Are President Obama's proposed salary restrictions for banking executives a good idea for all of Corporate America?

  • The world would be a better place without corporate greed, so salary restrictions are a good idea.

    Having no salary restrictions invites executives to use shrewd and dishonest means to get greater profits and, hence, more benefits. It was this type of investment that caused the financial crisis last decade, such as the made up balance sheets of Enron, and the high speculative risk brought on through the housing crisis.

    Posted by: SoWinif
  • Yes, because all people with that much power should have salary restrictions.

    I think it is a great idea. This will keep a check and balance for stockholders, as well as the average worker. Wages are so unfair in this world, right now, and administration, regardless if it's banking or not, makes way too much money, compared to the average person struggling to get by. If they whine, OK, tell them to come walk a week in my shoes, constantly worrying about the future of my family and quality of life. I will gladly walk in theirs, and see if they can prove that they deserve all the money they get.

    Posted by: PointlessElbert47
  • Banking executives make an astounding amount of money, widening the gap between the rich and poor.

    I believe banking executives need some salary restrictions, as the gap between the rich and middle class is becoming insurmountable. While I support opportunities and freedom for financial success in America, it concerns me that some make gains, with little regard to ethics or the effects on fellow citizens.

    Posted by: WideHung32
  • President Obama's proposed salary restrictions for banking executives is a good idea because obviously the banks do not know where to set the limit on this.

    It was completely unfair when the banks received bailout money from the government and then turned it around and used it as bonuses for the CEOs and other top bankers. It is obvious that banks do not know how to set the limits on salaries and when a company is in trouble then something has to give.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • Yes, because, at some point, there needs to be a cap on the exorbitant salaries of CEOS, and starting with banking execs is a good beginning.

    Most hard working Americans are sick of hearing about the exorbitant salaries and perks of corporate America. They are way out of line with the comparatively meager wages of the average worker that keeps the company running. Putting restrictions on banking executives should just be the beginning step, and should eventually spread to all of corporate America.

    Posted by: NettN355
  • Yes, it's about time someone stopped the raping of America's banking system.

    Someone needed to step up and regulate the banking system. Just like when Ma Bell was regulated in the seventies. Banking needed to be regulated in the year 2010. Capping bank executives salaries should put a stop to the large corporate banks stringing the public along, and ripping off the American system of banking.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • Executives in corporate America have become so high paid that it is obscene; it should be possible to pay them high enough salaries without allowing them to amass outrageous fortunes.

    Corporate executives in America have become so rich that it is actually a problem. It's one thing to be rich. Everyone pretty much expects the CEO of a corporation to make quite a bit more than the new guy in the mailroom.

    It's one thing for the CEO to make ten times what the mail room guy does. But a hundred times? A thousand times?

    Isn't it more likely that people in positions of power of major companies are just fattening their own wallets because they can? Is it really worth millions of dollars for some guy in a suit to sit at a desk and raise his own pay over and over again at the expense of their workers, their customers, and even the economic health and infrastructure of their own companies?

    It would be nice if the government didn't need to step in and do something about it. But these guys have proven that they will do whatever they can get away with, for as long as they can get away with it, until someone stops them.

    Posted by: tagapps
  • I think it is a good idea because they have proved that they will take advantage of their situation if they can.

    The executives of some companies have taken bonuses even though their companies have performed poorly. Bonuses should not be a given. They should be given for excellent performance. Why didn't my investment company call me to tell me about the impending financial crisis? I really don't think that they didn't know, I just think that they chose not to tell me.

    Posted by: elguisante2
  • Executive salary restrictions are a bad idea, because corporations need to be able to attract talent.

    It is true that the banking industry deserves more regulation and scrutiny after trashing the American economy again, like they did prior to the Depression. However, restricting the salaries of the executives is not the way to do it. These corporations need to thrive and be able to attract and compensate good talent. Not all the executives are guilty. The industry needs love and supervision, not a stranglehold.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • The federal government should not get involved in regulating what private businesses pay their employees.

    There is no good justification for allowing the federal government to regulate what companies pay their employees. This sounds an awful lot like the old communist regime strategy in the Soviet Union, which said to people that they would be allowed to have certain things, only if the government said so. In a free market, where businesses are allowed to operate for profit and for public benefit, the government does not belong mixed up in regulations about employee payment or benefits.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • No, the government should not mandate salaries to that extent, but they should push for greater disclosure.

    The banking executives, and Obama's restrictions on their salaries, were a special case. They were receiving public money after all, and the government had a right to know how it was being spent. This would be overreach, if it were expanded to other industries, and I would think unconstitutional. A better approach would be a push for greater shareholder rights and a more honest accounting of how much executives are being paid.

    Posted by: tagpixels
  • Any regulations which target a specific industry and limit compensation are an abuse of governmental power and will hurt business.

    It's a common reaction to economic misfortune to blame those who profit from it. This is a classic case of correlation and causality not being well linked. Markets don't fail because executives profit from them. Markets fail because executive compensation is not consistently linked to performance. Just limiting pay won't be sufficient, it singles out one industry and expands regulatory power into the private sphere in a new and dangerous way, and corporate boards will just get around it through options and other perks. Money will always find it's way to the top. The only options are to structure it better or to tax it.

    Posted by: CarMj
  • President Obama is overstepping his political power in regards to wanting to restrict banking executive's salary.

    Any institution that is not government owned, can pay their employees whatever it sees fit. The government has no right whatsoever to tell a company what it can or can't do in this situation. Allowing anyone in the government, especially the president, to dictate those kinds of policies to private companies is taking this country farther away from Democracy.

    Posted by: P0nyCare
  • Government proposed salary restrictions are not a good idea for all of corporate America.

    America is the land of opportunity. The government has no right to set restrictions on that opportunity. Remember, the government is supposed to work for the American citizens not the other way around. If you take away or regulate the ability to succeed then America is no better then some of the other countries in this world. Regulating or restricting the amount of money an individual can make is a violation of the rights of the American people. We all are guaranteed the right to capitalism by the United States Constitution! The government should not have the ability to restrict or revoke that right in any way.

    Posted by: w00tboycomic
  • Salary restrictions are unfair because in a free, capitalist country, people should be able to earn whatever they are capable of.

    I believe that putting restrictions on the incomes of individuals, regardless of their field, is unfair and the first step in creating a communist society. If someone is educated, experienced and talented in their field it is unfair to restrict what kind of an income they can receive. If we begin regulating incomes in any sector, it sends a message that we want people to be successful, but only to a degree. If someone works hard and achieves a high status position in a company, they deserve to make a higher income. It is not fair to take that success away from anyone.

    Posted by: ladonnas02

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.