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

  • Street policing doesn't belong in school
    Street policing doesn't belong in school

    In recent months, there has been a flood of video evidence of police violence in our communities. Earlier this week, a gut-wrenching video surfaced that shows a school police officer violently attacking three young girls inside one of our middle schools. The incident starts when one of the...

  • Look to animals to cure Ebola
    Look to animals to cure Ebola

    GlaxoSmithKline and Merck will test new Ebola vaccines in West Africa this month. They're racing to cure this disease that causes severe hemorrhagic fever in humans and other mammals. To date, Ebola has claimed more than 8,600 lives and infected more than 20,000 people in Sierra Leone,...

  • Why Black History Month?
    Why Black History Month?

    Every February, college professors like myself are tasked with reminding students and the general public of the significance of Black History Month. Undoubtedly, many people understand the potential value behind a designated month dedicated to this part of American history. Our country is...

  • Realizing a 'Greater' Baltimore
    Realizing a 'Greater' Baltimore

    Though people may describe the region around Baltimore City as "Greater Baltimore," area leaders — from government, business, non-profits and academia — could do more to fully embrace that term and develop the potential it implies. Doing so is a critical component for the...

  • Exercise: find the time for it
    Exercise: find the time for it

    The early-morning holiday shoppers of last month have been replaced at the mall by early-morning walkers, some of whom have begun new exercise regimens for the new year.

  • Medicare 'quality indicators' diverge from quality care
    Medicare 'quality indicators' diverge from quality care

    Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell announced this week that, through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicare would be taking drastic steps to assure that doctors are paid not for visits and procedures, but rather for the value of their work. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid...

  • Googling America's sex life
    Googling America's sex life

    Google knows my dress size and that I wear flats. It knows I do yoga, and it is always trying to sell me clothes to wear to class.

Comments
Loading