ShouldBeWorking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We should all be making $250,000 max. Anything > over that amount should go directly to the poor. I would only agree to this if my amount was going to a crack-addicted single mom with 8 kids whose baby daddy is serving 25 to life in federal pen.
that is considered rich according to our dear leader Obama needhelp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ShouldBeWorking Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We should all be making $250,000 max. Anything > > over that amount should go directly to the > poor. > > > yeah and how did u come up with that figure, eh?
ShouldBeWorking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > that is considered rich according to our dear > leader Obama > > > ShouldBeWorking Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > We should all be making $250,000 max. > Anything > > > over that amount should go directly to the > > poor. hes not making the same stupid suggestion you (jokingly?) did though.
I was thinking last night that back in 2003 i was really fearful of what was going to happen to US and the world right before the iraq war. But boy now i remember those days as the gold ol days as compared to the poop we just stepped in.
IheartMath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hes not making the same stupid suggestion you > (jokingly?) did though. who do you think will be paying for universal health care?
seriously, come on. people are not going to be taxed 100% on any and all compensation over the first $250k. and from what I’ve read, a nationalized health care plan in this country would have to work a lot differently than what has been in place in other countries.
KJH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok facts. If the guy has to pay 90% of his $750k > bonus in taxes then that leaves him with $75k > after tax ($140k pretax normal taxrate)… which > is still more than a year of his labor is worth > GIVEN that he made fat profits in the past years > AND he knew it was coming, and his company sucks. > Period. Fact. > > The guy is a self-entitled whiner and I’m glad to > see him squirm. You are a fool to have pitty on > him. There are plenty of other people who are > seriously feeling the hunger in this mess that > didn’t work for one of the prime culprits. The “90%” tax rate was passed since the individuals coming up with the tax for bonuses thought the remaining 10% would be taken care of by local taxes! The goal was to not allow them to get any of the bonus. So your saying a guys that gets paid $1 to stick around and help them sell off a PROFITABLE piece of AIG’s business so that AIG can help pay off debt due to bad decisions by other people does not deserve to get paid anything? You are an idiot. FACT!
Obviously I’m being facetious in my comments but given the faux populist rage in Congress these jokes might become reality soon
i personally dont think anyone should get a bonus at AIG this year. But since AIG was contractually obligated them, the execs this year should just get an ordinary salary with no bonus or largely reduced bonus based on helping the company become more profitable again, and those directly involved in creating the “crisis” we see now should have their bonus contracts taken to court since they breached fiduciary duty and are therefore not entitled to it. Going through the IRS and implementing a 90% tax rate is a bad idea. Even if it seems morally just, its not sound.
Those directly involved in the crisis are gone already. ppl who are receiving the bonus are the ones that’s working to wind down the business. Don’t lump everyone at AIG into the same witchhunt.
I think the question here comes down to the structuring of your bonus. If you make money and do a good job, but the company loses money, do you make a bonus? How about vice versa? I don’t think there’s a straightforward answer, but I do know that the most important thing is that the employer and employee have the same expectations as to that answer so that their interests are suitably aligned. It is clear that if you do a bad job in an insolvent company, you should not get a performance bonus, and I think the populist rage is based on the mostly incorrect assumption that this is largely what is going on. damned by association I guess. I think there is also a stigma on the word ‘bonus’. It seems like some folk in other industries earn some very high base salaries, whereas in finance it is often loaded into the bonus, with a modest base. So I think perhaps some industries are getting off lightly in comparison (I haven’t heard much noise about excessive base salaries of guys in Detroit) In this guy’s case, having read through this thread, it should be obvious to anyone with mental faculties that a) saving money does not mean all this was expected b) this guy does not deserve death threats from people with mob mentality c) money was clearly not the motive behind his resignation letter whether he was overpaid or not does not make him a “whiner”. having people threaten him while others attempt to publish his name is a pretty disgusting turn of events and I think when this settles down people will look back and be pretty ashamed at the way this played out.
Do people here still not understand that “bonus” on wall street doesn’t mean what it means elsewhere. I don’t mean from a facetious “Bonus if I do well, and bonus if I screw up” point of view. Rather, the bonus is an expected part of total comp, which will be larger in the event of good performance and smaller if not, but will exist (and be a substaintial portion of total comp) regardless. The biggest mistake anyone made here was calling these payments “bonuses” in the first place, as I’m sure no congresscritter could make the distinction I’ve made here. More here: http://epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com/2009/02/five-pound-box-of-money.html
<> deleted post
I am curious about why couldn’t AIG just hire ppl to unwind the business and not pay any bonuses. Seems like the word “bonus” is now a taboo that should be shunned upon.
A lot of bonuses aren’t actually rewards for superior performance, but simply deferred compensation that are paid out (typically) at the same time as performance based bonuses, and are (for accounting purposes) rolled up under the “bonus” line item. For example, does anyone think a “signing bonus” actually reflects reward for superior performance in amy but the most indirect way. But it’s still called a “bonus.” So expect lots of new compensation phrases to emerge out of this. Who knows, we may reopen Guantanamo for “financial non-combatants” again.
Right, but some people are saying that “there are many qualified people that are unemployed now on the street. Why not hire them with no strings attached?” Im curious about whether this is a solid argument or it is just outright ignorant.
JohnThainsLimoDriver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree that the guy was overpaid. But I also > agree that he is entitled to keep every penny > since his employer signed a guaranteed contract. > It sets a bad legal precedent if you can just go > around breaking binding contracts willy nilly. > Imagine any time your employer wants to renege on > any future compensation you’re entitled to, they > can just cite the AIG precedent and it would be > hard to challenge in court. This is exactly right. The bottom line is that this guy had signed a contract with AIG to get paid a certain amount (bonus) to continue to work at the company as it unwinds. The Treasury knew about these bonus contracts. I think it is very scary that Congress thinks it can go around effectively nullifying legal contracts because they disagree with a certain level of compensation. Congress basically confiscated this guy’s property because they felt like it. This should scare all of us.
ancientmtk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Right, but some people are saying that “there are > many qualified people that are unemployed now on > the street. Why not hire them with no strings > attached?” > > Im curious about whether this is a solid argument > or it is just outright ignorant. The guy was being paid $1, plus whatever the bonus arrangement turned out to be. When you lose an employee, you lose a lot of knowledge of situations, products, processes, and little company specific details that are relevant to getting out of a mess or selling a business unit at a decent price. So although you can get other people cheaper today, you’re still likely to be paying them while they learn about their products, the legal intricacies of the agreements, the total risk profiles, learn company procedures. An HR rule of thumb is that it costs 1/3 to 1/2 of a replacement person’s salary just to get them on board and up and running. Also remember that when AIG was taken over, and the $1 salary agreement reached wall street had not started having massive layoffs: there was no real indication that you could replace the staff at the prices you can do it today. There is a serious problem with retroactively renegotiating contracts like this. It does tell people that you don’t want to work for/with the government if you can possibly avoid it, yet the mess is complex enough that the taxpayers need both talented and ethical people working to ensure that there is a good deal. The bonuses consisted of less than 0.1% of total taxpayer aid. If keeping on the old and more knowledgeable staff makes that money even 10 basis points more efficient, the taxpayers end up with a net gain.
ShouldBeWorking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We should all be making $250,000 max. Anything > over that amount should go directly to the poor. As currently a non-extremist and neither registered as Democrat or Republican - I would take up arms (and hope others would to) to defend America and our Constitution from domestic enemies if our country ever turned into a communist nation like the one you want (if you are serious). And if I couldn’t succeed, I’d rather the world end in a nuclear holocaust - would be a better ending for humanity than a communist dystopia.
^ K, you are joking (didn’t read past page 2 when I posted), so we’d be on the same side.