PDA

View Full Version : Economics Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Criticize Limits


petegz28
03-21-2009, 01:03 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=am3Q_20T0S44&refer=worldwide

March 21 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., recipients of more than $100 billion in U.S. rescue funds, criticized congressional proposals to tax Wall Street bonuses.

Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis called the tax “unfair” in a memo to employees yesterday, while Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit said his bank is “working in every appropriate way with policymakers.” JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon held a conference call with about 200 executives, saying the firm is concerned about retention and is working with lawmakers.




Awww, they take tax payer $'s to stay in business and now it is unfair? How about we could have let them all fail, or should have, and none of them would have received jack shit?

These people brought this on themselves and now are crying. Talk about Capitalism turned Socialist in a hurry once the rich can't get their "bonuses".

patteeu
03-21-2009, 01:24 PM
It's a stupid law meant to appease stupid people, whether it's fair or not.

wild1
03-21-2009, 01:27 PM
i really don't care. if they revoke all the AIG bonuses I won't be a cent richer

Stewie
03-21-2009, 01:34 PM
While you're over here worrying about bonuses...

... I'll be over there adding trillions$

Smoke meet mirrors.

petegz28
03-21-2009, 01:53 PM
It's a stupid law meant to appease stupid people, whether it's fair or not.

:rolleyes:

Of course you of all people would think it is.

morphius
03-21-2009, 02:20 PM
Is there a big rush on stealing execs who helped kill the global economy?

BigRedChief
03-21-2009, 03:07 PM
While you're over here worrying about bonuses...

... I'll be over there adding trillions$

Smoke meet mirrors.
No chit what morons. Argue to your blue in the face, protest outside of the homes of bonus takers while the other 99% of the money is going out the door being spent in a who knows fashion. Forest meet trees moment.

Very short sighted. Taxing people because you don't like their legal actions? Now thats a slippery slope that people need to seriously consider before going down that path.

Rigodan
03-21-2009, 03:20 PM
Is there a big rush on stealing execs who helped kill the global economy?

The guys who were responsible for the credit default strategy are gone. The guys that are getting the bonuses now weren't in charge of that. Plus if you don't give these guys the bonuses you will drive away very competent executives and will have no one working at a company that has a lot of problems and has almost 200 billion tax payer dollars to pay back. Does it really make sense to drive away competent employees over $165 million worth of bonuses when we're on the hook for almost 200 billion?

morphius
03-21-2009, 03:28 PM
The guys who were responsible for the credit default strategy are gone. The guys that are getting the bonuses now weren't in charge of that. Plus if you don't give these guys the bonuses you will drive away very competent executives and will have no one working at a company that has a lot of problems and has almost 200 billion tax payer dollars to pay back. Does it really make sense to drive away competent employees over $165 million worth of bonuses when we're on the hook for almost 200 billion?
I disagree with the gov't punitively taxing them, but there should have been a stipulation in the bail out "contract" that if you took money it meant no bonuses till a certain level of self productiveness was reached.

I'm also not buying that all of the execs are gone, I haven't paid much attention to that matter. It is doubtful that without some of the bail out moneys whether some of these companies would even be around, and then the execs wouldn't have got their bonuses anyway. I also don't buy the driving them away piece at all, I don't think there are a lot of big money offers for these guys right now.

banyon
03-21-2009, 03:34 PM
I disagree with the gov't punitively taxing them, but there should have been a stipulation in the bail out "contract" that if you took money it meant no bonuses till a certain level of self productiveness was reached.

I'm also not buying that all of the execs are gone, I haven't paid much attention to that matter. It is doubtful that without some of the bail out moneys whether some of these companies would even be around, and then the execs wouldn't have got their bonuses anyway. I also don't buy the driving them away piece at all, I don't think there are a lot of big money offers for these guys right now.

Exactly. This claw back tax essentially just corrects the lack of the provision in the earlier bill. It would have been cleaner and less subject to hysteria if they had gotten it right the first time, but it essentially corrects the original oversight.

Rigodan
03-21-2009, 03:47 PM
I disagree with the gov't punitively taxing them, but there should have been a stipulation in the bail out "contract" that if you took money it meant no bonuses till a certain level of self productiveness was reached.

I'm also not buying that all of the execs are gone, I haven't paid much attention to that matter. It is doubtful that without some of the bail out moneys whether some of these companies would even be around, and then the execs wouldn't have got their bonuses anyway. I also don't buy the driving them away piece at all, I don't think there are a lot of big money offers for these guys right now.

If AIG didn't pay the bonuses many people probably would have gone to court because AIG would be violating their contracts and I don't think anyone would continue to work for someone that they are suing.

Not everyone that worked on credit default swaps is gone but the execs who decided to take the company in that direction are gone. The others that remain were just following orders.

morphius
03-21-2009, 03:59 PM
If AIG didn't pay the bonuses many people probably would have gone to court because AIG would be violating their contracts and I don't think anyone would continue to work for someone that they are suing.
Which is why I said I was against the punitive taxation after the fact, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Not everyone that worked on credit default swaps is gone but the execs who decided to take the company in that direction are gone. The others that remain were just following orders.
So the complete upper management is gone and the have all new guys in there? Does that hold true for all the other needy companies?

patteeu
03-21-2009, 04:14 PM
I disagree with the gov't punitively taxing them, but there should have been a stipulation in the bail out "contract" that if you took money it meant no bonuses till a certain level of self productiveness was reached.

I'm also not buying that all of the execs are gone, I haven't paid much attention to that matter. It is doubtful that without some of the bail out moneys whether some of these companies would even be around, and then the execs wouldn't have got their bonuses anyway. I also don't buy the driving them away piece at all, I don't think there are a lot of big money offers for these guys right now.

Why? Should there be no salaries until that point either? Bonuses are just a form of compensation. The last thing we need are a bunch of demagogues in Congress micromanaging these corporations. If we don't think the corporations are going to behave in a way that facilitates a turnaround, we shouldn't be bailing them out. If we do, we shouldn't be throwing obstacles in their path as they go about doing it.

patteeu
03-21-2009, 04:18 PM
From National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2UwYjY5YTVkNzVkYjFmZDU5ODVmNTIxOWQxYzE2YWM=):

The Outrage Kabuki
And the limits of telepromptered cool.

By Mark Steyn

Are you outraged by these AIG bonuses?

No, no. For Pete’s sake, you’re an A-list congressional bigshot. Try to get a bit of feeling into “outraged.” The president’s teleprompter puts it in italics, bold, capitalized, and underlined: OUTRAGED!

That’s better. Don’t forget to furrow your brow and fume. No, not like a camp waiter when you send back the arugula salad drizzled in an aubergine coulis. We’re looking for primal, righteous anger: You’re outraged, OUTRAGED that bonuses are being handed out at companies the American taxpayer is bailing out. Yes, to be sure, the bonuses were specifically provided for in the legislation, but, like all busy senators and congressmen, you don’t have time to read every footling trillion-dollar bill before you vote in favor of it. And yes, true, the specific passage addressing these particular bonuses was, in fact, added to the bill in your name, but that was nothing to do with you — you just did that because the White House asked you to, and just because their people called your people and some intern in your office drafted some boilerplate with your name on it is no reason for you to be denied ten minutes of grandstanding on MSNBC. It’s an outrage to suggest you’re anything other than outrageously outraged!

To his credit, the Hopeychanger-in-Chief has had some difficulty doing the outrage kabuki with a straight face. In the middle of his press conference the other day, he got a tickle in his throat and departed from his telepromptered script to joke: “Excuse me, I’m choked up with anger here.” How the assembled hacks laughed! Why, it was almost as funny as his gag on The Tonight Show. Referring to his 129 score at the White House bowling alley, the president cracked that “it was like the Special Olympics.” Ha-ha! What a card that Obama is when he unplugs the prompter and kicks loose a little. Maybe next time he can toss in that the Dow Jones has got “Down” syndrome — geddit? Oh, come on! Don’t be so uptight and politically correct!!! And besides, anyone who says the president shouldn’t be doing crip jokes is a racist.

Frank James of the Chicago Tribune criticized the president’s bon mot more in sorrow than in anger: “Obama seems to be a fairly sensitive and compassionate man who wouldn’t purposely set out to offend the disabled . . . ”

Are you sure about that? He might be “a fairly sensitive and compassionate man.” Alternatively, he could be a mean, self-absorbed s.o.b. who regards anyone other than himself as intellectually disabled. The truth is we don’t know, because in the course of the presidential campaign the press declined to do even the most elementary due diligence on him. And, like Congress with the stimulus, the electorate didn’t bother to find out what’s in there before they voted for it.

Still, on the basis of its first 60 days, this is a very odd presidency. In between appearances on Jay Leno and his “March Madness” picks, Barack Oprompta also found time to compare AIG executives to suicide bombers:

[indent]Even though it makes you angry because you’re thinking I was responsible, and these folks are irresponsible, and somehow I’m paying for them, it was the right thing to do to step in. The same is true with AIG. It was the right thing to do to step in. Here is the problem. It’s almost like they’ve got, they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up, but you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.[/ident]

Right. It’s like you’re at the Jay Leno post-show party and suddenly you notice this AIG vice-president has wandered in, with six figures of bonus strapped to his waist and he’s yelling “Allahu Akbar!” — which is Arabic for “I’d like to deposit this in my Cayman Islands account.”

Maybe Obama’s teleprompter had a wild night on the tiles, and inserted his terrorism speech into the middle of his bonus outrage. But, if not, we now know why the White House announced that they’ll no longer be using the term “enemy combatants” for the Gitmo crowd. They’re reserving that designation for AIG execs, most of whom will shortly be extraordinary-renditioned to Saudi Arabia where a touch of the old electric cattle-prods should soon have their bowling scores heading south.

Any sentient being dumb enough to fall for this AIG huffin’ an’ a-puffin’ from Barry, Barney, Doddy, and the gang is a fool who deserves the vaporization of his assets that the national political class is lining up for him. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, the $165 million in bonuses is less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion budget. The massive expansion of government the president is planning is forever, and will ensure you that end your days in what Peggy Noonan calls “post-prosperity America.” More immediately, what message do you send to the world when legal contracts can be abrogated by retrospective confiscatory bills of attainder? You think that’s going to get anyone investing in America again?

The investor class invests in jurisdictions where the rules are clear and stable. Right now, Washington is telling the planet: In our America, there are no rules. Got a legally binding contract? We’ll tear it up. Refuse to surrender the dough? We’ll pass a law targeted at you, yes, you, Mr. Beau Nuss of 27 Plutocrat Gardens, Fatcatville. If you want a banana republic on steroids, this is great news. So cheer on thuggish grandstanding by incompetent legislators-for-life like Barney Frank if you wish. But, in any battle between the political class and the business class, you’re only fooling yourself if you think it’s in your interest for the latter to lose.

The first two months of the Age of the Hopeychange have been an eye-opener. I expected it to be ideologically distasteful to me, but I didn’t expect it to be so inept. Not because I had any expectations of President Obama’s executive skills. But I assumed he’d have folks around him who could take care of details like governing, while he pranced around as the smiley-face hopeychange frontman. But the bench is still empty save for a handful of mediocrities. And the disconnect between the smoothly scripted mush and what’s actually happening makes the telepromptered cool look even more ridiculous.

morphius
03-21-2009, 04:58 PM
Why? Should there be no salaries until that point either? Bonuses are just a form of compensation. The last thing we need are a bunch of demagogues in Congress micromanaging these corporations. If we don't think the corporations are going to behave in a way that facilitates a turnaround, we shouldn't be bailing them out. If we do, we shouldn't be throwing obstacles in their path as they go about doing it.
Well, it is good to know that if your company was failing that you would find it more important that your execs get bonuses for being there than actually showing some improvement to earn those bonuses.

patteeu
03-21-2009, 05:04 PM
Well, it is good to know that if your company was failing that you would find it more important that your execs get bonuses for being there than actually showing some improvement to earn those bonuses.

Are you going to eliminate your execs' salaries too? If not, why not?

Why do you draw this artificial distinction between the bonus portion of their compensation and the salary portion?

morphius
03-21-2009, 05:27 PM
Are you going to eliminate your execs' salaries too? If not, why not?

Why do you draw this artificial distinction between the bonus portion of their compensation and the salary portion?
Because bonuses are perceived bonuses on a companies well being, though of course if it is in your contract it really isn't a bonus but part of your salary. It was congress that asked the CEO to take $1 salary, I think that was relatively stupid as well. I'm actually more disappointed the congress's approach to getting the money back, than the bonuses.

I know there are a lot of stupid bonus things out there, like CEO's screwing up a company, leaving, and still getting a mill a year from the company. It really is just about a lot of stupid practices.

Just all kinds of stupid things going on with lots of different companies, etc, etc.

petegz28
03-21-2009, 05:37 PM
Are you going to eliminate your execs' salaries too? If not, why not?

Why do you draw this artificial distinction between the bonus portion of their compensation and the salary portion?

So now you are going to pretend that the word bonus equates to salary? :thumb:

patteeu
03-21-2009, 06:34 PM
Because bonuses are perceived bonuses on a companies well being, though of course if it is in your contract it really isn't a bonus but part of your salary. It was congress that asked the CEO to take $1 salary, I think that was relatively stupid as well. I'm actually more disappointed the congress's approach to getting the money back, than the bonuses.

I know there are a lot of stupid bonus things out there, like CEO's screwing up a company, leaving, and still getting a mill a year from the company. It really is just about a lot of stupid practices.

Just all kinds of stupid things going on with lots of different companies, etc, etc.

I won't argue with you about the stupid practices, but I'd just point out that regardless of perception, bonuses aren't necessarily tied to a company's well being. Think of all the Chiefs players who received bonuses this year, for example. Some for just being on the roster.

morphius
03-21-2009, 06:52 PM
actually with this is my post, though of course if it is in your contract it really isn't a bonus but part of your salary, I'm not sure what you are arguing with at all, lol

patteeu
03-21-2009, 07:08 PM
actually with this is my post, though of course if it is in your contract it really isn't a bonus but part of your salary, I'm not sure what you are arguing with at all, lol

It wasn't as clear to me that you were revising your position on the bonuses as you must think it should have been. If that's my fault, I apologize.

chiefforlife
03-21-2009, 07:12 PM
The bonuses should have never been paid, as bonuses are a reward for a job well done.
However, the government taxing them back is the scariest proposition yet? This would open a whole new door to taxation. I dont like it and no one should.

mikey23545
03-21-2009, 07:18 PM
Is there a big rush on stealing execs who helped kill the global economy?

There should be a big rush on voting out the congressional bastards who killed the global economy, but there sits Frank, cursing AIG and feeling up congressional pages all at the same time...

banyon
03-21-2009, 07:19 PM
The bonuses should have never been paid, as bonuses are a reward for a job well done.
However, the government taxing them back is the scariest proposition yet? This would open a whole new door to taxation. I dont like it and no one should.

What is this "whole new door" to what? Taxing companies that we handed hundreds of billions to? Hell, if they want to just hand me hundreds of billions, I'll be happy to accept a 90% tax rate. And I won't even b*tch about it like these spoiled corrupt f*cks.

patteeu
03-21-2009, 07:24 PM
The bonuses should have never been paid, as bonuses are a reward for a job well done.
However, the government taxing them back is the scariest proposition yet? This would open a whole new door to taxation. I dont like it and no one should.

They aren't necessarily a reward for a job well done. In this case, they appear to be a reward for meeting criteria in the employment contract which must have been unrelated to the overall company performance.

If they were discretionary bonuses that management could either pay or withhold, I'd completely agree with you.

patteeu
03-21-2009, 07:26 PM
What is this "whole new door" to what? Taxing companies that we handed hundreds of billions to? Hell, if they want to just hand me hundreds of billions, I'll be happy to accept a 90% tax rate. And I won't even b*tch about it like these spoiled corrupt f*cks.

Unlike many people, the government actually does hand you your paycheck every payday. Are you really telling me that you'd happily accept a 90% tax rate or is this just a matter of how much that paycheck is?

banyon
03-21-2009, 07:41 PM
Unlike many people, the government actually does hand you your paycheck every payday. Are you really telling me that you'd happily accept a 90% tax rate or is this just a matter of how much that paycheck is?

Actually they don't hand it to me, they ask me to work @55+ hrs a week and some weekends for it.

The point is that the 10% left over on the bonuses for these executives for a company in the crapper still amount to way more than most people make in a year, so it's hard to feel too sorry for them, particularly when their bonuses were bought and paid for with our grandchildren's money.

10% of a million is 100,000 if you didn't know. Plus their regular salary. Oh, no how will they be able to afford that 2nd yacht now? WE *MUST* WRING OUR HANDS SOME MORE OVER THESE POOR POOR 100 OR SO RICH PEOPLE!!

Saul Good
03-21-2009, 07:56 PM
Well, it is good to know that if your company was failing that you would find it more important that your execs get bonuses for being there than actually showing some improvement to earn those bonuses.If the word "bonus" was replaced with "salary", would anyone be as up in arms about it?

morphius
03-21-2009, 08:03 PM
If the word "bonus" was replaced with "salary", would anyone be as up in arms about it?
I think people would be upset that they were making that much, but they wouldn't have smoke coming out of their ears. Its sort of a perception issue, as most people only get bonuses for going above and beyond, or when your company is doing well. Not many people have contracts with guarantees like that built in.

patteeu
03-21-2009, 08:51 PM
Actually they don't hand it to me, they ask me to work @55+ hrs a week and some weekends for it.

You don't think these people are working for their paycheck just like you do?

The point is that the 10% left over on the bonuses for these executives for a company in the crapper still amount to way more than most people make in a year, so it's hard to feel too sorry for them, particularly when their bonuses were bought and paid for with our grandchildren's money.

10% of a million is 100,000 if you didn't know. Plus their regular salary. Oh, no how will they be able to afford that 2nd yacht now? WE *MUST* WRING OUR HANDS SOME MORE OVER THESE POOR POOR 100 OR SO RICH PEOPLE!!

I don't think that's a very good point. In fact, I don't think it's a whole lot better than being comfortable with murder because the victim's already a lot older than the average person can ever expect to be.

banyon
03-21-2009, 08:57 PM
You don't think these people are working for their paycheck just like you do?

They didn't work for the government bailout money which is what I was referring to.


I don't think that's a very good point. In fact, I don't think it's a whole lot better than being comfortable with murder because the victim's already a lot older than the average person can ever expect to be.



Yeah, handing these guys $100k instead of $1 million is exactly like murdering them. Great analogy.

chiefforlife
03-21-2009, 09:08 PM
What is this "whole new door" to what? Taxing companies that we handed hundreds of billions to? Hell, if they want to just hand me hundreds of billions, I'll be happy to accept a 90% tax rate. And I won't even b*tch about it like these spoiled corrupt f*cks.

I am assuming there has never been a 90% tax rate? If there has, my bad. That is the whole new taxation I was speaking of. These people were not handed billions, their company was. If there was language mandating that these bonuses were to be paid, then they have to be paid. Taxing them at 90% is not because they make billions, or because they earned their way in to that bracket, it would be a penalty. Government revenge? That is scary to me, if the government decides you are next or me? Then what?

banyon
03-21-2009, 09:16 PM
I am assuming there has never been a 90% tax rate? If there has, my bad. That is the whole new taxation I was speaking of. These people were not handed billions, their company was. If there was language mandating that these bonuses were to be paid, then they have to be paid. Taxing them at 90% is not because they make billions, or because they earned their way in to that bracket, it would be a penalty. Government revenge? That is scary to me, if the government decides you are next or me? Then what?

would the bonuses have been paid if the companies went bankrupt?

Also, where is all of this language that people are supposing is mandatory. For all of the furor about it, I've yet to see an example of one of these ironclad contractual non-performance bonuses.

(also, yes there has been a 90% top marginal rate on income shortly after WWII).

patteeu
03-21-2009, 09:17 PM
They didn't work for the government bailout money which is what I was referring to.

Both you and those executives work for your compensation. The government didn't hand them the money either. As far as that is concerned, the government hands you your money more directly.

Yeah, handing these guys $100k instead of $1 million is exactly like murdering them. Great analogy.

It's not "exactly like" nor did I ever suggest that it was. It's just not "a whole lot better than" rationalizing a murder. Both of them are ridiculous rationalizations. This type of after-the-fact, thinly-veiled punitive taxation is either right or it's wrong. AFAIC, it's wrong.

patteeu
03-21-2009, 09:18 PM
would the bonuses have been paid if the companies went bankrupt?

Did these companies go bankrupt?

wazu
03-21-2009, 09:18 PM
Talk about Capitalism turned Socialist in a hurry once the rich can't get their "bonuses".

Memo to all bank execs:

All performance-based bonuses have been canceled indefinitely. Instead, whatever bonuses would have been given have now been made a part of your annual salary, so are no longer incentive-based. Have a nice day.

banyon
03-21-2009, 09:18 PM
Both you and those executives work for your compensation. The government didn't hand them the money either. As far as that is concerned, the government hands you your money more directly.


Without the bailout $ would they have been able to pay the bonuses?

banyon
03-21-2009, 09:19 PM
Did these companies go bankrupt?

Did they require government assistance to avoid doing so?

patteeu
03-21-2009, 09:21 PM
Without the bailout $ would they have been able to pay the bonuses?

Without the bailout $ would they have been able to pay salaries? Or light bills? Or health insurance premiums? What difference does any of this make?

patteeu
03-21-2009, 09:24 PM
Did they require government assistance to avoid doing so?

I presume so. Did they go bankrupt? If not, then why did you bring it up? Bankruptcy doesn't apply here.

banyon
03-21-2009, 09:28 PM
Without the bailout $ would they have been able to pay salaries? Or light bills? Or health insurance premiums? What difference does any of this make?

The difference is that de facto the taxpayers paid out these bonuses to executives at a company with the biggest loss in corporate history, so maybe we'd better make sure they were deserved.

banyon
03-21-2009, 09:28 PM
I presume so. Did they go bankrupt? If not, then why did you bring it up? Bankruptcy doesn't apply here.

It should have.

petegz28
03-21-2009, 10:05 PM
Memo to all bank execs:

All performance-based bonuses have been canceled indefinitely. Instead, whatever bonuses would have been given have now been made a part of your annual salary, so are no longer incentive-based. Have a nice day.

More like..."Take money from tax payer, forfeit bouneses".

InChiefsHell
03-21-2009, 10:29 PM
This is why the government should not bail companies out, and why companies should not be wanting money from the government. People get up in arms when the company says "Hey, I can't pay my bills, can you bail me out" and the gov says "sure, here's a big pile of cash, pay your bills." Nobody knows what the bills are, the bailout is just supposed to pay the bills. Then they find out that the bills are for shit that they don't want to pay for, so there is much harumphing and gnashing of teeth, and "outrage".

I tell ya what people, the only one's who should be outraged is just us taxpayers. The politicians KNEW the bonuses were going to be paid (and that included the Messiah) but they all, the corporations and the politicians, told us that the sky was falling and if they didn't do this NOW, THIS WEEK, we were all going to die or some shit. Bush greased the skids for this and Obama is just taking the ball and running with it.

We're screwed I tell ya. The corruption and incompetence in DC and in some circles of corporate America is dooming us all...

patteeu
03-22-2009, 07:04 AM
The difference is that de facto the taxpayers paid out these bonuses to executives at a company with the biggest loss in corporate history, so maybe we'd better make sure they were deserved.

Assuming that the bonuses were contractual obligations and that the terms of the contract were met, why would the executives' bonuses be less deserved than the executives' salary or their company-paid healthcare premiums? And this thread isn't about making sure the bonuses are deserved, it's about taxing them at confiscatory rates regardless of whether they were deserved or not. In fact, if they weren't deserved, there would presumably be other alternatives available to block the payments (e.g. the approach being investigated by New York's attorney general) so what we're really talking about is taxing these bonuses at confiscatory rates even though they are deserved.

petegz28
03-22-2009, 07:57 AM
Assuming that the bonuses were contractual obligations and that the terms of the contract were met, why would the executives' bonuses be less deserved than the executives' salary or their company-paid healthcare premiums? And this thread isn't about making sure the bonuses are deserved, it's about taxing them at confiscatory rates regardless of whether they were deserved or not. In fact, if they weren't deserved, there would presumably be other alternatives available to block the payments (e.g. the approach being investigated by New York's attorney general) so what we're really talking about is taxing these bonuses at confiscatory rates even though they are deserved.



exactly...so they are getting the bonuses......they are just going to have to pay a high tax on them. And I know this concept falls deaf on your ears but execs have this habbit of paying out bonuses when they are not deserved.

patteeu
03-22-2009, 08:12 AM
exactly...so they are getting the bonuses......they are just going to have to pay a high tax on them. And I know this concept falls deaf on your ears but execs have this habbit of paying out bonuses when they are not deserved.

High = confiscatory. Getting = not getting. Not deserved = petegz28 can't contain his envy.

petegz28
03-22-2009, 08:22 AM
High = confiscatory. Getting = not getting. Not deserved = petegz28 can't contain his envy.

I am glad to see when presented with reality you run to the defense of the undefensible.

I know patteeu, there have never been any bonuses paid out to execs that were not deserved. ROFL

Methinks you are either a wanna-be rich exec, or you have been on the receiving end of an undeserved bonus.

banyon
03-22-2009, 08:36 AM
Assuming that the bonuses were contractual obligations and that the terms of the contract were met, why would the executives' bonuses be less deserved than the executives' salary or their company-paid healthcare premiums? And this thread isn't about making sure the bonuses are deserved, it's about taxing them at confiscatory rates regardless of whether they were deserved or not. In fact, if they weren't deserved, there would presumably be other alternatives available to block the payments (e.g. the approach being investigated by New York's attorney general) so what we're really talking about is taxing these bonuses at confiscatory rates even though they are deserved.

No, the taxation is what you would like to talk about and you'd like to isolate it from the context of the corporate malfeasance and sense of entitlement that got us here in the first place. And again, also you and others (not just in this forum, but in the professional media) have speculated that the bonuses were ironclad contractual guarantees, there's ben no showing that it's so.

But from an equity standpoint, if companies in the red don't pay bonuses because they can't afford it and it would be nonsensical, then the taxpayers saving the company from the red shouldn't change the bonus situation, it should just stabilize the company from bankruptcy.

petegz28
03-22-2009, 08:42 AM
No, the taxation is what you would like to talk about and you'd like to isolate it from the context of the corporate malfeasance and sense of entitlement that got us here in the first place. And again, also you and others (not just in this forum, but in the professional media) have speculated that the bonuses were ironclad contractual guarantees, there's ben no showing that it's so.

But from an equity standpoint, if companies in the red don't pay bonuses because they can't afford it and it would be nonsensical, then the taxpayers saving the company from the red shouldn't change the bonus situation, it should just stabilize the company from bankruptcy.

Just more evidence of the boardrooms scratching the backs of the execs at the expense of everyone esle. The problem in the corporate world, and patteu's mindset is there is a huge void where gratitude should be and it is filled with selfishness.

patteeu
03-22-2009, 08:47 AM
I am glad to see when presented with reality you run to the defense of the undefensible.

I know patteeu, there have never been any bonuses paid out to execs that were not deserved. ROFL

Methinks you are either a wanna-be rich exec, or you have been on the receiving end of an undeserved bonus.

We're talking about these bonuses, petegz28, not some mythical bonuses that weren't deserved. If you have any evidence that these execs didn't meet the requirements for these bonuses, whatever they were, then let's see it.

banyon
03-22-2009, 08:49 AM
We're talking about these bonuses, petegz28, not some mythical bonuses that weren't deserved. If you have any evidence that these execs didn't meet the requirements for these bonuses, whatever they were, then let's see it.

Okay:
http://useconomy.about.com/b/2009/03/03/aig-reports-biggest-corporate-loss-in-history.htm
AIG Reports Biggest Corporate Loss in History
Tuesday March 3, 2009
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke reported that the bailout of AIG has made him more angry than anything else in the recession. His comment followed on the heels of AIG reporting the largest loss in corporate history, a record $61.7 billion for Q4 2008 alone...
This creates a rebuttable presumption that there was a company wide disaster. Your turn.

patteeu
03-22-2009, 09:04 AM
No, the taxation is what you would like to talk about and you'd like to isolate it from the context of the corporate malfeasance and sense of entitlement that got us here in the first place. And again, also you and others (not just in this forum, but in the professional media) have speculated that the bonuses were ironclad contractual guarantees, there's ben no showing that it's so.

If these bonuses are discretionary payments intended to bilk the taxpayer by funneling bailout funds into the pockets of execs before the whole country goes bankrupt, then we'd have no problem finding agreement. Now that we have the simple, noninteresting, diversionary discussion out of the way, let's return to a discussion based on what's actually being reported, i.e. that the bonuses are contractual obligations.

But from an equity standpoint, if companies in the red don't pay bonuses because they can't afford it and it would be nonsensical, then the taxpayers saving the company from the red shouldn't change the bonus situation, it should just stabilize the company from bankruptcy.

If you want the bankruptcy rules to apply (you know, the rules that were made in advance), then let them go bankrupt.

Again, assuming that the bonuses were contractual obligations and that the terms of the contract were met, why would the executives' bonuses be less deserved than the executives' salary or their company-paid healthcare premiums? Why prune the bonuses but not the salaries and the healthcare premiums? Why don't we just reduce the compensation of every AIG employee to the minimum wage with no benefits?

patteeu
03-22-2009, 09:06 AM
Okay:
http://useconomy.about.com/b/2009/03/03/aig-reports-biggest-corporate-loss-in-history.htm

This creates a rebuttable presumption that there was a company wide disaster. Your turn.

The issue isn't whether there was a company wide disaster, the issue is whether or not the executives met the contractual requirements for their bonuses. You've provided no evidence whatsoever that there is any relationship between a company-wide disaster and these bonuses. It's still your turn.

banyon
03-22-2009, 09:08 AM
The issue isn't whether there was a company wide disaster, the issue is whether or not the executives met the contractual requirements for their bonuses. You've provided no evidence whatsoever that there is any relationship between a company-wide disaster and these bonuses. It's still your turn.

Aren't the executives in control of the company? Perhaps you'd like to give the captain and the crew of the Titanic some retroactive bonuses while we are at it?

Again, where's your evidence that the bonuses were deserved?

petegz28
03-22-2009, 09:18 AM
We're talking about these bonuses, petegz28, not some mythical bonuses that weren't deserved. If you have any evidence that these execs didn't meet the requirements for these bonuses, whatever they were, then let's see it.

Do you have evidence that these were deserved other than was AIG says?

patteeu
03-22-2009, 02:57 PM
Aren't the executives in control of the company? Perhaps you'd like to give the captain and the crew of the Titanic some retroactive bonuses while we are at it?

Again, where's your evidence that the bonuses were deserved?

I take it that your punt is an admission that you have no real evidence.

Here's mine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29708346/):

In a letter to Geithner dated Saturday, Liddy said outside lawyers had informed the company that AIG had contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so.

Liddy said in his letter that “quite frankly, AIG’s hands are tied,” although he said that in light of the company’s current situation he found it “distasteful and difficult” to recommend going forward with the payments.

Liddy said the company had entered into the bonus agreements in early 2008 before AIG got into severe financial straits and was forced to obtain a government bailout last fall.

This is actual evidence that relates directly to the issue at hand in the form of testimony from a person who is in a position to know. We can all agree that someone ought to be able to actually review these contracts to confirm that they say what Liddy says they say, but until we find out otherwise, saying that we haven't established absolute proof of the matter isn't really an argument against a position based on the assumption that this is true.

petegz28
03-22-2009, 02:58 PM
I take it that your punt is an admission that you have no real evidence.

Here's mine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29708346/):



This is actual evidence that relates directly to the issue at hand in the form of testimony from a person who is in a position to know. We can all agree that someone ought to be able to actually review these contracts to confirm that they say what Liddy says they say, but until we find out otherwise, saying that we haven't established absolute proof of the matter isn't really an argument against a position based on the assumption that this is true.


Yeah, they are legit cause Liddy said so.......that all you got?

patteeu
03-22-2009, 02:59 PM
Do you have evidence that these were deserved other than was AIG says?

Just the fact that the administration and it's allies (e.g. Lawrence Tribe) seem to be taking positions that are consistent with AIG's claims being true.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary at all?

patteeu
03-22-2009, 03:00 PM
Yeah, they are legit cause Liddy said so.......that all you got?

LMAO @ the guy who says "that all you got?" when he has nothing at all.

petegz28
03-22-2009, 03:07 PM
LMAO @ the guy who says "that all you got?" when he has nothing at all.

I have their reluctance to turn over the language of the contracts. If they did nothing wrong why are they not showing the American people what the company paid and why? Would you ever own 80% of something and tolerate being held in the dark?

Again, methinks you suffer from wannabe-exec syndrome.

banyon
03-22-2009, 03:27 PM
I take it that your punt is an admission that you have no real evidence.

Here's mine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29708346/):

In a letter to Geithner dated Saturday, Liddy said outside lawyers had informed the company that AIG had contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so.

Liddy said in his letter that “quite frankly, AIG’s hands are tied,” although he said that in light of the company’s current situation he found it “distasteful and difficult” to recommend going forward with the payments.

Liddy said the company had entered into the bonus agreements in early 2008 before AIG got into severe financial straits and was forced to obtain a government bailout last fall.


This is actual evidence that relates directly to the issue at hand in the form of testimony from a person who is in a position to know. We can all agree that someone ought to be able to actually review these contracts to confirm that they say what Liddy says they say, but until we find out otherwise, saying that we haven't established absolute proof of the matter isn't really an argument against a position based on the assumption that this is true.

He paid some outside lawyers to contemplate the wide world of *possible* lawsuits that *might happen*. That would pretty much cover whatever corporate policy he wanted to implement including not paying the bonuses. It certainly doesn't address the question of whether or not the bonuses were "deserved" one way or the other.

Like pete said, that's not exactly showing us any of the contracts. In any event Congress found a way around the problem and retook the bonuses that should never have been paid.

patteeu
03-22-2009, 04:16 PM
I have their reluctance to turn over the language of the contracts. If they did nothing wrong why are they not showing the American people what the company paid and why? Would you ever own 80% of something and tolerate being held in the dark?

Again, methinks you suffer from wannabe-exec syndrome.

What reluctance? Are they any more reluctant to make their employment contracts public than other corporations in the US? AFAICT, you've got nothing but your imagination supporting your beliefs. That's solid.

patteeu
03-22-2009, 04:17 PM
He paid some outside lawyers to contemplate the wide world of *possible* lawsuits that *might happen*. That would pretty much cover whatever corporate policy he wanted to implement including not paying the bonuses. It certainly doesn't address the question of whether or not the bonuses were "deserved" one way or the other.

Like pete said, that's not exactly showing us any of the contracts. In any event Congress found a way around the problem and retook the bonuses that should never have been paid.

They took them alright. You won't get any argument from me on that one.

petegz28
03-22-2009, 04:18 PM
What reluctance? Are they any more reluctant to make their employment contracts public than other corporations in the US? AFAICT, you've got nothing but your imagination supporting your beliefs. That's solid.

Um patteeu, WE OWN 80% of the company. This seems to not sink in to your head for whatever reason. We have a Right to know.

patteeu
03-22-2009, 04:19 PM
Um patteeu, WE OWN 80% of the company. This seems to not sink in to your head for whatever reason. We have a Right to know.

For all I know, the Obama administration does know. :shrug:

Again, what reluctance?

petegz28
03-22-2009, 04:20 PM
For all I know, the Obama administration does know. :shrug:

Again, what reluctance?

The reluctance to disclose to the NYAG. But you knew that.

patteeu
03-22-2009, 04:22 PM
The reluctance to disclose to the NYAG. But you knew that.

Link?

Hydrae
03-22-2009, 06:38 PM
Targetted, regressive taxation. I don't know why anyone has any problem with that.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2009, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by petegz28 View Post
Um patteeu, WE OWN 80% of the company. This seems to not sink in to your head for whatever reason. We have a Right to know.
Sure do, and we own crap. I know at least that much.