@happy squirrel
how is it double taxation if its taxing gains?

and if someone with no clue would make your job, your company would still make 100m, if someone with no clue would have the ceo's job, your company would make 50 million less. if he makes some millions more than someone who would earn only 100k per year, he totally deserves it. and you can't pay a ceo of a 100m company the same as a doctor in a hospital, that would be a joke.

but bonuses should be only paid with success. i hate seeing a company losing 5 billion and the ceo is getting 10m bonus wtf?

CEO of my company used to work a job just like mine and in a position just above my own. The guy didn't go back to college until his mid to late 30's. So next time before coming in to talk about how useless my position is, you should know first what you're talking about.

Thanks for implying that I work a job that a clueless person could perform. Must have went straight over your head that I make over 50-60k per year. The "clueless" person would get the stockroom position where he gets ~25k/year. Although to be honest with you, even those stockroom guys could just be young kids still going to school and looking for some income.

Also, do not think that the CEO and the CEO alone is the one who drives the company to success. Don't discredit all the people who work right below him.

Also, I do agree that success should be rewarded. However, I do not believe that success is all due to the CEO and the big dogs right below him since, believe it or not, the mechanics working on the floor at my job are the ones who actually assemble those wingtips, leading edges, fuel panels, etc... for the various military fighters we use here in the US. Surely their hard work was important too and they should be rewarded as well, no?

CEOs are paid that much because CEOs are paid that much.

you didn't understand what i tried to say. i didn't donwgrate your job or said that the job is useless. and with "no clue" i just meant someone who learned the same but is not exactly as good as you are. i know i couldn't just start you job now, sure i didn#t mean those with "no clue" and if your company wouldn't have employees, the company would make 0 dollar. and i don't care if you make 20k or 60k, the guy who makes 20k isn't less wort just because he has a lower job. i said, if you weren't there, your company would have another one who would do it for the same money. ok i don't know what you make but it wasn't especially for you just because i replied to you. i meant in general, most people are replaceable with some people who learned the same. but to get the ceo job, there has to be a reason why someone got this job. if he studied or not, just because people study with 20 doesn't mean they have to be better for important positions. if this would be the case, many who build an own company couldn't be successful because many didn't study. and if they pay only half the money to the ceo, this guy will think after a year "ohh now i was ceo, now i can get the same job anywhere else for 100% more".

it's not only about getting a ceo, it's about paying him enough to stay in the company if he is good. there aren't a lot of ceo jobs for people who could do it. and if there are way more people who could do it than there are places, companies try to get the best percent of them and the best percent of them know that they are the best percent.

most people who studied will  get a job, but how many would get a ceo job if they would try to get one? that's why ceo's are expensive. if they don't get much, they will think after a while "hmm i will open my own company" does a company want to lose his ceo for that reason?

i don't know why this guy got the ceo job but now he is responsible for the whole company. he is responsible for all people in the company who earn what you earn and for all who earn less. maybe you are the group leader in your company for a special area but still, you are not the ceo, responsible for everything, responsible for a 100m dollar company.

so, sry if it did sound like i think your job i don't even know what it is isn't a good job. i just wanted to say that a ceo is something completely different and you have to pay much for different reasons.

I would imagine that most CEOs work for companies that make less than $25m/year, so they aren't paid anywhere near $12m/year. I also bet quite a few CEOs of mega-companies, like Tim Cook of Apple and Nike, earn considerably more than $12m/year and this throws the data off by quite some way.

When the data is spread like that it becomes quite meaningless to use the average without some other information, like the distribution or deviation, to tell you more.

I haven't looked into this though, so I could be very wrong.

My biggest issue isn't that my CEO makes a base salary of ~$300-350k, as I know for a fact that my companies CEO deserves it, but it is that he, the CFO and the COO make these $300k/year bonuses while everyone else gets zilch.

Regardless of whether or not these mechanics can be replaced, it is still those mechanics who worked tirelessly throughout the year to get these products out on time so that the CEO and others can continue to look good.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, those guys don't do it all on their own.

this doesnt directly answer your question but...

should interest on saving accounts be taxed.

that money the person invests isnt guaranteed a return, should they be written a check by the government, if they end up losing money? 

my main issue ( i haven't been reading on finance for too long so some of this could be wrong) is how "normal" share holders that are not a part of the board basically get no say in anything. Its like a buddy system, one CEO is one the board of another CEO who is on his board of directors and they each help decide the others pay. Seems like an issue to me unless that does not happen and i'm mistaken.

They do, in fact. Look up capital loss deductions. You can deduct capital losses from your taxes.

Furthermore, capital properties involves anything that you own (items). Shares are tradeable goods.

A bank account is not a tradeable good. You cannot sell a bank account.

So "no" to your first question, and yes to the second question.

Being able to deduct capital loss is important in alleviating the risk of stock investment, but they should be taxed as normal on gains.
You know, companies do pay their CEOs in stock options on a regular basis and they pay a lower tax on it.

Should a CEO be able to max 10m in stock options and only pay 15-20% on it, when I pay 30+% on regular pay?

EDIT: regarding capital losses. In fact, capital loss deductions can be transferred year over year