let's debate where all this money is going

#76
#76
bonuses on wall street are basically a lot of peoples salary. many guys have profitable divisions and will leave if they don't get their full salary. is it their fault the investment bankers ran the company into the ground? i agree it looks bad, but you'd be pretty pissed if 70% of your salary was a bonus, your unit made a bunch of money, and the company eliminated the bonus.
 
#77
#77
droski said:
bonuses on wall street are basically a lot of peoples salary. many guys have profitable divisions and will leave if they don't get their full salary. is it their fault the investment bankers ran the company into the ground? i agree it looks bad, but you'd be pretty pissed if 70% of your salary was a bonus, your unit made a bunch of money, and the company eliminated the bonus.
Click to expand...


Its not just the fact of the bonuses as their companies fail. Its the ridiculous size of them, as their companies fail, that has people wondering.

Why should my tax dollars go to prop up a company that is paying some guy $100 million a year in bonuses (agreed to by the company, or not)?
 
#78
#78
lawgator1 said:
Its not just the fact of the bonuses as their companies fail. Its the ridiculous size of them, as their companies fail, that has people wondering.

Why should my tax dollars go to prop up a company that is paying some guy $100 million a year in bonuses (agreed to by the company, or not)?
Click to expand...
but his point is that bonus is simply a word being used to describe the unit profit sharing pool.
 
#79
#79
lawgator1 said:
Its not just the fact of the bonuses as their companies fail. Its the ridiculous size of them, as their companies fail, that has people wondering.

Why should my tax dollars go to prop up a company that is paying some guy $100 million a year in bonuses (agreed to by the company, or not)?
Click to expand...

the thain bonus and others of that variety are bs. and i haven't seen anyone make $100 mil in bonuses, but if a guy generates $20 or $30 mil in income (which isn't out of the ordinary at all) why shouldn't he get a mil bonus if that is his primary compensation? if he doesn't get it what is he going to do? take that $20 to $30 mil somewhere where he will get paid for it. is that better for the taxpayers?
 
#80
#80
droski said:
the thain bonus and others of that variety are bs. and i haven't seen anyone make $100 mil in bonuses, but if a guy generates $20 or $30 mil in income (which isn't out of the ordinary at all) why shouldn't he get a mil bonus if that is his primary compensation? if he doesn't get it what is he going to do? take that $20 to $30 mil somewhere where he will get paid for it. is that better for the taxpayers?
Click to expand...
biggest bonuses were during the dot com boom when guys like Quatrone were getting $50 million.
 
#81
#81
droski said:
bonuses on wall street are basically a lot of peoples salary. many guys have profitable divisions and will leave if they don't get their full salary. is it their fault the investment bankers ran the company into the ground? i agree it looks bad, but you'd be pretty pissed if 70% of your salary was a bonus, your unit made a bunch of money, and the company eliminated the bonus.
Click to expand...

They can be pissed all they want, things happen to everybody that is out of their control. It is the nature of the game. If an employee at GM does a real good job in his sector, it is profitable, but GM still decides to cut 10% of jobs across the company and he is one of them, it is what it is.

It more than looks bad. I understand the bonus argument, it is 70% of there salary, etc. But if your company is being saved from going out of business, it should be reasonable to accept that people forgo the bonus for a year, get their base salary, and be happy they are still employed. One year of not getting a million dollar bonus where the taxpayer had to step in and save the day is perfectly reasonable.
 
#82
#82
droski said:
the thain bonus and others of that variety are bs. and i haven't seen anyone make $100 mil in bonuses, but if a guy generates $20 or $30 mil in income (which isn't out of the ordinary at all) why shouldn't he get a mil bonus if that is his primary compensation? if he doesn't get it what is he going to do? take that $20 to $30 mil somewhere where he will get paid for it. is that better for the taxpayers?
Click to expand...


No question but that its the largest ones that make the news. Who was it that paid out $4 billion in total bonuses as his company was going bankrupt and had to be propped long enough to get bought? Can't remember.

Point is, for regular folks and even for us small business owners we can't help but come to the conclusion that the top corporate operators are the supporters for the politicians, who in turn allow this to occur and/or end up using federal tax dollars to keep the fiorms afloat as they pay out these kinds of dollars, and that they get paid back with campaign support, jobs for friends and family, etc.

It just has the feel of the wealthy and powerful looking out for the wealthy and powerful and that its a fairly closed off club.

It is what got Obama elected.
 
#83
#83
droski said:
the thain bonus and others of that variety are bs. and i haven't seen anyone make $100 mil in bonuses, but if a guy generates $20 or $30 mil in income (which isn't out of the ordinary at all) why shouldn't he get a mil bonus if that is his primary compensation? if he doesn't get it what is he going to do? take that $20 to $30 mil somewhere where he will get paid for it. is that better for the taxpayers?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he should do. The companies should be held responsible. If that means losing talent because bonuses had to be held off a year, then so be it. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the taxpayer to step in and pay an employee based on a pay structure defined by the said failed company.
 
#84
#84
rjd970 said:
That is exactly what he should do. The companies should be held responsible. If that means losing talent because bonuses had to be held off a year, then so be it. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the taxpayer to step in and pay an employee based on a pay structure defined by the said failed company.
Click to expand...

but by losing this talent you are severly limiting the chance that they will pay back the loans. it's typical short sited gov't intervention. these companies are HUGE and probably only 10% of the company and generally small units are responsible for all these losses. you are asking these companies to torpedo the good businesses to "punish" the companies. that doesn't make sense. as a shareholder the taxpayers should want these bonuses to be paid.
 
#85
#85
lawgator1 said:
No question but that its the largest ones that make the news. Who was it that paid out $4 billion in total bonuses as his company was going bankrupt and had to be propped long enough to get bought? Can't remember.

Point is, for regular folks and even for us small business owners we can't help but come to the conclusion that the top corporate operators are the supporters for the politicians, who in turn allow this to occur and/or end up using federal tax dollars to keep the fiorms afloat as they pay out these kinds of dollars, and that they get paid back with campaign support, jobs for friends and family, etc.

It just has the feel of the wealthy and powerful looking out for the wealthy and powerful and that its a fairly closed off club.

It is what got Obama elected.
Click to expand...


well wait till the average person sees obama pay back his union buddies with billions. and once again the majority of bank execs are democrats and most of them are currently unemployed. how has "wall street" not been hit more than "main street." The average person on wall street is either unemployed or their income is down 40%. the average person on main street is employed and their income is flat.
 
#86
#86
it's sad that American politicians have successfully made companies the enemies because of all this bonus crap. our gov wastes billions a year, yet we are making private, American companies the enemy because they give bonuses for success. what a shame.
 
#87
#87
droski said:
but by losing this talent you are severly limiting the chance that they will pay back the loans. it's typical short sited gov't intervention. these companies are HUGE and probably only 10% of the company and generally small units are responsible for all these losses. you are asking these companies to torpedo the good businesses to "punish" the companies. that doesn't make sense. as a shareholder the taxpayers should want these bonuses to be paid.
Click to expand...

First off, the taxpayer is not a shareholder in the truest sense. We have stepped in to socialize the loss. No way in hell are any of us going to see a dime in return for our investment, the company will keep every penny after the loan is paid back.

Second, outside of wall street, this is the way it works for everybody else. Bonuses shouldn't be paid if the company is being saved from going out of business. In my company, there is a defense and commercial sector. Our profit-sharing bonus was severely cut this year because of bad commercial business, yet the defense sector I work in was extremely profitable.

It is extremely hypocritical that people harp on self-responsibility in a free market, and then when the shoe is on the other foot they say they are "punished" for having to accept the responsibility.
 
#88
#88
rjd970 said:
First off, the taxpayer is not a shareholder in the truest sense. We have stepped in to socialize the loss. No way in hell are any of us going to see a dime in return for our investment, the company will keep every penny after the loan is paid back.

Second, outside of wall street, this is the way it works for everybody else. Bonuses shouldn't be paid if the company is being saved from going out of business. In my company, there is a defense and commercial sector. Our profit-sharing bonus was severely cut this year because of bad commercial business, yet the defense sector I work in was extremely profitable.

It is extremely hypocritical that people harp on self-responsibility in a free market, and then when the shoe is on the other foot they say they are "punished" for having to accept the responsibility.
Click to expand...

the taxpayer is unquestionably a shareholder. it owns 15% of citi, 10% of boa, and a decent % of all the other banks through the convertable preferreds. and the govt will MAKE money on these loans. the interest rates are 10% and they are issuing tresuries at 3%. even with a large default rate this is extremely PROFITABLE.

as for your "bonus" it is generally 70% of your salary? can you leave your job and take all your clients with you AND more importantly do you DIRECTLY generate revenue for the firm? would this revenue go away 100% if you got fired?
 
#89
#89
droski said:
the taxpayer is unquestionably a shareholder. it owns 15% of citi, 10% of boa, and a decent % of all the other banks through the convertable preferreds. and the govt will MAKE money on these loans. the interest rates are 10% and they are issuing tresuries at 3%. even with a large default rate this is extremely PROFITABLE.

as for your "bonus" it is generally 70% of your salary? can you leave your job and take all your clients with you AND more importantly do you DIRECTLY generate revenue for the firm? would this revenue go away 100% if you got fired?
Click to expand...

How much of that money should I expect to see? And when should I see my first check?

What do I care if these people leave because they didn't get a bonus? Fine, they should go to a company that wasn't stupid in their decisions. I have attributes, skills, and contacts that are marketable across the industry I work in, and if my bonus is continually impacted then I go to another company that will pay better. It's simple. Cry me a river these companies may lose a couple of guys that actually were profitable. Overall the company dug its own hole here, I don't care if it becomes harder for them to repay a loan of which I won't see a single penny back from.

At the very least, all bonuses by bailed out banks should be capped at a hard amount, and instead of b!tching about the pay cut they are taking, they should be happy they still have a job, or go get another that will pay them what they think they are worth.
 
#90
#90
rjd970 said:
How much of that money should I expect to see? And when should I see my first check?

What do I care if these people leave because they didn't get a bonus? Fine, they should go to a company that wasn't stupid in their decisions. I have attributes, skills, and contacts that are marketable across the industry I work in, and if my bonus is continually impacted then I go to another company that will pay better. It's simple. Cry me a river these companies may lose a couple of guys that actually were profitable. Overall the company dug its own hole here, I don't care if it becomes harder for them to repay a loan of which I won't see a single penny back from.

At the very least, all bonuses by bailed out banks should be capped at a hard amount, and instead of b!tching about the pay cut they are taking, they should be happy they still have a job, or go get another that will pay them what they think they are worth.
Click to expand...

i'm sure obama will spend the money he makes off of the tarp.

you should care because these aren't a small number of people. by allowing these people to leave you could be severly decreasing the chances that these loans ever get paid back. you are bitching about MAYBE a couple of hundred million that could save the taxpayers a trillion. once again. it's short sited. and trust me if these banks default on these loans YOU will be severly impacted one way or another.

they are already leaving in droves. trust me. i regurally get offered upfronts to leave my current position in the very high 6 figures even in this putrid economy and stock market.
 
#91
#91
lawgator1 said:
Its not just the fact of the bonuses as their companies fail. Its the ridiculous size of them, as their companies fail, that has people wondering.

Why should my tax dollars go to prop up a company that is paying some guy $100 million a year in bonuses (agreed to by the company, or not)?
Click to expand...

So you agree with me that the Obama/Democrap plan is bull crap??

lawgator1 said:
It just has the feel of the wealthy and powerful looking out for the wealthy and powerful and that its a fairly closed off club.

It is what got Obama elected.
Click to expand...

And now Obama is repaying the wealthy and powerful who are responsible for getting him elected???
 
#92
#92
I'm not convinced a stimulus package was needed.

I think simply adding liquidity to the banking system for the toxic debt would have been enough. There was a Republican congressman on Hannity today, who made a good argument for this. Can't remember his name.
 
Last edited:
#94
#94
oklavol said:
exactly, good point
Click to expand...

Actually it is a horrible point.

This is all a mess. But to offer an entity money and then encourage that entity to lose talent is idiotic. I know if I loan someone money on a business deal I would not encourage them to lose their talented players. If I don't like their pay structure to begin with then I don't loan them money.
 
#95
#95
allvol123 said:
Actually it is a horrible point.

This is all a mess. But to offer an entity money and then encourage that entity to lose talent is idiotic. I know if I loan someone money on a business deal I would not encourage them to lose their talented players. If I don't like their pay structure to begin with then I don't loan them money.
Click to expand...

And what about the institutions that were ran better and are not insolvent, the govt should just keep their competition in business and help them retain their best people?
 
#96
#96
oklavol said:
And what about the institutions that were ran better and are not insolvent, the govt should just keep their competition in business and help them retain their best people?
Click to expand...

I said it is all a mess and I am not for any of it. That said, if you are going to do it, encouraging loss of talent is idiotic.
 
#97
#97
Get ready to give $5.5 B. dollars to the UN. They will be asking for the $$$ at the G20 Summit. The UN says it will keep 400M from poverty.
 
#99
#99
Giving anything to the guys at the UN. just makes me shrug, muchless $5.5 B. dollars...I guess this is another one of my patriotic duties huh? *sigh*
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top