IN CONGRESS:
Limit Deductions on Excessive CEO Pay
Minnesota congressman seeks to cap corporate deduction
By Congressman Martin Olav Sabo
Special to The Progressive Populist
In the coming months, America's major business publications will release
their annual surveys of executive compensation in America. This will likely
lead many observers to decry the high levels of CEO pay at major American
corporations. When I read these surveys, however, I don't worry about how
much is made by those at the top of the income scale to the extent that
I do about how little is made by those at the bottom.
Executive pay is only one illustration of the great disparity of incomes
in America. This gap between the rich and poor has been growing almost constantly
since the late 1970s. Scholars, pundits, and politicians have filled our
nation's airwaves and op-ed pages with speculation about the causes of this
income gap and ways to address it. Judging from all the interest, this is
obviously an issue that strikes close to the heart of our American values.
Clearly, the American people are concerned about what the income gap means
for our society.
The greatest strength of American society has been the middle class. The
increasing inequality of recent decades, however, has been distinguished
by a shrinkage of the middle class. This is not to suggest that economic
mobility has vanished. Rather, mobility seems to have excluded "the
working poor" - those earners at the bottom of the income scale - from
moving up.
A recent study published by the American Enterprise Institute, Income Mobility
and the Middle Class, suggests that "the vanishing middle class"
and resulting income inequality may be due to middle class people moving
into upper income categories. However, the study also notes that mobility
for the lowest fifth of American earners was far less than that of the middle
three-fifths of earners. This further illustrates that the poorest American
workers have been less able to reap the rewards of our growing economy.
If economic opportunity is not extended to all Americans, we face the possibility
of becoming a nation that is, in the words of former Labor Secretary Robert
Reich, "sharply divided between the very rich and very poor."
Clearly, such a development - the elimination of a strong middle class as
the defining element of American society - would threaten the very fabric
of our economy and society. It is therefore in our common interest to develop
means of reducing economic inequality in America.
Fortunately, in recent years we have made headway in closing the income
gap and expanding opportunity for more Americans. Largely thanks to our
strong economy and the targeted economic measures implemented since 1990,
the income gap has narrowed since reaching its historical high mark in 1993.
Nevertheless, this recent reduction of inequality is minuscule compared
to the income gap's growth over the past 20 years. It is imperative that
we work together to ensure that these recent statistics represent the start
of a long term trend, rather than a temporary exception.
As chairman of the House Budget Committee in 1993, I authored the largest
deficit reduction plan in history. The result is a deficit that has fallen
for four straight years and is now at its lowest point since 1981. The economy
also responded to this plan by creating more than 11 million new jobs and
keeping unemployment low. Included in my plan was an expansion of the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC), which helps keep working Americans out of poverty
and off welfare. The EITC expansion, combined with steady economic growth
and minimum wage increases in 1990 and 1996, helped reduce the gap between
the top and bottom of America's income scale.
Despite these recent gains, the Census Bureau reports that only the wealthiest
fifth of American households have seen their average incomes return to their
pre-recession levels of 1989. In fact, families with children and an employed
head of household are now more likely to be poor than in the past. For example,
in 1977, 7.7 percent of these families lived in poverty. But by 1994, that
number rose to 11.1 percent. Further, the United States today has the largest
income disparity between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. It
is clear that the income gap has not gone away.
One way to address income inequality is to clarify a key provision in our
tax code that allows for extremely high salaries to be completely tax deductible.
I believe the American taxpayer should not subsidize these salaries, and
I do not believe that our tax code intended today's high pay to be completely
tax deductible. Section 162 (a)(1) of the U.S. Tax Code states that businesses
may receive tax deductions for, among other things, "a reasonable allowance
for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered."
The tax code does not define what it means by "a reasonable allowance,"
and companies have therefore been able to deduct amounts for salaries that
are vastly disproportionate to those of their lowest-paid employees. That
is why I introduced legislation to define what should be "a reasonable
allowance."
My bill, the Income Equity Act of 1997 (H.R. 687), would cap a firm's tax
deduction for compensation at 25 times the salary of the lowest-paid full
time employee in the firm. In other words, if the lowest-paid worker is
a clerk who makes $12,000, the company would only be able to deduct $300,000
of the money paid to its highly paid employees.
This bill is not an attack on CEOs. My goal is not to pull down those at
the top of the income scale, but rather to provide an equitable link to
those at the bottom. Strong corporate leadership is important to companies
and to our nation's economy; I believe executives should be compensated
for their hard work and unique contributions to their companies. Nevertheless,
too many successful companies grant generous compensation packages to their
executives, while excluding their lowest-paid workers from the companies'
success. The Income Equity Act would not limit pay, and it would not tell
companies how much to pay their employees. It will, however, send a simple
message - if companies want to receive tax deductions for their highly paid
employees, they will have to examine the fairness of their entire pay structure.
I believe that when many Americans complain about excessive executive pay,
they are not really as upset about high pay as they are about the inequity
that exists within so many companies. Part of the American work ethic has
been that when a company succeeds, workers should get their fair share,
and should be able to advance along with the company. Accordingly, many
people are instinctively repelled when the poorest workers have stagnant
wages while executives prosper.
The Income Equity Act is by no means a solution to America's income inequality.
I hope, however, that it will signal the start of a new approach by government
and the private sector to ensure that all Americans can share in our growing
economy. My bill is an embodiment of the values many Americans share, and
that our government should promote - that those who work on the factory
floor or in the filing room are as important to a company's success as those
who work in the executive suite. I also hope it will serve as a launching
point for discussions in shareholders meetings, boardrooms, and employee
lounges, about the important relationship between American companies and
their workers.
Martin Olav Sabo is a Democrat representing the Fifth Congressional District
of Minnesota.
News | Current
Issue | Back Issues | Essays
| Links
About the Progressive Populist | How
to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 1995-1997 The Progressive Populist