According to Yahoo News, President Obama wants to limit the salary of top execs whose companies are receiving Federal aid to $500,000 per year. Although I'm sure there will be the obligatory cries of unfairness and the need to adequately compensate talented individuals, I concur with his rationale and think this is an excellent idea.
And although it is in an entirely different arena, and in light of Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig’s recently divulged 2007 total salary of over $18 million, I wish the same could somehow be applied to the world of sports. I know these people are talented, and I understand the principles of free-enterprise, supply-and-demand, and laissez-faire. But really, does anyone actually need/deserve several million dollars a year in salary?
Do you think Senior Pastors should also have salary caps?
-joe
Yes.
They should only be allowed to take from the tithe of our fruits/grain/and livestock.
Joe, I think I’m gonna part ways with you on this one.
First, your argument assumes that one person having something necessarily deprives someone else of that same thing. With wealth, that is not the case. It is not a zero sum game. As we are seeing, wealth is regularly destroyed and created. Money is not a finite resource that, once used, is gone. So the fact that one guy has billions does not mean anyone else was deprived of that same wealth.
Second, the reason I think every Christian should oppose any effort to take from people who have “too much” is that envy is a bad thing. It is sin and God hates it. The desire to look at other people and be envious of what they have to the degree that we think we deserve it more than they have is not, in my judgment, the mind of Christ.
That being said, greed is also sin. So while the poor guy has the obligation to be content, the rich guy has the obligation to be compassionate, merciful, and generous. But it is not appropriate for the poor guy, out of discontentment, to use the force of government to take what the rich guy has and give it to them.
Of course no one “needs” a million dollars. No one “needs” $50,000. 80% of the world’s population lives on less than $10/day. So it can be done.
I just think it is inappropriate for the government to decide when people have “too much” and take it upon themselves to take it from them.
Hey! Speak for yourself, DOC!
Joe, I worked in a sports agency for a year. I helped in the negotiation of 3 major contracts for millions as well as a number of small endorsement deals. No one person “needs” millions of dollars, but you’d be surprised as to how many athletes do “deserve” it or are “worth” it. Owners and executives of teams aren’t the ones beating up their bodies year after year, generating ticket and memorabilia sales, or the cause of billion dollar TV deals. It’s the players that generate that income, yet the average salary in professional sports is around $1 million/yr. Why should the people at the top be making all the money. Take Manny Ramirez for example. Before he came to the Dodgers last year they were a struggling, sub .500, non-playoff team that failed to sell out almost all home games. Once he arrived however, they started winning more games, made the playoffs, and ticket sales skyrocketed, as well as merchandising for the team (hats, jerseys, memorabilia, etc) that went into the hundreds of millions. So is paying the guy $25 million a year a big excessive? Yes! But why should the owners and executives get to make so much money off his back? That money should go to him, since he is the reason for it. And as long as their are millions of fans who are willing to shovel out $150 a ticket and buy $50 worth of crappy food, then the players should get a majority of the profits. Look how much money the players at the Super Bowl generated for NBC, yet they’re not getting a piece of that pie, the NBC executives are even though they never set foot on the field. Do you think that’s right?
Here I would have to say a cautious no. A church should be allowed to pay the pastor whatever they want to pay them, just like the members are allowed to give whatever they want to give. If the people of a church value a pastor they will give more money. If not, then they should leave. No members, means no money. However, I do think this is much different realm then sports. Sports are about entertainment so $$ is a big focus. Church SHOULD be about Jesus where $$ is a minimal focus. Athletes get into sports for the money. Pastors SHOULD get into ministry for the people. So although I believe a salary cap on a pastor is a bad idea, it is wrong for a pastor to seek and even accept excessive amounts of money, and it definately becomes a major problem when he/she manipulates people into giving it (a la CBC).
Alex
Salary caps for execs at companies so bad off they need a gov’t bailout: yes. Heck, the salary structure of the entire company getting a bailout ought to be restructured …
Salary caps for sports owners/commissioner – it is a sad statement about the values of our society – palaces built for sports teams – sports heroes treated like royalty – and among the most poorly compensated professions are the people who teach our children. I’m not for limits/caps, but some equity/equality would be nice.
Pastors capped – does not compute. Paid pastor = HIRELING (John 10) = someone to avoid altogether, IMHO.
What about if the all tax exept companies were required to post all salaries. I’m talking 100% discloser of all financial compensation. Wouldn’t that go further to cap salaries than anything else?
[Comment ID #36531 Will Be Quoted Here]I like this guy!
I think the same should go for pastors!
oops. You WERE talking about pastors/ministry leaders. I’m slow this morning…it’s confusing with talk of CEOs of companies mixed with “CEOs” of “Ministry as business” organizations.
I could have been a little more clear too. I meant non-profit companies as well. It seems preposterous that our government allows certain entities to not pay taxes while at the same time not requiring them to disclose financial compensations to anyone. Publicly owned companies must discose executive pay. Isn’t a non-profit something of a publicly owned company (logically speaking). If power tends to corrupt then undisclosed financial practices corrupt absolutely.
DOC, can you run that by me again? I cannot accept your argument as it stands. Imaginary wealth yes, but not real wealth.
If I invest in a bank I make more money if the bank forecloses on as many houses as possible. So my fortune is dependent on taking wealth from failed homeowners.
It is my belief that capitalism naturally works to put the majority of wealth in the hands of a few. Without government regulation this has happened if you look at the wealth distribution in the U.S. after Reagan (who removed the “invisible hand”)
Bishop
It is free enterprise that gives persons, whether they be corporate execs, athletes, pastors, or musicians the right to get as much as they can from whomever they can.
In this land of the free, where the value of that freedom is so out of proportion with the reason for that freedom, humankind is highly tempted to take advantage of whatever good fortune comes their way.
The story of the Bible is riddled with laws which were adopted for the purpose of guiding humankind from a fallen state of greed, envy, hate, lust, etc. back to the way of equality and benevolence.
I believe it was Jefferson who said that our government was set up for a people who were guided by their better natures. When they are not, laws must be made to guide them back. These laws, such as imposing a salary limit, are seen by these same freedom-oriented individuals as a threat to their freedom.
Whereas, truth be known, just as in Biblical times, laws are made for protecting freedom and equality.
Bishop,
There is no such thing as imaginary wealth. But there is a difference between wealth and money. Money is simply the currency used to buy wealth. Wealth is something that holds intrinsic value. The value of money is relative to the wealth it can purchase.
Most people in America today are “wealthier” than the richest 1% of folks 500 years ago. We have plumbing, electricity, cell phones, cars, access to airplanes, medicines, insulated homes, forced air heat systems, sewer systems, the list goes on and on and on. This is real wealth. As we will see with the pending rise in inflation, money has no intrinsic value.
If you can find one banker anywhere in the country that will agree with this statement, I’ll buy you dinner at the restaurant of your choice…anywhere in the world. Foreclosures are a lose/lose proposition.
Banks don’t foreclose houses because they want them. When a bank forecloses, they trade a mortgage for an actual house. The house is less valuable to them than the mortgage was, but more valuable than nothing. If the bank wanted to own the house instead of the mortgage, they would have just bought it in the first place.
Capitalism is, without question, the most egalitarian economic system in the history of humanity. Which has more wealth inequality, communist China or capitalist Great Britain? Communist Russia or capitalist USA? Authoritarian (pick your African country) or capitalist Ireland. Why is India a growing economy with a booming middle calss? Because they are more capitalistic, not less. The greatest inequalities always exist in the least free economies. Are there risks? Of course. Sinners screw up everything.
But in my judgment, it is the American obsession with coveting that drives the illogic of your statement. While imperfect, capitalism generally allows 2 people to give and receive something of value based on their own assessment of what is good for them. It has produced, without question, the greatest benefits for all of humanity. Most people in “poverty” in America have a car, TV, cell phone, and an emergency room available to them.
Because some people are smarter, harder working, better positioned, or simply luckier, they acquire more wealth than others. This irritates many because we’re sinners and our sin nature is inclined to want what other people have. Somehow people got through kindergarten without learning that life isn’t fair. It is particularly sad when Christians do it.
Instead of deriving unspeakable joy from who Jesus is and what He has done for us, we value what the world tells us to…stuff. If we could make good-looking people uglier, healthy people sicker, athletic people clumsier, or tall people shorter, we would probably do that too…just to level the playing field.
Yes, the gap between rich and poor continues to grow. Its a matter of mathematics. Money grows faster than no money. But how we can read our Bibles and come away with the attitude that we “deserve” more is beyond me. We deserve hell and damnation. But thanks to Jesus, we don’t have to get what we deserve.
Again, none of this ignores the responsibility that we have to be generous with what God has given us. But please tell me one reason why a Christian should think for one second that they are entitled to what someone else has.
Hi DOC:
I think you perhaps miss my overall point.
The desire to see someone who wants to borrow money follow good financial policy/stewardship principles doesn't automatically equate with envy or greed.
Although I did append the latter points of whether or not the amount of money athletes and pastors make is valid and/or necessary, I merely brought those up to hear others' opinions on the idea. The main thrust of my OP was directed at Obama's move, with which I agree.
Suppose you had just lent money to rescue a friend who told you they were in danger of starving, or perhaps loosing their home. If that friend then went out and used your money to take an expensive round-the-world vacation instead, would you not be concerned? And if upon his return he went down and bought a brand new car with your cash, would you not be alarmed?
But most importantly, would you lend them any more money? Of course not.
President Obama, aware of the tendencies of fallen human nature, is merely desirous to create certain restrictions in order to safeguard how the money is used.
-joe
Sorry Reformer, but I can't buy into this oft-used argument. As much as I dislike what professional sports (and especially owners) has/have become since the 70s — which is why I prefer watching college ball (and which is only a lesser evil) — I would like to point a few things out.
1. These players have entered into financial agreements with the owners to showcase their talents in front of fawning millions of weekly worshipers, in what is a risky business proposition at best for the teams they play for. Of course, the players' blood-sucking agents see to it that they get contracts legally ensuring them of millions of guaranteed $$$ regardless of the outcome or profitability of the venture.
2. As if the millions a year they make weren't enough, and apparently they aren't — they are given further motivation to not be lazy by way of "performance bonuses."
3. Don't forget what they are paid in advertising endorsements by companies ponying up further millions of $$$ to these "heroes" and "role-models," in order to induce impressionable youth into begging mommy and daddy into spending their hard-earned cash for $200-a-pair athletic shoes, and $100 team-replica jerseys.
4. These players don't have to re-pay their salaries/bonuses/endorsement $$$ if their team loses.
5. Thus, they don't deserve to go back and get more money when the gamble ends up paying off for the owners.
6. And remember one more thing: if the owners don't make money then the players will find themselves knee-deep in serious manure. They will end up being forced out of their lucrative "jobs," and will then be forced to hit the streets and try to earn a real living like the rest of us have to do.
But they may find it a trifle tough peddling their wares. After all, prospective employers are fully aware those "college degrees" in emphases like Communications or Phys. Ed. were only "earned" and made possible by intimidated professors who gave them merciful Cs and Ds, and which "students" were subsidized by getting paid tens of thousands of dollars for 4 years to empty two garbage cans a semester, once a week.
You say you pity these poor, professional players who aren't getting a piece of that Superbowl "pie?"
Poor babies. I guess they'll have to somehow make do with their mega-millions per year paychecks.
(OK, envious rant over)
-joe
It was just an example Joe. Never did I say I “pity” them. All I said is that they make millions more then the players do, yet they aren’t the one’s putting their bodies in harm’s way. So I believe the players are justified in asking the owners and executives for a piece of the pie, and I don’t feel sorry for them when the players underperform on their contract.