Regarding the May 7 column by Sarah Anderson, "Taxpayers subsidize fat-cat CEO salaries":

The poster child cited as an example is Larry Fink of Blackrock Inc., who took home $119 million in bonus and performance-rated income from 2009-12. The reference to taxpayer support is that current tax law allows corporations to deduct such payments, thereby reducing taxable income.

Fink may be the poster child, but the practice is rampant, and the amounts enormous. What is amazing is that our government and the tax code encourage this, but discourage favorable corporate tax treatments for creating or saving jobs.

If the corporate/shareholder goal is reduced tax liability, wouldn't it be more logical and valuable to the economy to have most of Fink's $119 million absorbed in higher wages companywide and more jobs? It's the same end result for the company, and a better result for the country. Only Fink gets hurt, but no need to feel sorry for him.

Politically, Democrats are loath to consider lower corporate taxes, and Republicans are alarmed at changes that negatively impact operating costs and corporate profits. So while they pander to voting constituencies and have the general public at each other's throats, nothing sensible and productive happens. It's another case of both parties serving their own interests and the public losing.