I am impressed.

[wbailey7]

I see. So would you approve of all salaries at AIG being taxed at 90%?

Just my two cents here, but it's not so much the outrageous rate that bothers me about this. What bothers me is the government singling out a very select (less general than usual) group of people and throwing a tax their way. Where does it end?

 

[rjd970]

THe AIG CEO is earning $1 a year. So is the Citi CEO. Both deserve over $1 a year even if the ship doesn't get righted.

I agree. But he shouldn't be making more than a top level manager gets. I could not care less how much they decided to compensate him if he does a good job and this thing gets turned around.

 

[DC Vol]

THe AIG CEO is earning $1 a year. So is the Citi CEO. Both deserve over $1 a year even if the ship doesn't get righted.

The problem is this:

The taxpayers got a terrible taste in their mouth over the Merrill Lynch/BoA bonus payouts and the fact that AIG looked like they were trying to do the same thing.

Albeit, the Merrill Lynch/BoA fiasco was much, much worse... the fact remains that it's the feeling of entitlement regardless of the fact that they were all members of a failed enterprise.

 

[UT IE 95]

So if they called it a "retention package" rather than a "retention bonus" than it would be ok?

Calling anything "rentention" concerning a payout to a person that is no longer employed has stink written all over it.

If they are stupid enough to sign a contract with bonus compensation, which is by definition optional, then they shouldn't be "retained" when whinning if their failing company doesn't pay it.

 

[DC Vol]

Just my two cents here, but it's not so much the outrageous rate that bothers me about this. What bothers me is the government singling out a very select (less general than usual) group of people and throwing a tax their way. Where does it end?

Honestly? I would imagine it ends with someone getting paid an exorbitant bonus after their publicly traded company posted billions in quarterly losses.




Just a guess.




I don't see salary/bonus rates getting scrutinized in successful businesses.

 

[wbailey7]

Honestly? I would imagine it ends with someone getting paid an exorbitant bonus after their publicly traded company posted billions in quarterly losses.




Just a guess.




I don't see salary/bonus rates getting scrutinized in successful businesses.

Hahah, whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[allvol123]

We have different definitions of "deserve".

That is the crap people are pissed about. There is no way there is any public outrage if taxpayer money isn't used. These companies can, and have, operated anyway they want. The guy that didn't get a bonus this year because his company lost money, the guy who didn't get a raise this year, and the guy who lost his job through no fault of his own have every right to be pissed these people are getting bonuses with his tax money simply because it is "contractual" and there was no accountability with it.

We do. When entities enter into an agreement then you dserve what is agreed to. That is the deserve I go by. Your "deserve" seems tied up in feelings, emotions, and a sense of being owed something.

What people are pissed about should play no role in agreements they were not involved in. If they are pissed, they are misplacing it. If the government loans people money they need to state explicitly the terms for the loan. If they do not, too bad.

 

[rjd970]

Calling anything "rentention" concerning a payout to a person that is no longer employed has stink written all over it.

If they are stupid enough to sign a contract with bonus compensation, which is by definition optional, then they shouldn't be "retained" when whinning if their failing company doesn't pay it.

Exactly, especially when it is taxpayer money, funded by people who no longer have jobs or are taking paycuts and being subjected to this roundabout discussion of what a "bonus" really is.

 

[DC Vol]

Hahah, whatever helps you sleep at night.

So, if you had money invested in Merrill, and they tanked, but they first-and-foremost made sure to take care of the top 4 that guided that ship straight into an iceberg with a combined $121,000,000 in "farewell money"... you wouldn't be slightly pissed?

Or are you just being obstinate?

 

[droski]

I agree. But he shouldn't be making more than a top level manager gets. I could not care less how much they decided to compensate him if he does a good job and this thing gets turned around.

AIG might not be turn aroundable. There aren't many quality CEOs who will be willing to make say only $250k. We need bad-arses. Bad-arses don't make $250K a year.

The problem is this:

The taxpayers got a terrible taste in their mouth over the Merrill Lynch/BoA bonus payouts and the fact that AIG looked like they were trying to do the same thing.

Albeit, the Merrill Lynch/BoA fiasco was much, much worse... the fact remains that it's the feeling of entitlement regardless of the fact that they were all members of a failed enterprise.

So we just answer the angry mob rather than educate? If it's in the taxpayers best interest to retain top employees (which it obviously is) then obama et all need ot let people know that.

Calling anything "rentention" concerning a payout to a person that is no longer employed has stink written all over it.

If they are stupid enough to sign a contract with bonus compensation, which is by definition optional, then they shouldn't be "retained" when whinning if their failing company doesn't pay it.

fine called it deffered salary. does that make it ok? it's ridiculous that the word is what matters not the dollars. Merrill did a retention bonus for it's top producing brokers. That was part of the bonus uproar. I know for a fact citi is doing the same thing, yet they are refering to it as a "retention package" yet no one is up in arms over that.

 

[volinbham]

That is the crap people are pissed about. There is no way there is any public outrage if taxpayer money isn't used. These companies can, and have, operated anyway they want. The guy that didn't get a bonus this year because his company lost money, the guy who didn't get a raise this year, and the guy who lost his job through no fault of his own have every right to be pissed these people are getting bonuses with his tax money simply because it is "contractual" and there was no accountability with it.

Here's the problem with the outrage though - other tax payer dollars are being used to pay the salaries of employees at any number of companies.

The word bonus is being used to suggest pay in addition to salary when in many of these cases it is more akin to salary then some profit-sharing bonus. Accordingly, we should be demanding that all employees at any company receiving tax $ have reduced salaries because by definition, they wouldn't have ANY salary without the tax dollars.

 

[rjd970]

We do. When entities enter into an agreement then you dserve what is agreed to. That is the deserve I go by.

What people are pissed about should play no role in agreements they were not involved in. If they are pissed, they are misplacing it. If the government loans people money they need to state explicitly the terms for the loan. If they do not, too bad.

I think it should play a role, given that it is their money funding said agreements. And these agreements can be renegotiated, and should have been once one party was shown not to be able to pay.

You're right though, it does start at the government, and they should have been more involved from the beginning on what the money is to be used for.

 

[droski]

So, if you had money invested in Merrill, and they tanked, but they first-and-foremost made sure to take care of the top 4 that guided that ship straight into an iceberg with a combined $121,000,000 in "farewell money"... you wouldn't be slightly pissed?

Or are you just being obstinate?

Thain had nothing to do with merrill going under. How many times do we have to say the people who are to blame have already been fired. The good guys that are working their butt off to right the ship are the ones getting the anger of the american people.

 

[DC Vol]

Thain had nothing to do with merrill going under. How many times do we have to say the people who are to blame have already been fired.

So the fact that he's under a criminal investigation doesn't make your question entirely redundant?

 

[volinbham]

Exactly, especially when it is taxpayer money, funded by people who no longer have jobs or are taking paycuts and being subjected to this roundabout discussion of what a "bonus" really is.

The narrow definition of bonus and the outrage that ANYONE get one at AIG is much to simplistic a view of what happened.

Did some people get bonuses that they shouldn't have? Probably so.

Did others do exactly what they were asked to do according to the contract they signed? Absolutely.

Would these bonuses be paid even if the company lost money but didn't take government $ - most likely if the cash flow permitted it.

Tax dollars are paying the salaries of thousands of employees. We haven't demanded they take a pay cut.

 

[rjd970]

Here's the problem with the outrage though - other tax payer dollars are being used to pay the salaries of employees at any number of companies.

The word bonus is being used to suggest pay in addition to salary when in many of these cases it is more akin to salary then some profit-sharing bonus. Accordingly, we should be demanding that all employees at any company receiving tax $ have reduced salaries because by definition, they wouldn't have ANY salary without the tax dollars.

Are you talking about government contracting? There is bids/competitions for contracts, there are price controlling mechanisms, proposals, points of the contract are explicitely stated, etc...huge difference.

TARP is basically a charity loan to keep a company afloat, that the U.S. may or may not make some interest on.

 

[droski]

So the fact that he's under a criminal investigation doesn't make your question entirely redundant?

he isn't under a criminal investigation for anything that had to do with merrill going under. edit: and it's ridiculous he is under criminal investigation. for spending too much on an office?

 

[droski]

Are you talking about government contracting? There is bids/competitions for contracts, there are price controlling mechanisms, proposals, points of the contract are explicitely stated, etc...huge difference.

TARP is basically a charity loan to keep a company afloat, that the U.S. may or may not make some interest on.

the average gov't employee is 50% overcompensated in the first place. don't throw stones.

 

[DC Vol]

he isn't under a criminal investigation for anything that had to do with merrill going under.

I never said he was. The fact that you, at least in my interpretation, attempted to exonerate him by saying "it wasn't his fault" is a little concerning.


It wasn't his fault, so you're saying he did deserve his handsome payout?

 

[DC Vol]

the average gov't employee is 50% overcompensated in the first place. don't throw stones.

Wow.

 

[DC Vol]

he isn't under a criminal investigation for anything that had to do with merrill going under. edit: and it's ridiculous he is under criminal investigation. for spending too much on an office?

You're making me hope more and more you're just being a devils advocate.

 

[KB5252]

Are you talking about government contracting? There is bids/competitions for contracts, there are price controlling mechanisms, proposals, points of the contract are explicitely stated, etc...huge difference.

TARP is basically a charity loan to keep a company afloat, that the U.S. may or may not make some interest on.

I can speak from experience about government contracts, when all bids/proposals are in (received) they almost NEVER go with the lowest bid......there is very good reason for this. Also just about every contract that is bid on for the government is inflated.

 

[droski]

what other job do you get 80% of your salary in retirement, get double the vacation days of the private sector, and basically can't get fired. the gov't employees salaries are probably fair. include everything else and the american taxpayer is getting horribly ripped off.

 

[droski]

I never said he was. The fact that you, at least in my interpretation, attempted to exonerate him by saying "it wasn't his fault" is a little concerning.


It wasn't his fault, so you're saying he did deserve his handsome payout?

no i'm saying that your statement that the top employees who ran the company int he ground were getting big payouts was ridiculous.

jesus couldn't have stopped merrill from going under when thain took over.

 

[DC Vol]

what other job do you get 80% of your salary in retirement, get double the vacation days of the private sector, and basically can't get fired. the gov't employees salaries are probably fair. include everything else and the american taxpayer is getting horribly ripped off.

Before I launch into a response... have you ever been a government employee?