SF to Tax "Overpaid" CEOs

Activists List
#1

Did you have anything particular in mind, Richard? Certainly people can leave comments in the reader comments section on the story. I have to get my Mercury News account working again.

  I do think though that while all involuntary taxation is wrong and worthy of being opposed, I consider this particular tax a lower priority to oppose than the others on the ballot. All companies have to do to avoid it is reform excessive compensation to their CEOs, which is probably in the interests of shareholders anyway.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

#2

I agree that it is a low priority, however this is an opportunity for the
LPSF to get its name out there. If no one is talking about it, or very few,
the field is wide open. We can frame this discussion however we want. Write
letters to the editor, call in to radio shows, etc.

#3

reform excessive compensation to their CEOs, which is probably in the interests of shareholders anyway.

Why do you think that shareholders + board members are inclined to pay executives more than they need to, at their own expense?

Reasons to oppose:

(1) Setting salaries is something that owners traditionally do. Ceding this authority to the government is giving partial ownership of industry to government.

(2) Assuming top companies need top CEOs, and top $$ is needed to recruit top CEOs, capping salaries puts SF at a competitive disadvantage. We benefit from having Silicon Valley in our backyard, and should not try to undermine it.

There very well may be a systemic problem why top CEOs are overpaid (besides regulations reducing competition), but I'm not aware of what it is.

Life and Liberty,

Jeff