Compensation


Actress Kristen Bell did a video intended to be a parody about the fact that the average pay of women in America is lower than is the average pay of men.

If this were true, there would be a pool of skilled women who can be hired for less then men for the same job, entrepreneurs and hiring managers would be missing a big profit opportunity. They’d fire all those overpaid men and replace them with women. But that’s not the case.

Don Boudreaux responds. Kristen Bell’s video is in linked piece. Snippets:

[I]f this pay gap really does reflect widespread underpayment of women, then this pay gap is a huge profit opportunity for entrepreneurs of the fictional sort whose company is featured in this video.

. . .

If women are generally underpaid – if low-skilled workers are generally underpaid – if non-unionized workers are generally underpaid – if legions of college graduates are generally underpaid – if military veterans are generally underpaid – if blacks are generally underpaid – if all workers generally are underpaid – then profit opportunities abound!

 

 

Advertisements

Today’s “brutal tax beating” is about what happens when a left-leaning journalist writes a sophomoric column about tax policy and then gets corrected by an expert from the Tax Foundation.

 

. . . part of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike was a provision to bar companies from deducting executive compensation above $1 million when compiling their tax returns (which meant, for all intents and purposes, an additional back-door 35-percent tax penalty on salaries paid to CEO types). But to minimize the damaging impact of this discriminatory penalty, particularly on start-up firms, this extra tax didn’t apply to performance-based compensation such as stock options.

 

The bottom line, as Scott points out, is that Bill Clinton’s provision means that CEO pay is penalized rather than subsidized.

Here.

I was looking for an explanation of how executive pay is taxed and now I found it.