Limits on compensation are ineffective at achieving their goals under the best of circumstances, and the inevitable "unintended" consequences of further government manipulation in the market place would likely have negative effects.
Crab from the bottom of the bucket here: that's a lot of syllables for ???
Did I say the feds should set the limit? Why can't a respectable board set respectable limits? Cause they don't give a fuck about anything except the stock price EVEN if it means that others suffer in their wake.
That's why. That's the side you're on. Miss me with that libertarian Thiel bullshit.
We set the context in which these forms can operate though. We can decide that forms who pay >10m in comp to individuals are by definition not contributing to social well-being… they must be exploiting some assymetry, rent seeking etc. We don’t have to work out how and why in each case… just that in balance that is almost always the case and so we make that behaviour economically unviable through taxation.
In the US this may be true. It’s certainly not in Europe. 80%+ of tax take is spent on health and social benefits here which are broadly approved of by the population…
Limits on compensation are ineffective at achieving their goals under the best of circumstances, and the inevitable "unintended" consequences of further government manipulation in the market place would likely have negative effects.