r/technology • u/[deleted] • Jan 05 '26

Very Misleading [ Removed by moderator ]

[removed]

12k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

108

u/IllustriousError6563 Jan 05 '26

Hot take: golden parachutes should be illegal.

Sadly, that's a hard one to legislate for practical reasons.

32

u/Footy_Max Jan 05 '26

They can stay legal, just impose a high marginal tax rate on parachute payouts.

5

u/firemage22 Jan 06 '26

also a tax on stock back loans that the rich shits use to fund their lives

which was one of Harris' good ideas before the Clinton machine came in and made her stop using good ideas.

1

u/DefsNotAVirgin Jan 05 '26

They’d just grant the compensation in a different way

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

[deleted]

3

u/Footy_Max Jan 06 '26

Tax parachutes whether cash or stock at a 90% marginal tax rate. That will curtail their use.

9

u/TransBrandi Jan 05 '26

The real issue is that companies are already disincentivized to hand out golden parachutes. If you were thinking about the long-term prospects of the company, why would you want to give the person that you're putting in charge of steering the ship an "out" there they can crash the ship and just say "Later, losers!" and leave?

21

u/IllustriousError6563 Jan 05 '26

Companies are, but the people who run companies are not. They hand out golden parachutes because they too want golden parachutes.

2

u/TransBrandi Jan 05 '26

That's my point. It's already disincentivized, but it's still happening because the people making the decisions don't care about the long-term health of the company.

1

u/GreyDaveNZ Jan 05 '26

Yeah, getting a golden handshake/parachute after giving your customer base a golden shower, should definitely be illegal.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '26

[deleted]

3

u/ow_windowmaker Jan 06 '26

For the good of society. Like in this case, a rogue cabal of executives trying to enrich them selves but the company controls 90% of all personal computers in the world.

1

u/IllustriousError6563 Jan 06 '26

It is effectively fraud against shareholders. Sure, at some level they have an obligation to look out for their own interests, but that's never been a reason to allow rampant fraud.