[Age of Reason]

They are poorly managed because existing tax laws encourage CEO’s to do what they can to make their stock shares increase in value aa quickly as possible . . .

No matter if that wrecks the company in a few years, by which time they leave with their stock and golden parachute.

Increase income tax rate to 90% of personal income over a million a year, and those same CEO’s will have to spend decades working to retire in style.

This would encourage them to run a company for the long term.

That’s how it used to be.

[eyedigress]

That is precisely what happened with Iridium. They made 6B in 1996 on that, and those guys are gone.

[Bird Jenkins]

Increase income tax rate to 90% of personal income over a million a year, and those same CEO’s will have to spend decades working to retire in style.

I can't believe I'm reading an idiotic comment like this on a conservative website. You want to put an aggressive tax on people making more than a million a year, in essence putting a cap on personal earning? Egads, you sound like a filthy leeching Democrat of the lowest order. Wrap up your belongings in your handkerchief, tie it on the end of a stick, and take that loser talk somewhere else.

Let me guess: you make nowhere close to a million a year, so you'll of course be untouched by such a tax. Typical.

[VegasCowboy]

Increase income tax rate to 90% of personal income over a million a year, and those same CEO’s will have to spend decades working to retire in style.

Wow. Are you sure you're posting on the right site? Why set the 90% tax rate at $1 million? Since you feel this way, why not set your threshold at, say, $200K?

Do you really think Sears' problems are due to executive comp? If that was the case, wouldn't Microsoft be in serious trouble?

It is against everything that most conservatives stand for to believe in punitive tax rates. You may disagree with how a company compensates its executives. You can communicate your displeasure by refusing to buy that company's stock or purchase its products. But to suggest that the government should determine how much is "too much" is so far from consertavism that I can't believe it would posted on FreeRepublic.