... of the money a company makes - in retrospect, it probably would have been better to say "all" but that's quibbling over semantics. Or the rantings of an English major I stand by what I said. Twist it how you want.
OK. My wife's company was purchased 10 years ago and was bringing in $1-2 M a year in revenue. 8 years after the now CEO purchased it, he expanded it to about $35 M. he brought in a CFO and hopes to grow it to $75 M. What, in your mind, should everyone be making? If the CEO is making a couple million a year, is that beyond his worth? If the CFO's actions bring in an additional $45 Million, what should his compensation be in your mind? You see the bad apples on TV news. There are hundreds of small/mid-size companies where the compensation is worth it.
Good post. My father took a business in the red and sold it in 2000 for about $45mil 20yrs later. His yearly compensation topped out at about $200k (I believe), but he did retain a large % of ownership in the company. When it sold, he got a big payout. Conversely, he consulted other businesses after his sale for several years, some of which were former competitors. One particular account shocked my father: the company was doing about half the revenue as my father's business did at the time its sale, but the CEO was paying himself over $5ook/yr. My dad thought that was unconscionable, but I guess he simply had a different set of priorities.
Escobar being a good guy was not the intention of the paragraph. I wasnt attempting to elevate Escobar but to denigrate corporate America.
And I think here is where most of us focus our grievances. We are not criticizing medium sized companies that pay their CEOs a few millions and that take their companies to newer levels. We criticize the Walmarts and the McDonalds and the JP Morgans of the world that rely on the unholy trinity of lobbying, cheap labor and lack of social responsibility to boost their profits (and hence their paychecks) while undermining the core of the American economy. Giant corporations should not exist or at the very least they should be required to pay fair wages and higher taxes in exchange for access to the resources that this country offers them.
And then you ask why they keep money in other countries? Do you get the circular nature of your argument yet?
Egg, of an animal that was not a chicken Not sure I would consider Ireland and Holland tax havens, rather the US and UK tend to be tax hogs.
Resident citizens & expat citizens, then. Aren't many Europeans "tax exiles", taking up residency in other countries to avoid taxes on resident citizens within their own countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_exile
Can you distinguish between revenue & profit? If the company grossed $2M per year, but netted $100K (5%), then grew to gross $35M, but still only netted $100K, what should the CEO earn? If it grows to $75M, but still only profits $100K, what should the new CFO earn? Are there any shareholders, who invested money? What are they entitled to? A dividend? Return on capital? If the CEO is both president & sole owner, should he be compensated with salary? Dividends/capital gains?
Presumably, though, it had an original purchase price, and a value, even when losing money. A decision to pay 15% capital gains tax, rather than 38% income tax?
Ireland is most certainly a tax haven for foreign corporations. And, U2 moved their company from Ireland to Holland, so what does that say? http://www.irishcentral.com/news/bo...be-tough-in-business-213195051-237617871.html
Unfortunately that's quite common. People, particularly those with MBA's and other, (in my experience), worthless bits of paper, seem to think they're entitled to such sums, despite the fact that all they're doing is taking over a business that somebody ELSE has started and run it, sometimes with very mixed results. The truth is that running an established business or, more accurately, maintaining an established business, often isn't that hard. Frankly, in some cases, these people are simply 'managers' rather than CEO's and almost ANYONE with a modicum of business experience could do the job. As long as you've got good people in important positions, it can be pretty easy. Now building a business... THAT can be difficult, depending on the business involved, obviously. It always makes me laugh when I see people wittering on about how they're geniuses because they've made money in the property market in Britain or the US over the past, say 20-30 years. TBH you'd have to be a complete idiot NOT to make money in that business. Like the banksters, it IS possible to lose money but you've got to be a special kind of moron. IMO a lot of the problems of banking, for example, have arisen precisely because they were paid too MUCH money. It attracted the wrong sort of person... people who were attracted to short-term profits at the expense of long-term investment and that's what caused the situation we're all in now.
Your post spoke about the companies 'boosting revenue' but not whether they made any profit. It makes a difference, y'know...
I get that, being a business owner. I don't know what her companies profit margins are, it's privately held.
Will the UK itself become a tax haven for US corporations? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-to-effectively-renounce-its-u-s-citizenship/ Pfizer paid less than 1% of its earnings in federal income taxes last year, and may reincorporate in the UK to take advantage of its new 20% tax rate, instead of paying the US 35% rate.
Puerto Rico is warmer and funnier and you don't even have to give up your citizenship.. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/puerto-rico-new-tax-haven
How much of Pfizer's earning were made with US sales? That's the amount they should be paying US tax on.