Why Subsidize CEOs?

Why Subsidize CEOs?

Performance bonuses are tax deductible and subsidies for executive excess add up to over $14 billion a year. Enough is enough.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

By now, most Americans recognize—and resent—that top corporations compensate their executives in ways that are simply indecent. Eye-popping salaries. Outlandish bonuses. Lavish stock options. Golden—nay, platinum—parachutes. What fewer realize about this obscene compensation is that we’re all paying for it. Literally.

Last week the Institute for Policy Studies released a blockbuster report exposing how US taxpayers subsidize executive compensation, and revealing some of the worst offenders.

Those tax subsidies for executive excess add up to over $14 billion a year. That equals 12 percent of the planned savings from the deficit deal sequesters, 211,732 times the annual cost of hiring an elementary school teacher, or $46 for each American. In other words, says co-author Scott Klinger, “Every man, woman and child in America is buying a CEO lunch.”

Equally disturbing: twenty-five companies paid their CEOs more in total compensation last year than they paid in taxes. “That was a bit surprising to us,” says Klinger, “because corporate profits are at a fifty-year high.”

Among the loopholes IPS identifies: “Performance-based” executive compensation is tax deductible; five companies alone gave out $232 million in such pay (never mind their actual performance). Compensation can be tax deferred; five companies alone deferred $48 million. Corporations can show different accounting records to the IRS and to their shareholders; just five companies cut down their tax bills by over $682 million this way in 2010. And preferential treatment of “carried interest” keeps 1 percenters’ tax bills low.

“No laws have been broken,” says Klinger. “And that in itself is very troubling given the results…. The tax system and the CEO compensation system are very broken.”

The report has drawn gratifying levels of mainstream media coverage, and all-too predictible pushback from some of the named companies, like Abbott Laboratories. “We clearly stuck a nerve with this company,” said co-author Sarah Anderson. “They say they had more than 40 percent of their sales in the US market last year, but only 7 percent of their profits.”

“What we’re trying to do here in this report is really rebut this idea that we’re hearing so much of today that our country is broke…,” says Anderson. “We’re actually a very rich country, but so much of our wealth is being diverted into the pockets of top executives.”

Can the 99 percent take that wealth back? From the boardroom, to the Occupy encampments, to the halls of Congress, IPS sees cause for hope.

Anderson says the Occupy movement “created new openness in the media and in the halls of Congress” to talk about inequality and corporate excess. She says IPS now senses “a turning point in terms of public perception…. the moment majorities of people feel [loopholes] are no longer legitimate, that’s when you get the sense that real action and real change are possible.”

There’s precedent. IPS Director John Cavanagh recalls how public outrage and political pressure led the IRS to crack down on corporate deductions for expenses like skyboxes and lavish lunches. More recently, Anderson notes that tighter executive compensation tax treatment for specific industries was included in both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. “We think that with a big public push,” she says, “we could get that extended to all companies in the country.”

So far this year, shareholders at a record fifty-five companies have already voted to oppose proposed executive pay packages. Those votes, which were made possible by the Dodd-Frank law, are only advisory for now, but they show the breadth of discontent, and an increasing awareness that the interests of the CEO may not match those of the company—let alone the public. “We need to make these votes of shareholders binding,” says Klinger. Meanwhile, Congresswoman Barbara Lee has proposed a bill to cap deductible total compensation at $500,000 or twenty-five times the pay of a company’s lowest-paid worker, whichever is higher. (The requirement that companies disclose their CEO-to-worker pay ratio is one of several executive pay rules that were included in Dodd-Frank but are currently stalled.)

Anderson says the Republican ticket also offers a unique opportunity to talk tax loopholes: Mitt Romney won’t share the tax records that show which loopholes have padded his wealth, and Paul Ryan won’t share which tax loopholes he claims he’d close to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

For years, says Anderson, people believed there was nothing that we could do about executive excess, and that it didn’t affect them directly. Both of those myths are being dispelled. “When companies are not paying their fair share of taxes because of all the deductions for CEO pay,” says Anderson, “that means the rest of us are picking up the bill.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x