I gave two examples of prominent countries that had the same line of thinking as I do, yet its still my “feelings”.
Absolute joke you are.
And I told you that you’re neither of those countries, and they aren’t relevant to US law. Further, you didn’t actually point out with any particularity what those countries did, how they implemented whatever it is they did, or why they made such decisions. Corporate law in the EU is dramatically different than it is in the US, so you can’t just import a single change over here and expect it to sync with everything else, notably because corporate law is almost entirely case driven, meaning it is largely judge-made law.
Interesting, you gave an F level answer and think the teacher is the problem…
That’s the weirdest argument ever. Of course I’m not an entire country?
Correct.
Correct.
There’s a process ongoing called International Convergence.
https://www.fasb.org/intl/convergence_iasb.shtml
There’s some education for you, pal.
Someone took Accounting 231! Correct again. Principles based versus judgement based.
Oh my goodness, what a jokester!
Look also, how I can get my message across without all the rambling. Try it!
Congratulations you listed an effect, and nothing else.
Which has nothing to do with US corporate case law, why corporations as an entity even exist in the US, how they exist and differ in the US from other countries, etc. I’m not an accountant, I’m an attorney.
I didn’t take accounting, I took business organizations, business torts, and mergers and acquisitions in law school. When I say “case driven” I mean that there are precious few statutes that explain why corporate law in the US is where it is, but rather statutes were drafted after landmark cases were decided by judges.
So again, you have a lot of homework to do:
- Point out the problem
- Point out what laws allow for the problem to persist
- Staying within the confines of current law, create a solution
- Reminder: appeals outside the jurisdiction have no power
It actually does, that’s the whole purpose.
You should have. It was much more difficult then any of the other management or law classes you just listed.
You still have ramblings too that make no sense.
Accounting standards have nothing to do with doctrines like the business judgment rule.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’m sorry about your degree, but no. No accounting class would even scratch the surface, least of all for an IP attorney. Not all of us went to law school because any math past differential equations was scary.
Unfortunately the IRS is law. You shouldn’t try an argue against that in court just as a heads up.
The Advanced Law classes I took didn’t scratch the difficulty of an Advanced Financial Reporting class. Both taken during graduate too, none the less.
Sorry to break it to ya.
The IRS isn’t law, hahahaha they’re just another executive agency. You sound like people who scream about people committing a RICO not realizing how silly they sound to actual lawyers.
None of which were JD courses aimed at getting you ready to deal with the law beyond compliance standards, no different than any uneducated inspector or regulator. Don’t confuse layman introductions to the law in niche areas with actual legal education.
Ya tell Al Capone that.
Again, you’re just rambling anymore.
I’ll make a quick explination so you’re not confused as to my position.
“US should cap executive and owners earnings to a percentage of their median employee (like France and Germany). To do so would require legislation, and regulation by the IRS and State Revenue Departments.”
This in turn would make employees happier, especially at places like Blizzard.
Are you disagreeing with that statement then?
1 Like
Okay. The IRS isn’t law Mr. Capone.
This would fail at the first District Court it is challenged in, on a variety of Constitutional and legislative grounds.
Next!
The corporate structure would collapse and be outsourced almost overnight. I don’t think layoffs make anyone happy.
He literally went to prison for Tax evasion. Who did that?
Ramblings again that have nothing to do with the actual statement. No one cares about the actual proceedings and details. It’s a general statement pal. My thought is assuming that is passes all the the legalities too.
Read
I’m not saying that it would pass easy over night. Where are you getting that from? Of course it would/has backlash.
So you do disagree. And in a very dramatic fashion too I might add. Cause, we know there are no corporations in Germany or France… /s
Law enforcement captured him.
None of this is “rambling” as the statement was explicitly clear. Your “general statement” was a nonsense platitude, nothing more. You can’t assume anything just “passes.” To enter legislation you have to first have a legislative body with actual authority, you didn’t even do that.
As I’ve already stated, all you have are emotional “wants” and “feelings”
It wouldn’t pass at all. You have Constitution level arguments to decimate such regulation in a heartbeat.
The corporate structure would collapse, as in how it is formed in the US. Salary caps would render an entire body of law more or less moot and people would outsource to more favorable jurisdictions ASAP assuming any such nonsense ever came close to passing.
All corporations are not the same.
After the IRS issued his arrest you goof. Law enforcement isn’t the law either. You should know this.
The rest is rambling.
Volkswagen is worth over 100 billion.
Total SA is 273.4 billion.
None of this is “the law”
The police aren’t “the law” they are law enforcement. Words matter a great deal.
…and? You’re really bad about non-sequiturs.
You still aren’t even posting anything relevant to the actual post.
Just wanting to argue eh?
In my theoretical scenario I can absolutely assume anything. They’re called assumptions. Yes, if they don’t happen the scenario obviously changes.
You aren’t too smart are ya? I’m not going to list out my parameters, assumptions, and an abstract pal. It’s just a forum. Try to use big brain energy.
Because guess what, legislation did pass in… oh I don’t know… France and Germany.
It could happen here. I’m saying it should too.
Plus, you’ve already said that if employees were paid fair wages that America would collapse. So understand how much effort I actually put into reading your post after reading that.
If you’d stop calling anything you find inconvenient or difficult to understand “rambling” you’d might be able to follow more easily.
Assumptions that never come to pass are bad assumptions and can and will be discarded. Starting out with a hypothetical that involved rainbow farting unicorns may be a novel exercise, but has little to do with actual policy changes that benefit Blizzard employees mad about their salaries.
Translation: “I have no idea how to actually formulate a response so I’ll act smug and coy and hope you don’t notice instead!”
Good for them, let me know how France’s Delaware and Germany’s Delaware factored in their decision.
LOL
In what was is capping CEO salaries going to necessarily increase employee wages? Another non-sequitur.
You’re a drama queen mate.
Drama again.
See.
I bet, we could you know, do something slightly different? What do we do just, throw our hands up in the air and curse Deleware and its favorable corporate laws? This is you being a joke.
To a certain percentage of the median employees. Absolutely if they want to get paid more. Cause you know how percentages work right?
If CEO can only make 500% of Median pay, its beneficial to them to have Median pay be higher. Understand?
Actually I wanted to see what Germany actually did to “cap” CEO salaries and I saw some 2017 Dem Socialist proposals but nothing else. Again, the US isn’t Germany. There’s a greater likelihood of California and Texas state law to converge than the US to adopt anything in the EU, notably as it relates to domestic matters.
This is you being obtuse to how corporate law and the institutions that uphold it vigorously (read: federal circuits) actually work in the US. Delaware isn’t just notably favorable, their legislature is the de facto ruling body on the entire country. There are circuit court rulings pulling straight from Delaware state proceedings to decide matters in California, Ohio, Florida, etc.
Or they don’t pay the employees anymore than they already do and place those excess funds in non-corporate accounts, reinvest it in the corporation (not the employees), place it in trust, cut larger dividends to the stock holders, etc.
There it is. Drama again.
Okay.
If you can’t see past the semantics of a theoretical situation I feel sorry for you. Again, it did pass somewhere so it’s not impossible, as much as you want to ramble that it is.
Ramblings again dude. Compensation isn’t just limited to a salary. But I didn’t expect you to really know that. And don’t get held up on just CEO’s being capped. Owners and other passive income recipients are already taxed higher (relative to US) too.
How is noting that nothing indicates Germany actually has CEO salary caps “drama”?
I’m not even sure it passed in Germany.
Of course not, but you’re acting as if the only solution is to raise the lowest paid workers in order to pump up CEO benefits. That’s hilarious.