Posted on 06/10/2008 5:17:40 AM PDT by BloodOrFreedom
Republican White House candidate John McCain will promise on Tuesday to lower corporate tax rates if he wins the U.S. presidency and ease the tax burden on middle-class workers to help revive the faltering economy.
The Arizona senator, who has wrapped up his party's presidential nomination, also would propose a simpler, alternative tax system and insist that chief executives' pay and severance packages have shareholder approval.
"No matter which of us wins in November, there will be change in Washington. The question is what kind of change?" McCain will tell a conference for small businesses, referring to his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
"Will we enact the single largest tax increase since the Second World War as my opponent proposes, or will we keep taxes low for families and employers?" he will say, according to excerpts released before his speech.
McCain will pledge to act quickly to lower corporate taxes from "the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners to keep businesses and jobs in this country."
He will propose a law to allow companies to expense new equipment and technology in their first year.
He supports keeping capital gains taxes low, doubling a tax exemption for children, and phasing out the "alternative minimum tax" which he said would save some 25 million middle-class families up to $2,000 in a year.
On Monday Obama drew a sharp contrast with McCain, his opponent in the November election, accusing him of wanting to widen President George W. Bush's tax cuts and plunge the United States deeper into debt.
He charged that McCain's support for extending Bush's tax cuts would allow $2 trillion in corporate tax breaks.
U.S. taxes were too complicated overhaul, McCain will say in his speech, in which he will argue for an alternative system.
"As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so," he will say.
"Everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction."
McCain criticizes Obama for wanting to increase dividend and capital gains taxes and aiming to raise the minimum wage and link it to an index.
But he also takes aim at top corporate executives with big salaries and excessive severance packages.
"Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs ... bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," he will say, adding that some of those chief executives helped bring on the country's housing crisis and market troubles.
"If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders," he will say. (Editing by Chris Wilson
But when you post you reply to a post you are supposed to respond to the post itself, not the voices in your head.
I agree: corporate taxes should be low, and CEO pay should be regulated by the free market.
I agree that it may not help, but there are things you can do to make it help. Disqualify management controlled shares from voting on their own pay since they have a conflict. Require that an affirmative majority of the remaining shares that vote must vote for the compensation package. Maybe you require a majority of such share to vote yes in order to increase the pay, or to increase it by a certain percentage. That way, they’ve got to persuade a majority of the shareholders who do care.
Some companies are moving to this kind of a system without governmental prodding. Since I look at the pay packages these guys get, and the fact that they are usually incompetent, it says to me that the current system is not working. I don’t see why that should not be changed.
Because everyone is responding to the headline and didn't bother to read the article. The headline is totally misleading as to the content of the article.
Why stop at CEO’s? How about professional athletes, rock stars and movie stars? Slippery slope.
It is obvious that McCain intends to support legislation that will have a much more profound impact on corporations than may at first appear.
I do not support this idea by McCain. In all most all cases, The Board of Directors are elected by the shareholders and can be removed (although with difficulty) by the shareholders.
The board members also have a much better understanding of the internal operations and future financial capabilities of most share holders.
A shareholder should care only about a few major factors. 1) What are my earnings per share?, and 2) How long can I maintain those earnings? If a shareholder feels like he or she has bad stock due to wasteful spending on an exorbitant CEO salary, then they can sell the stock. This does not need to regulated by government.
No it isn't!
That's what they always say when the camel's nose enters the tent.
Corporate democracy? It's a private company!
If you don't like the way they manage it, don't buy their stock!
They call it “corporate democracy.” What it means is the process by which shareholders vote on various issues.
The problem with the “don’t buy their stock” argument is that we’re not talking about fairness. We’re talking about efficiency of the US economic model. The US economic model is based on capitalism, which requires a certain set of laws to make workable. Private property, for example. The people who own a company should be able to run it. If you let management interlopers come along and loot corporations at the expense of the owners, and don’t give the stockholders the legal right to stop that from happening, then the US economy will be the worse for it.
Having described no illegal acts, Comrade Juan McNuts intends to prosecute because his sensibilities have been offended.
"Off with their heads!"
cripes...
Shareholders get to vote on a Board of Directors. After that, if they don't like it, they should put their money elsewhere.
The US economic model is based on capitalism, which requires a certain set of laws to make workable. Private property, for example. The people who own a company should be able to run it.
This is absolute NONSENSE -- letting shareholders tell a company how it should operate on a day to day basis is craziness. Shareholders have a CHOICE--sell their stock if they don't like it. Let the market work as it was intended. If all investors don't like the way a company is run, they will leave and the equity of the company will suffer until such time as the company operates to the liking of new investors.
If you let management interlopers come along and loot corporations at the expense of the owners, and don’t give the stockholders the legal right to stop that from happening, and don’t give the stockholders the legal right to stop that from happening, then the US economy will be the worse for it.
Whatever happened to 'buyer beware'? And if there is something illegal going on, there are already avenues to punish "management interlopers." As to making the US economy worse, just keep up the regulation and oversight and hogtie all US businesses--it absolutely WILL be worse!
They determine their own salaries, you know. But the safeguard for that is that those types of measures must originate from the House. And the house, as you know, has two year terms; they face reelaection quickly, so they are more accountable to the voters and risk being ousted at the next election if they do something that the voters do not like
The title of the article is very misleading...from the article:
“The Arizona senator, who has wrapped up his party’s presidential nomination, also would propose a simpler, alternative tax system and insist that chief executives’ pay and severance packages have shareholder approval.”
Shareholder approval is different then what many consider ‘regulation’ (quotas/etc)...al lot of companies already require that....
It's been murdered by "CONsumerist Attorneys" and replaced with 'seller beware!'
The reason I know this is that a mandated "continuing education/indoctrination" couse on ethics, mandated by the state of CA for me to keep my license to talk to people about their insurance and stocks/funds or other equities just laid it all out as "say goodby to the bad old days and hellow to the good new days because 'buyer beware' has been replaced by CA with 'seller beware!"
We who hold my type of license are all presumed to be guilty of bad ethics if we don't subscribe to this 180 degree change to government mandated "CONsumerism" that CONsumerist lowyers don't have to abide by!!!
I've always believed in putting the client's/customer's interest well ahead of my own, but this just drives the cost of my professional liability insurance way up like it has the doctors who are getting out of the profession because of it!!!
The products and services that I help people purchase are never bought, but rather are always sold. Now every word I utter and even more that I may be accused of omitting because of worsening memories cause my liability to skyrocket and some litigator/allegator's pockets to buldge with settlement dollars won from my chicken (BLEEP) insurance company!!! Damn!!!
It’s worse than that.
It used to be that the only warenty was that product had to be sutible fot the purpose it was sold for.
If you were too stupid to anaylize it or lacked the knowledge to do it yourself it was up to you to hire or consult with someone that did before purchasing.
At least that what I was taught growing up.
AAAGH!! Stop it! Just stop it, McCain! This is what happens when NONE of the candidates has any experience whatsoever in actually earning a living.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.