Headline: Not so Fast you Greedy Bastards!

GameboyRMH wrote: The tax is specific enough that it only takes back government money as far as I can tell. And as I've said before, any company running on government money should have silly frivolities like insane CEO bonuses on LOCKDOWN.

It only takes back government money. One of the mamny problems with this is that at lot of people like my wife and I are only paid in government money, and the gov"t already looks for ways to not pay us. Giving them the precident to tax "their" money at 90% makes it much easier. As it stands now, My wife's next contract is supposed to start this month. They are not getting the raise that they agreed to, but the state also wants everyone to work a week without pay. Considering we are all over paid gov't workers in alot of people's minds I would bet a 90% tax wouldn't see much resistance either.

Toyman01 wrote: The only barrier is in your mind.

YES!

+eleventy quadrillion

Toyman01 wrote: Dude, these weren't performance bonuses, they were retention bonuses. They weren't "CEO" bonuses. They were to the guys and gals who are busting their buts trying to keep the Titanic afloat before the department of AIG they work for closes and they loose their jobs. They were told if they stayed until the bitter end they would get a bonus for being the last to leave a sinking ship. They deserve every penny of it.

Retention bonuses my heiney.

There were 11 different recipients of bonuses in excess of $1 million who don't even work there any more

Toyman01 wrote: ...We had absolutely no national debt....

This one's not true either.

The US has had public debt since it's inception (actually before, as it was first created during the Revolutionary War). There was a short period during Andrew Jackson's administration that it contracted to zero, but only briefly.

oldopelguy wrote: I really don't think it's any of our business how AIG spends the money.

Why the heck not? We (the citizens of the US) OWN 80% of the company (US stock ownership as part of the last bailout).

I would suggest that the government has an OBLIGATION to report to the citizenry a full and complete accounting of how our tax dollars are spent, and that would CERTAINLY include expenses paid in bonuses to employees of a company WE OWN.

If AIG wanted to protect the contractural obligations to their people, they should have nailed down that issue before selling off 80% of the company to a government bailout boondoggle.

Their business decisions SUCK, and so do those of the politicians that brokered this mess. They ALL deserve the worst.

Chris Dodd is up for election within the next two years. I'm voting for Rob Simmons.

SVreX wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Dude, these weren't performance bonuses, they were retention bonuses. They weren't "CEO" bonuses. They were to the guys and gals who are busting their buts trying to keep the Titanic afloat before the department of AIG they work for closes and they loose their jobs. They were told if they stayed until the bitter end they would get a bonus for being the last to leave a sinking ship. They deserve every penny of it.

Retention bonuses my heiney. There were 11 different recipients of bonuses in excess of $1 million who don't even work there any more

From what I have heard, the bonus was to pay them to stay until X date. When X date elapsed, they said goodbye. Crappy? Very. But they filled their end of the contract, hence payment.

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/03/perilous_obfuscation_aigs_bonu.html

So if I screw something up, I need to make it so big that only I can unscrew it, then demand more money. So basically these people are holding the economy for ransome?

ignorant wrote: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/03/perilous_obfuscation_aigs_bonu.html

Interesting article, actually made me do some research on something I heard on the radio last week. Congress, due to the way the bailout bill was written, might not be able to block these bonuses without breaking congressional law.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123741741674677723.html

Can you say "setup"?

Do make you wonder, don't it...

Gosh, let me see, we're going to pass legislation that gives tons of money to private industry and we just FORGOT to include the "Acceptable Use" policy..

ignorant wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: The only barrier is in your mind.

YES! +eleventy quadrillion

That sounds like some motivational speaker/CEO sunshine up your butt speak to me.

SVreX wrote:

oldopelguy wrote: I really don't think it's any of our business how AIG spends the money.

Why the heck not? We (the citizens of the US) OWN 80% of the company (US stock ownership as part of the last bailout). I would suggest that the government has an OBLIGATION to report to the citizenry a full and complete accounting of how our tax dollars are spent, and that would CERTAINLY include expenses paid in bonuses to employees of a company WE OWN. ..edit... Their business decisions SUCK, and so do those of the politicians that brokered this mess. They ALL deserve the worst.

I'm completely with SVreX on this one.

AIG does owe us an explanation as they paid that money out AFTER the American public bought a commanding portion of the company. It's no longer the bankers who have final say in how AIG spend it's money. It's us. Every last one of us who went into an estimated $30k of personal debt a piece to keep them in their over-paid positions which they have proven they are not skilled or wise enough to keep themselves. They are now on welfare. At their grossly inflated salaries. They owe us and should kiss our collective butt no matter how important they seem to think they are. As of now they're on food stamps.

Also, we've been sold up a river. They keep telling us how AIG can't fail because of global implications. But is that really true? Maybe we need a massive bank to fail so then people can see... "Yes Virginia, even unbelievably wealthy bankers can be destitute if they make colossal mistakes. Capitalism hurts the wealthy as well as the poor in due turn."

Xceler8x wrote: AIG does owe us an explanation as they paid that money out AFTER the American public bought a *commanding* portion of the company. It's no longer the bankers who have final say in how AIG spend it's money. It's us. Every last one of us who went into an estimated $30k of personal debt a piece to keep them in their over-paid positions which they have proven they are not skilled or wise enough to keep themselves. They are now on welfare. At their grossly inflated salaries. They owe us and should kiss our collective butt no matter how important they seem to think they are. As of now they're on food stamps.

Counterpoint: Welfare recipients aren't obligated to explain their spending (not that I agree with that, I'm just trolling...)

Xceler8x wrote: AIG does owe us an explanation as they paid that money out AFTER the American public bought a *commanding* portion of the company. It's no longer the bankers who have final say in how AIG spend it's money. It's us. Every last one of us who went into an estimated $30k of personal debt a piece to keep them in their over-paid positions which they have proven they are not skilled or wise enough to keep themselves. They are now on welfare. At their grossly inflated salaries. They owe us and should kiss our collective butt no matter how important they seem to think they are. As of now they're on food stamps.

They owe us an explanation and should be accountable to the public for every single contract they established after the bailouts, on that I'm in total agreement with all of you. These cotracts were established way before the bailout, though, so they are just part of the debt obligation we picked up in the transaction. They and we have no choice but to pay them, and the person (people) we should be vilifing are the idiots that decided to do the bailout in the first place, not the people just trying to get the paycheck they earned for doing their jobs. The research as to these should have been done before we decided to bail them out in the first place, and depending on who you talk to it was and it was ignored for the sake of speed.

These bonuses were retention bonuses paid out to valued people in order to get them to sick it out with AIG a little longer and not abandon the sinking ship. Sure, I think millions of dollars seems like a lot, but would you hire a 50 year old former AIG executive now to work for you? If you did, would you pay him anywhere near what he got paid at AIG? These people who stuck it out risked their entire careers for the company, and they demanded enough pay to do it to justify it to themselves if they were never able to find work again.

I say there's nothing wrong with that, and while the scale might seem out of proportion to most of us it's only because people are looking at it as a "bonus." I don't think I could retire off a million dollars if you gave it to me right now, and these people had to look at it like that. Basic rough numbers suggest that at the new lower 3% interest rate my 401k can barely keep up with to maintain even as little as 50k a year in income I would need to have $3-4 million in the account before taxes to not be living off of and diminishing the principle. Sure 4 million seems like a lot of money, but not for a lifetime. Now those people who took that risk, who did what they could to save the company there at the end are having it all taxed away and being tossed out in the cold by pitchfork wielding idiots who just don't know the facts and are riled up about the word "bonus." That's not right.

None of us here know the details of those contracts. Obviously if none of the lawers we sent off to represent us could figure out a loophole then they were pretty explicit and pretty iron-clad. Pay the folks the $ they earned, then smack your congressmen on the back of the head for being an idiot by electing a Libertarian next time.

oldopelguy wrote: Sure, I think millions of dollars seems like a lot, but would you hire a 50 year old former AIG executive now to work for you? If you did, would you pay him anywhere near what he got paid at AIG? These people who stuck it out risked their entire careers for the company, and they demanded enough pay to do it to justify it to themselves if they were never able to find work again.

I wouldn't hire anyone from AIG namely because they've shown the skill they possess in running a company.....straight into the ground. They shouldn't be hired because they are not good at their collective jobs.

I'm speaking of leadership levels here. The rank and file don't typically make decisions that cause a company the size of AIG to go under in months.

That being the case they bet their jobs on their ability to make AIG a success. They failed. They deserve to lose their jobs as well as their livelihood. It's called Capitalism. A lot of folks like to praise it until they find out they're not such hot sh it and start losing their jobs during the hard times.

Also, what would've happened to these folks if AIG did fail? Would those contracts still be so iron clad? Somehow, I doubt it.

Why the heck not? We (the citizens of the US) OWN 80% of the company (US stock ownership as part of the last bailout).

Wrong. You don't own E36 M3. If you did, you'd have a stock certificate in your hand. Again, your federal gov't STOLE this money from you and GAVE it to these berkeleyers. Call it a loan. Call it whatever the berkeley you want. You don't own E36 M3.

If we have a "right" to explanations from everyone Gov't gives money to, I want every goddamned parasite on food-stamps drug tested, and I want the right to inspect their homes to make sure they don't have TV's, computers, cell phones. or cigarettes. I want every E36 M3 head artist who can't make a living on their own to explain to me why the berkeley they should get my money.

I also want congress to explain to me why they can make poor "business" decisions for our country, and still get "bonuses" (raises,) eat steak dinners every night, and fly around in private jets, but if a private company which actually creates wealth, rather than stealing it does this, they're greedy idiots who should go commit suicide.

Xceler8x wrote: I'm not for 90% tax on anything. I believe this shows the folly of letting speed and emotion make decisions for you. We were wrong about the Patriot Act, The first bailout, and this. All done with expediency in mind before logic.

Agreed.

And of course, this sort of tax doesn't take inflation into account, and with all the printing of money going on now to pay for all this stuff, it could be damn near hyperinflationary very shortly.

And just think how many more people will have salaries of $250,000 and up (and thus eligible for 90%+ tax rates) when $250,000 becomes only worth what $50,000 is today...

Good times, good times...

poopshovel wrote: Wrong. You don't own E36 M3. If you did, you'd have a stock certificate in your hand. Again, your federal gov't STOLE this money from you...

They didn't STEAL anything, they created it out of thin air... like magic!!!