Quin, now you are arguing with your own column. You write, "It really is a
problem, both morally and politically, when corporate execs get $70
million parachutes when they flee failed companies." You aren't
saying that is too much money? You further state, "the solution is
to give companies an incentive not to lavish so much wealth on so
few individuals." Excessive wealth, maybe? Now you are saying that
you don't want to give companies an incentive to "keep executive
compensation lower" and that you are only trying to provide
"populist cover" for free-market Social Security reform. Aside from
blowing your own cover, you have backed away from a key rationale
for your own idea.
Anyway, since we're nowhere close to abolishing the corporate
income tax, it's all a moot point. But do get back to me and let me
know which Quin wins the argument.
topics:
Social Security
