Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Op-Eds

News Opinion Op-Eds

Americans need to stop subsidizing CEO pay

Almost everyone knows CEO pay is out of control. It surged 16 percent at big companies last year, according to the New York Times, and the typical CEO raked in $15.1 million.

Meanwhile, the median wage continued to drop, adjusted for inflation.

What's less well-known is that you and I and other taxpayers are subsidizing this sky-high executive compensation. That's because corporations deduct it from their income taxes, causing the rest of us to pay more in taxes to make up the difference.

This tax subsidy to corporate executives from the rest of us ought to be one of the first tax expenditures to go, when and if Congress turns to reforming the tax code.

We almost got there 20 years ago. When he was campaigning for the presidency, Bill Clinton promised that if elected he'd end the deductibility of executive pay in excess of $1 million.

Once in office, though, his economic advisers urged him to modify his pledge to allow corporations to deduct executive pay in excess of $1 million if the pay was linked to corporate performance — that is, to the value of the company's shares.

(I hate to sound like a told-you-so, but I was the one adviser who wanted the new president to stick to his campaign promise without creating the pay-for-performance loophole.)

President Clinton agreed with the majority of his advisers, and a new provision was added to the Internal Revenue Code, Section 162(m), allowing corporations to deduct from their tax bills executive compensation in excess of $1 million — but only if the compensation is tied to company performance.

How has it worked out? Even Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, agrees it's been a sham: "162(m) is broken. ... It was well-intentioned. But it really hasn't worked at all. Companies have found it easy to get around the law. It has more holes than Swiss cheese. And it seems to have encouraged the options industry. These sophisticated folks are working with Swiss-watch-like devices to game this Swiss-cheese-like rule."

One such game has been to hand out performance awards on the basis of nothing more than an upward drift in the value of the stock market as a whole, over which the executives played no role other than watch as their company's stock price rose along with that of almost every other company.

There's no reason top executives should get a tax subsidy from the rest of us simply because the entire stock market has done well. Logically, a company's share price — and any executive performance tied to it — should be measured only relative to a broad index of the market as a whole.

Another game has been to back-date executive stock options to match past dips in the companies' share price, thereby exaggerating the subsequent upswing and creating fatter "performance" bonuses.

Officially, companies are required to report all options issuances within two days of the date of issue. Unofficially, companies — and their executives — still have huge discretion over when they issue options, aided by a small industry of compensation experts and accountants.

A third game has been to lowball the earnings estimates that set the initial thresholds for performance pay. Then, when the real earnings come in over those estimates (as they almost always do), companies give out fat "performance" awards.

Shareholders get taken to the cleaners by all these maneuvers. Executive pay is skyrocketing even at companies whose share prices have dropped.

But it's not only shareholders who lose. You and I and other taxpayers are also being ripped off, because this so-called "performance" pay is deducted from corporations' taxable earnings.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that from 2007 to 2010, a total of $121.5 billion in executive compensation was deducted from corporate earnings, and roughly 55 percent of this total was for performance-based compensation. Given all the games, it's likely much of this "performance" was baloney.

So what's the answer? As I argued 20 years ago, keep the pay cap at $1 million and get rid of the performance-pay loophole. Corporations shouldn't be able to deduct executive pay in excess of $1 million, period.

Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He blogs at http://www.robertreich.org.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Could a state property tax cap stimulate Baltimore's economy?

    Could a state property tax cap stimulate Baltimore's economy?

    When Gov. Larry Hogan announced his rejection of the Red Line, an east-west rail transit line in Baltimore City, he seemed to derail the high hopes of Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and many other supporters of the $2.9 billion project. "He canceled a project," lamented the mayor, "that would have...

  • Urban America should give up on the Democrats

    Urban America should give up on the Democrats

    In my lifetime (I was born in 1950), the Democrats have had an extraordinary opportunity to run some of America's largest cities and apply their brand of liberal policies to the social and economic problems that have plagued them. Look at the history in just eight of these cities, according to...

  • Inequality of opportunity in the U.S.A.

    Inequality of opportunity in the U.S.A.

    We like to tell ourselves stories about the virtues of America, particularly as Independence Day rolls around each year. There is, perhaps, no better example than the story we tell our children that no matter your race, gender or wealth, in America you can become anything you want to be. This particular...

  • The burdens of being black

    The burdens of being black

    I was born human more than a half century ago but also birthed with the burden of being black. I discovered racial discrimination early in life. I grew up among the black poor in Hartford, where a pattern of housing segregation prevailed. One city, but separated North end and South end on the basis...

  • Partnerships improve health care in Maryland

    Partnerships improve health care in Maryland

    For decades, as health care costs continued to spiral upward and patients were stymied by an increasingly fragmented health care system, policy leaders, politicians and front-line caregivers strained to find a better way to care for people.

  • The deep roots of housing bias

    The deep roots of housing bias

    The Supreme Court's ruling last week that factors other than intentional racial discrimination can be considered in determining whether policies promulgated by government or private entities violate the 1968 Fair Housing Act is simply a reminder that the century-long struggle to end such practices...

Comments
Loading

73°