Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
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
  • Why are Americans so angry and divided?
    Why are Americans so angry and divided?

    It's no coincidence that we are experiencing both polarization and income inequality not seen since the 1920s

  • Bring back TTS, Kindle

    Amazon's Kindle is common enough in American life to be "the Official E-reader of the National PTA." But it could enrich the lives of many more people if recent E Ink models weren't missing text to speech (TTS) technology. TTS costs next to nothing and was available in earlier Kindles, starting...

  • Bring back TTS, Kindle
    Bring back TTS, Kindle

    Amazon's Kindle is common enough in American life to be "the Official E-reader of the National PTA." But it could enrich the lives of many more people if recent E Ink models weren't missing text to speech (TTS) technology. TTS costs next to nothing and was available in earlier Kindles, starting...

  • Reversing the overdose epidemic
    Reversing the overdose epidemic

    We commend Maryland officials for highlighting the serious health crisis that heroin use poses for all Marylanders and promising immediate action to respond to our state's overdose epidemic. Now is the time to invest wisely in the health care strategies that will prevent and treat opiate and...

  • When Public Works doesn't work
    When Public Works doesn't work

    For eight days, I had the distinct pleasure of no running water in my house. I tried defrosting pipes with the help of friendly neighbors and a plumber, only to find that my external water meter was cracked and the city's services would be required to fix it. I consider myself a fairly tolerant...

  • No evidence paid sick days hurt business
    No evidence paid sick days hurt business

    As the campaign for paid sick days gains national attention and public support, the business lobby continues to forecast doomsday scenarios should the Maryland Healthy Working Families Act become law. This opposition is not based, however, on any actual evidence emerging from cities and...

  • Delay college in favor of service commitment for teens
    Delay college in favor of service commitment for teens

    President Barack Obama has suggested giving young people two free years of community college in hope that this will translate into employable skills. If our politicians really wanted to address the problem of offering young people more opportunities, than they should consider this:

  • What's in her shopping bag?
    What's in her shopping bag?

    "Never marry a politician or a football coach," begins a bit of wisdom that came my way once. "Not if you ever want to see your husband."

Comments
Loading