This transcript is automatically generated
Hole a moment ago another attack on CEO -- it is a new study out.
Today and it says the 26 US companies paid their CEOs more than they paid in federal.
But what does one have to do with the other John -- from Forbes and Jim Pinkerton co chair of the great coalition Fox News contributor.
They're both with us here are not markets now and you know this this is almost a chance for us guys to have they -- become a wider discussion.
But capitalism -- tax rates in the election and everything else because when I look at this poll this morning.
The question I just -- what went through my head is okay so they paid them more and they don't pay as much in taxes even if it's true what's the point.
What are you guys -- that was that something John you would have thought -- lower your reaction just to -- this poll.
Or my reaction is of their -- related CEO CEO pay is high precisely -- -- CEOs bring extraordinary talents.
To their job yet when you think if CEOs you have to think of Michael Phelps in the pool or Tom Brady on the football field.
And these guys are great executives.
Steve Jobs brought enormous wealth shareholders and he was wildly under compensated.
And that's why CEO pay is high because of what they can bring to a company.
Now it does bring in -- -- go to Jim on and -- point out this is from up a group called the Institute for Policy Studies.
So liberal think tank so that's where the numbers came from it does bring up the larger question -- this is.
What's gonna be debated -- in the election as you know.
What do we do about taxes what do we do about corporate taxes and if we're even having this discussion that somehow companies are CEOs are supposedly quote -- quote avoiding taxes.
Do we need to make things a little bit more simple than they already are.
Well I think that's exactly right I mean the Institute for Policy Studies is more than a liberal think tank it's been a left wing think tank for half a century.
But look let's just talk about the corporate tax -- here it that the federal tax those 3.4 million words that's ten times longer than a viable.
And in all -- not to mention all the associated millions of pages of opinions and cases and all these things and any Smart tax lawyer on K street would be looking to.
I'm that in the -- there's plenty of room for interpretation or miss interpretation and for example in the Wall Street Journal this morning that -- those a spokesman for Abbott labs said that look.
This -- study is -- blatant mr.
representation of the facts.
Abbott labs fading fading huge tax bill and then that is new policy studies going for the headline.
I then then -- -- their chance to get part of the debate.
Mood was happy to misrepresent the facts that it it it is.
It did exactly what we don't wanna have on tax policy when you think about the need for reform of the tax code and actually bring the US tax rate down and competitiveness with the rest of the world -- -- let's spend a minute we have.
Left and talk about what we do need to have been both of your views of these John you first and it is something like what was outlined -- Simpson Bowles.
Sensible reform that should be kind of debate hot topic.
For the election season -- -- to -- is something completely different.
What -- I always say that if you show me a high tax rate yeah I'll show you lots of deductions and that's what we're seeing right here in the answers to either.
Flatten the raid at a much lower level and get rid of the deductions in my perfect world we have a gross receipts tax -- there's no reason.
To gain the tax code and all -- you.
At the final word on this -- do things -- later -- -- we want us what we wanna see in 2012.
Is exactly what we had 1986 which is a bipartisan fashion formed to bring it get exactly as John said bring rates down eliminate deduction broaden the base.
-- that's what works so well for President Reagan.
And we like to see it again in 2000 Robert we'll have the latest 2013 okay -- at war with -- not to vote a little bit later but for now John tending Jim Pinkerton thanks to both -- you.
Thank you thank you.