goes down.

But today's GOP would rather make sure that those that need help don't than tax their Boardroom Base at the same rate as everyone else.

Which only goes to show, once again, that today GOP stands for Greed Over Principles.

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"


[ Parent ]
Mitt Romney is not a good, righteous person (dan.burns)
Walker goes after Wisconsin deer hunters (dan.burns)
My candidate calls out Matt Dean (dan.burns)
Kurt Bills win MNGOP Senate endorsement (ericf)
ALEC going after state AGS (ericf)
House votes to eliminate detailed census (dan.burns)
Preying on the poor (dan.burns)
Most endangered U.S. rivers 2012 (dan.burns)
Ten inspector general posts are vacant (dan.burns)
More on Europe's woes (dan.burns)
Hottest year in United States .... ever (ericf)
House GOP trying to stop military use of biofuels (ericf)
(view all recent)



Liberal Blog Network
Agonist
All Spin Zone
AlterNet
AMERICAblog
American Street
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
BartCop
Blogging of the Pres
BlogACTIVE
Bluegrass Report
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass. Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Bob Geiger
Booman
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Burnt Orange Report
Capitol Annex
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
Cliff Schecter
Confined Space
Corrente
Crooks and Liars
culture kitchen
Cursor
Daily Kos
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribus Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
Green Mountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making Politics Fun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns & Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
Mahablog
Majikthise
Make Them Accountable
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MN Campaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
MyDD
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
Newshoggers
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
OpenLeft
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
People's Rep. of Seabrook
PinkDome
Politics1
Political Animal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Saterical Political Report
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Skippy
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
Tapped
Taylor Marsh
Tattered Coat
Texas Kaos
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Reaction
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
War and Piece
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

 Joe Bodell




Hate ads? Make them go away -- Subscribe to MPP!

Change.org|Start Petition







MN-PLAN Ads

Blog Ads




Privacy Policy
Powered by: SoapBlox