- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,649
- Reactions
- 24,553
As long as it applies to CEO wages too
+1 on that, it takes the pi$$ out of working people when a ceo of a bank can get $12m in a year. That is pure obscenity.IMO
Tony Abbott for PM
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
+1 on that, it takes the pi$$ out of working people when a ceo of a bank can get $12m in a year. That is pure obscenity.IMO
- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
From an article in 2011, but doubt things have improved:
THE fixed pay of the top 100 chief executives in the nation has more than doubled over the past decade and bonus payments have increased almost 200 per cent, far outpacing returns to shareholders, according to new research. The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors’ latest research on chief executive pay in Australia’s top listed companies found median fixed pay in the top 100 ASX companies increased 131 per cent over the decade. Returns to shareholders from the S&P/ASX 100 index rose only 31 per cent over the same period. The study also found that while the benchmark index fell 30 per cent over the three years to June 30 last year, chief executive cash pay ”” the value of pay disclosed excluding share-based payments ”” remained much higher than any year before 2007. ‘‘The past 10 years have been far better for CEOs of top 100 companies than investors, given the annual cash take of a CEO from a large company has almost doubled over the decade,’’ ACSI chief executive Ann Byrne said.
Now if unions were gouging us like that tehre's be an outcry, but CEo pay is move along please, nothing to see here.
THE fixed pay of the top 100 chief executives in the nation has more than doubled over the past decade and bonus payments have increased almost 200 per cent, far outpacing returns to shareholders, according to new research. The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors’ latest research on chief executive pay in Australia’s top listed companies found median fixed pay in the top 100 ASX companies increased 131 per cent over the decade. Returns to shareholders from the S&P/ASX 100 index rose only 31 per cent over the same period. The study also found that while the benchmark index fell 30 per cent over the three years to June 30 last year, chief executive cash pay ”” the value of pay disclosed excluding share-based payments ”” remained much higher than any year before 2007. ‘‘The past 10 years have been far better for CEOs of top 100 companies than investors, given the annual cash take of a CEO from a large company has almost doubled over the decade,’’ ACSI chief executive Ann Byrne said.
Now if unions were gouging us like that tehre's be an outcry, but CEo pay is move along please, nothing to see here.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
CEO's are private enterprise, they can do what they like and are accountable to shareholders.
The unionists can get rid of union leaders if they pay themselves too much, but they never know about it as these creeps just steal it dont they.
Bring on the inquiry.
- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
I'd argue there is market failure when CEO pay is rising faster than the shareholder return. It seems that when things get hard and the bonus isn't achievable that fixed pay increases, or the criteria to earn the bonus are lowered.
Yet when the average joe gets a pay rise it's all about productivity, lost competitiveness, inflation and the rest.
Hopefully the inquiry your requesting will also examine how CEO pay is determined. I'd say it's even more opaque than anything happening in union headquarters.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
It might seem unfair but I fail to see why CEO's are accountable to anyone but shareholders ?
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Anyone, including me, would make a better treasurer that Wayne (Goofy) Swan
I think you miss my point MrBurns,If you, as I do, believe Labour is history then surely it's time to look at the team that will be sitting on the treasury benches.Al
- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
We are not offered any other alternative.
It won't matter how bad YOU think those people are, they are still likely to be an improvement on what we have now.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
To date, it hasn't done much to inspire confidence.
If it did, the Coalition would be much further ahead in the polls than they currently are.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,649
- Reactions
- 24,553
Probably Turnbull, within a short space of time, I think Abbott is maintaining a sense of stabilty in his team at this point in time.
Also if as you say the Liberals team was so weak, Labor would be all over it.
You will probably find more of the coalition team have formal economic qualifications, than Labor do.
That's my guess.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
I really struggle to see the difference between the two. They're both big spenders trying to give money out to shore up support. I've seen plenty of "we'll balance the budget" but I haven't seen much in the way of just how that will be done. My pig in a poke picture sums it up nicely, no one is looking inside to make sure they're getting what's written on the box.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,649
- Reactions
- 24,553
We could always stick with the current government, at least it is a laugh watching the stuff ups.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
I got your point ok but as Sails says it doesnt really matter as long as Gillard is out.
As far as the Libs go, they're smart if someone doesnt measure up they'll be replaced it will be a breath of fresh air not to have the socialist looters at the helm.
Must say the Libs will have a much harder job than Labor did.
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
The Howard Government was not known for its fiscal restraint in its latter years, but did at least better manage its programs overall in comparison to the current government. It was also more honest, but then this government sets a very low bar on that score.
The Libs presently are struggling to articulate compentency, but the record of the current government has been one of utter incompetence, dishonesty and with the constant stench of union corruption wafting in from the distance.
By first world standards at least, it's hard to imagine any incoming Coalition government being worse than what we have currently.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,825
- Reactions
- 6,807
You would hope that the Libs will be less governed by the polls that Labor appear to be and will be able with not having to make a coalition except with the Nationals, be able to govern for everyone and be willing to make tough decisions. Note I said "hope".
+1.People are so desperate to get rid of Labour they don't think to critique the alternative.Al
- Joined
- 5 January 2009
- Posts
- 408
- Reactions
- 1
Hi , am I reading to much into this ?
Liberals .. Hope . Reward . Opportunity
HOWARD
Liberals .. Hope . Reward . Opportunity
HOWARD
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
It's too early to worry about that, suffice that the Libs will be more responsible even though they are starting behind the 8 ball, look at the debt they will inherit.
They'll spend less time supporting crims
Lying
Stabbing each other in the back
and disgracing question time with lies and bile.
More interesting who will replace Gillard ? Rudd woudn't be interested that might involve work, he'd rather be on a cushy appointment at the UN writing essays and boring anyone close enough to listen to him.