Bill · H.R. 5019· House(119-HR-5019)
CEO Accountability and Responsibility Act
- Introduced
- 8/22/2025
- Last activity
- 8/22/2025 — Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Sponsored by
- Mark DeSaulnier
- Cosponsors
- - 2 - 0
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The CEO Accountability and Responsibility Act seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding publicly traded corporations. It introduces a system where a corporation's income tax rate is adjusted based on its compensation ratio. This ratio compares the highest paid employee's compensation to the median compensation of all employees in the United States. The bill establishes specific percentage point increases to the tax rate as this ratio grows. Additionally, it includes a special rule that increases the tax rate further if a company reduces its U.S. full-time workforce while increasing contracted or foreign employees. Finally, the act creates a preference for companies with a compensation ratio of less than 50-to-1 when they bid on government contracts.
Yes· 3 of 7
Does this raise the taxes companies pay?+5
The bill increases the corporate income tax rate for publicly traded corporations based on their internal compensation ratio.
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?+3
By penalizing excessive pay gaps and job displacement, the bill provides indirect support for wage stability and job security for median earners.
Is this likely to create jobs?+2
The bill incentivizes maintaining full-time U.S. employees by penalizing corporations that reduce their domestic workforce in favor of contractors or foreign workers.
The opposite
Would high-income households be better off under this?-4
The bill specifically targets the highest-paid employees by increasing tax rates as their compensation relative to the median grows.
Would business owners be better off under this?-3
The bill imposes additional tax burdens and potential contract disadvantages on corporations with high pay ratios.
Is this likely to grow the economy?-1
Higher corporate tax rates for high-ratio companies may discourage certain corporate structures or investment behaviors.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Preference in Government Contracting: Entities that maintain a compensation ratio of less than 50-to-1 will receive preference during the evaluation of bids or proposals for the procurement of goods or services by the head of an executive agency. (Section 3)
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Income Tax Rates: Publicly traded corporations may face higher income tax rates if their compensation ratio—the gap between the highest paid employee and the median employee—is high. For example, a ratio of more than 400 results in a +3 percentage point adjustment. (Section 2)
-
Penalties for Workforce Changes: A corporation's tax rate will be increased by 50 percent if the company reduces its total number of full-time employees in the United States by more than 10 percent while simultaneously increasing its number of contracted or foreign full-time employees. (Section 2)
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Increases Corporate Taxes+5Increases Job Creation+2Improves Small Business Support+1Improves Economic Growth-1
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+2
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Low Income Households+3Good For Middle Class Households+2Good For Union Workers+2Good For High Income Households-4Good For Business Owners-3
- 11/7/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/10/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/22/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Introduced in House
Daniel GoldmanDemocrat · New York
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia