Could you elaborate on how currency speculation aids third world economies?

It is not a coincidence that in the most developed countries the taxes are amongh highest as well. Finland and Sweden have created enormous amount of high skilled jobs in the sector of Telecommunication. (Nokia + Ericsson)

Perhaps it is possible to predict the development grade of a country by it’s overall tax rate. Finland and Sweden are lowering their taxes
as suggested by some idiots. This should correlate well with the above. In other words Finland and Sweden should loose white collar jobs and getting more blue collar jobs instead in the near Future.
(of course, if it is only a one guy, a dictator who gets all the tax money..)

I believe we can not avoid paying taxes or avoid living in societies with some kind of tax systems. There is only one question left for those who accept the taxes of some kind: What kind of tax system is best and what is the right level of tax? The old Greeks had a good answer to the question: It does not matter as far it is just!

In Rome they failed to levy taxes fairly and Rome went down while a small elite ate up the poors.

From one’s birth to death the f* goverment collects it’s share and the smartest and the most corrupted officers will recycle the tax money into their own pockets in all societies now and in the future.
If you do not accept this then it is better to find an isolated paradise island without lights, phones, televisions etc.

I wish I was ignorant. Unfortunately, I have participated heavily in transfer payments to robber baron CEOs. I know how the markets work all right. Let’s just say that my returns as a stockholder were less than maximised.

The CEOs of Yahoo, Google, and Apple have all taken $1 a year in salaries at various times. I don’t know what they are making now.

Yahoo’s CEO makes as much as 7,075 average American workers. While Steven Jobs apparently still takes in a $1 salary, I wouldn’t mind a $90 million jet on top of that. Google’s bosses mostly get their earning from selling Google stock. Now, concentrating on entrepreneur-CEOs of young companies who essentially built their business from scratch doesn’t really give the big picture. Since we’re always fighting about healthcare, we might look at America’s insurer CEO compensations. No wonder public healthcare is so efficient compared to an evil, wasterful welfare-statist model. I mean, what’s $1bn?

“50. Your off-the-cuff dismissal of the concept of CEO stock option compensations only reveal a profound ignorance on how the markets work in general.”

In what sense?

The way stock-options are defined im most cases I think they ONLY promote exactly what Franklin suggested. Namely “for manipulating the share price for their personal gain.” Look at Fortum. A semi-MONOPOLY offering options. And that is definatley the only example.

The more – theoretically – rational schemes (if they even are more rational – I didn’t give that much thought yet) proposed – ore described – here COULD perhaps(?) offer something. But why are options offered ONLY to management. Couldn’t they – if they motivate management to such great efforts – also motivate the rest of the work-force? Or is it only management that needs to be financially motivated?

However, as to zero salaried examples, I did err in one respect: most such CEOs take $1 in salary, instead of zero, as it satisfies some statutory regulations.

The CEOs of Yahoo, Google, and Apple have all taken $1 a year in salaries at various times. I don’t know what they are making now.

Here in Europe, I don’t think it’s a good condition for huge pay differences to evolve. Management ‘teams’ don’t undertake any significant personal risk—aside from legal responsibility—so it makes little sense for them to get millions in compensation. I think they can be motivated with much less—hundreds-of-thousands at most.

Just because stock compensation doesn’t appear on the income statement, doesn’t mean it’s not an expense in real terms. These robber-barons dilute both worker salaries AND shareholder value. I’d much rather see a larger dividend payment, than to watch some CEO cruise-by in the 70-footer he purchased with my money.

Is there another option besides ‘white collar’ unionism?

I wouldn’t expect anything less moronic from you. Needless to say, artificially pumping the stock price to a peak with stupid risktaking, followed by a crash and a fiscal crisis, at worst bankruptcy, will not benefit shareholders who expect longterm appreciation. Finland’s Sonera is a perfect example of this.

Yes, but how many of them will work for no salary?

Could you cite some examples of American CEOs with a zero base salary?

That would of course take away most of your right to negotiate for your salary and leave it for yearly union talks. Then again, that might be a benefit if the company reps that the union is negotiating with are also members of the same union. However, the more generous they are to themselves need to paid with cuts elsewhere.

And whether 0 compensation is an incentive to increase company performance vs. simply to manipulate share value, is another question altogether.

I’m starting to like Frankin’s white collar unionization idea more. Just wish there was another way…….

That’s exactly to be hoped for, when they’re compensation is 0 in terms of salary, since shareholders will only benefit as a result.

There is nothing un-Finnish about stock options. Finnish CEOs are all too happy to have them.

Yes, but how many of them will work for no salary?

Or, as is more often the case, for manipulating the share price for their personal gain.

There is nothing un-Finnish about stock options. Finnish CEOs are all too happy to have them.

I’m not either, but I do trust those CEOs who take 0 in salary, and all of their compensation in options and shares in the company they manage. That is a very un-Finnish idea.

There’s nothing like giving a CEO a very powerful motivation for maximizing stockholder returns.

On earlier comments, I think Jukka Michelsson’s were the most informed. The people who criticized him were totally under the presumption that a state that seeks to protect its currency has a right to do that, – not seeing that currency speculators act as an informal free market vanguard against ill-informed and ideologically-based state economic planning.

All states that choose to trade with the rest of the world must submit to outside evaluation of their economic planning. That’s the price they pay to participate. Of course, you can opt to stay outside of world trade, as Cuba and North Korea have done, but then you’d have to suffer the consequences.

As to the CCT tax being insignificant, as iJusten claimed, we have to remember that corporate profits tend to amount to just about 5% or less of total revenues. In that context, a .1% to .25% tax on revenues that might be completely based on international transactions becomes very significant indeed, especially as this tax is not even based on corporate earnings, but each and every single transaction.

Most of the other arguments tend to skirt the issue, so they’re not worth commenting on. Suffice it to say that there are really not very worthwhile reasons for the institution of this tax.