Polling supports limiting CEO pay packets

New research from the left-leaning Australia Institute has shown 80 per cent of people believe chief executives are paid too much.   
July 1, 2018  News.com.au

Three quarters of Australians believe strict limits should be placed on executive salaries which have almost returned to pre-global financial crisis levels.

New polling from the left-leaning Australia Institute found 80 per cent of people believe the nation's chief executives are paid too much.

The survey asked 1557 people about executive salaries and presented proposals to limit pay packets.

The results showed 75 per cent of those polled supported a strict limit on how much a company can pay a CEO or executive.

Almost 80 per cent supported making companies pay tax on very large payments, like bonuses, to executive staff.

A similar number of respondents supported a new higher rate of income tax for individuals with very large pay packets.

Australia Institute deputy director Ebony Bennett said most people nominated $720,000 a year or less as a reasonable salary for a CEO.

"It is clear the reality of what CEOs are paid is not in line with community expectations," Ms Bennett said.   

Former treasurer Wayne Swan said corporate rules needed to change to bring executive pay under control.


"If you look at what's going on, where basically the top end of town and those on the highest incomes are basically gorging themselves," Mr Swan told the ABC on Sunday. 

He said bad behaviour revealed by the financial royal commission had been driven by the reward and incentive systems in banks' pay structures
New research from the left-leaning Australia Institute has shown 80 per cent of people believe chief executives are paid too much.

Quote:


What about shareholders? It's their money going into CEO pockets. Or did you think if the CEO got a pay cut the shareholders would vote to give the money to the poor downtrodden employees?

Money talks, BS walks.

Its not the government,
if a company wants the best CEO they have to compete with other businesses and the CEO's will go with the money. Its like that with any specialty job or anyone in the top of their profession.
Really its not anyone business how much a person get paid in a Company.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2018 at 10:07am:


Once upon a time the chief clerk worked his/her way up through the company and thus knew what the company was all about, rather than having all these high-flown theories about how it should fit into their world.

How come if these CEOs are so good, they are forever changing companies, with the usual result being that the company left goes downhill?

This is like Howard leaving a future estimate called a surplus, after selling off the family jewels, and then his mates complaining how 'the other lot' wasted it when the revenue failed to come in.

The qualification for getting a new management job is to have failed at the one before, and most of these CEO etc clowns couldn't run a corner shop without the government propping up businesses at every turn, including negotiating down to zero their tax liability.

Business have far too much say in how they are handled by government here - they are a minority with a loud voice of endless whining and self-justification.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2018 at 10:07am:

No?,... so why the need to declare salaries for the top brass in the name of alleged social license?

mozzaok wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2018 at 7:11am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2018 at 12:12pm:


Exactly Grappler 

Companies and individuals are separate legal entities - each should pay his own tax.  Easy .....

To do otherwise is using franking to avoid paying company tax while benefiting shareholders.  It the idea of encouraging local investment worked so well, why is Australian business not prospering and developing?

It seems that not only Australian companies can offer franking..... sounds like a furphy to me.... when an offshore company calculates its tax burden here, it often pays zero tax - and there is zero obligation to pay tax on franked dividends.

In that case there are two beneficiaries for nothing, and tax is not paid on money earned.

https://www.asx.com.au/education/investor-update-newsletter/201805-how-franking-...

" If you are on a marginal tax rate greater than 30 per cent, you pay the difference between tax at your marginal rate minus a tax credit at 30 per cent (company rate).
    If you are on a marginal tax rate equal to 30 per cent, you pay no tax on the dividend.
    If you are on a marginal tax rate under 30 per cent, you are reimbursed the tax credit that has not been used."

As this reads, ONLY those on a lower than 30% tax rate receive a dividend - however, it's not that simple - if someone is a PAYE with shares and gets a franked dividend - only that part of income tax which attaches to the extra income from shares cops tax... leaving a dividend.

To get a full franking return cheque, an investor would need to have an income lower than the tax free threshold.  Otherwise a full refund is not applicable, but some may be.

It seems there is too much 'confusion' and fudging of books by many, including trust operators etc, and even SFRs and business people who may (or may not) 'draw' less than the tax free threshold, thus freeing income from dividends from some tax.

Try again - to gain a full refund of that 30% franking, your TOTAL income would need to be below the tax free threshold.... or you are cheating.

Let's try an example:-  Coffee Shoppe Owner Joe Bloggzovic takes $16k pa from his business (laughable - how does he even run his Maserati?), and has franking dividends of $5000, and dividends of $10000.  Therefore Joe's total income is earned income + dividend + dividend imputation = $31000, and he must pay income tax on $12900 @ 19% = $2451 - that tax is taken from his $5000 imputation, leaving a refund of $2549, for a total income of $28451.

It seems, from reports, that this is not the way it is working... but that Joe may be getting full value on dividends and imputation without paying any tax.... if so, blame the ATO under its political masters.

When family etc trusts enter into it, the situation becomes even worse, and that is why such things need to be resolved so that trusts pay tax.