Prodded by a New York Times article, it appears that Governor Cuomo is prepared to ask why heads of non-profit organizations — charities in theory — should be paid more than the President of the United States. This represents quite a reversal for, among others, the Times, which had been the mouthpiece of the non-profiteers, uncritically reporting on their "studies," for decades. As I have noted, adjusting for inflation since the last time the President's salary was increased (it tends to be frozen by politics for a long period), that level of pay is $500,000 plus a house. Which is plenty.
Next question: why should public pension funds invest in private companies with employees that are paid imore in guaranteted compensation than the President of the United States, if those companies are unable or unwilling to pay dividends in excess of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield? If the investors have to wait, the executives should have to wait, with some kind of conditional compensation that only pays off years down the road if there is also a payoff for investors.
From the article: “There is a whole range of compensation levels and extremes that have existed for too long and must be reviewed,” Mr. Cuomo said in the announcement. “The use of taxpayer dollars must be scrutinized at every level.”
“There are currently no state rules governing executive or administrative compensation for groups that receive state subsidies. The task force will audit current compensation levels and recommend future rules to ensure that money is not wasted on ‘excessive salaries and compensation.’”
Well there is a rule that non-profit organizations can only pay “reasonable compensation,” whether they get state funding or not. Perhaps these organizations are really for-profit, with the profits disguised as executive pay. Then let them be taxes as such.