Bonuses for bailed out companies Options

[dauss]

So, I'm trying to think of an example that would be close to the situation that AIG is facing to get a gauge on this particular situation.

Let's pretend that Brinker International Restaurants(Chili's, Maggiano's, On the Border, and Romano's Macaroni Grill) got a bailout with your tax dollars because they're in financial trouble. So, let's also pretend that one of their concepts was the main cause for all their profit loss, On the Border in this hypothetical case. So, On the Border has such massive losses that it causes Brinker to have to report a loss for the fiscal year.

Now, let's just say that you work for Chili's and don't really have any connection to On the Border because that's a different division. You've been doing your job and Chili's, Romano's, and Maggiano's not only made budget, but actually had profit for the last year. Should you get bonus, along with the guys from Romano's and Maggiano's?

[pysex]

that theory would work fine except for the bonuses being paid to the board executives who pretty much oversee all operations regardless of divisions

what worries me more is that banks received bailout money from the U.S. government as well as payback money from other sources like AIG....So on top of the 70 billion or whatever that was paid out initially...the banks received a chunk of change from AIG bailout....so now the banks are made whole but they were the ones making the bad decisions in the first place

we shouldn't be focusing our hate on AIG right now....we should be hanging the bank executives

[FORSAKENR320]

bottom line to me is that the bailout money is to help the american people as a whole. not an individual fat cat with a deep wallet. the money should not be spent on bonus's for anybody, no matter how well their company did, wether they deserve a raise of not, the bail out money should not go towards individual gain.

[chook]

At raytheon, if the space systems, or optics do poorly, then my bonus gets affected.

[impala454]

At Jacobs our raises in the space sector were unaffected by shortfalls in the general contracting portion of the company.

[Hartmann]

There are three questions here.

1. Should the government bailout not have included the clauses that allowed for bonuses?
2. Is AIG in some way obligated to run their business differently simply because they received government money?
3. Is the end-around that the government is pulling a bad idea or even legal?

I seem to think that the problem starts at the top. Fine, Congress, you want to bail them out, do it but don't put clauses in there simply because they were one of the largest contributors to the campaign. Secondly, AIG is a business and they do not have an obligation to the taxpayers to not provide bonuses. Now, out of the goodness of their hearts, they could have chosen a different path.

The taxing of the bonuses at 90% is a shady move in my opinion and borders on unconstitutional. There was a President not too long ago that tried to change tax rates on certain people and he was forced to resign, claiming he wasn't a crook.

I just can't believe so many people are getting so worked up about all of this. The $$$ that was given out as bonuses pales in comparison to what has been proposed as the stimulus package. We're on the verge of bankruptcy and people are worried about pennies rather than the $500 bills falling out of the sky.

The publisher of Forbes was doing an interview this morning and made an obvious comment that no one else had mentioned, why did the government not do these negotiations behind closed doors and try to solve this problem without involving American citizens. People are going to these AIG employee's homes and protesting. Give me a break.

[THECHICKEN]

Its like handing candy to a little kid.....

then punching the kid in the face for eating it

[Billy]

I think the government should use tax money to give me a $10 million bonus. Sure, it's less than pennies on the dollar compared to our GDP but I'm pretty sure if I or others just started receiving large amounts of money from tax dollars you (Impala and Hartmann) would be pretty outraged.

The reason people are ticked about this, is not because of the amount, but because people are living large on the people's labor depite poor performance. I wouldn't care if they gave some CEO only $1 million of our tax dollars, I would still be ticked. Because here's some guy who gets to live rich, go to resorts, throw parties, on my money, while I don't even get to do that on my money. And to add insult to injury, he's being rewarded for being a FAILURE.

So the question remains, would these CEO's have received a bonus without the bailout? If the answer is no, then they shouldn't have received the bonus with the bailout.

[impala454]

Except that paying you $10 million isn't part of a contract for a business the government is trying to keep afloat.

You are dead on on why people are ticked, and was exactly the point I made in the other thread. Because people are "living large". It's all about perspective, and you and everyone else who's ticked fails to see it in perspective. You just see the word "millions" and "executives" and draw your own conclusions based on your decidedly non-millions non-executive lifestyle. All you see is someone doing better than you and you feel that knocking them down to your level is the only solution.

The bottom line is, you have no idea how this business is run, you have no idea who the people receiving the bonuses are, and you have no idea about their job performance, or what their contracts entitle them to. So bitching about it is stupid.

Lastly, understand the concept of how business people work. Many work similar to waiters. They have a base salary, and then receive a "bonus" based on their performance. No doubt that, even with the bonuses, these people are probably only receiving a fraction of what they might normally make in a year. Part of keeping the company afloat is keeping employees working there. Obviously the ones that met their marks well enough to receive their bonuses are the ones you want to keep. You think hacking all these people's pay and having them leave the company is what will turn it around??

[FORSAKENR320]

Its like handing candy to a little kid.....

then punching the kid in the face for eating it

you need to stop following me on saturday afternoons...

[FORSAKENR320]

The bottom line is, you have no idea how this business is run, you have no idea who the people receiving the bonuses are, and you have no idea about their job performance, or what their contracts entitle them to. So bitching about it is stupid.

so lets all take the impala example and ignore it. since apparently we don't understand.... we shouldn't question things we don't understand...

and your little speech about keeping people in the business... you think that the banking industry won't survive without these people? on the whole they are FAILURES. their bad decisions is what caused their own money problems. they leave, and they will be replaced.

they took the wrong gamble. what you're saying is alot like me going to vegas, losing a couple $1000 and then expecting the casino to give me the money back so that i can try to gamble again and hopefully win this time.


you're a god damn moron. no wonder NASA hasn't come up with anything useful lately when they hire people like you.

my advise:: tell your boss that you wanna be the next dumb-fuck chimp they send into outer space

[chook]

Except that paying you $10 million isn't part of a contract for a business the government is trying to keep afloat.

You are dead on on why people are ticked, and was exactly the point I made in the other thread. Because people are "living large". It's all about perspective, and you and everyone else who's ticked fails to see it in perspective. You just see the word "millions" and "executives" and draw your own conclusions based on your decidedly non-millions non-executive lifestyle. All you see is someone doing better than you and you feel that knocking them down to your level is the only solution.

The bottom line is, you have no idea how this business is run, you have no idea who the people receiving the bonuses are, and you have no idea about their job performance, or what their contracts entitle them to. So bitching about it is stupid.

Lastly, understand the concept of how business people work. Many work similar to waiters. They have a base salary, and then receive a "bonus" based on their performance. No doubt that, even with the bonuses, these people are probably only receiving a fraction of what they might normally make in a year. Part of keeping the company afloat is keeping employees working there. Obviously the ones that met their marks well enough to receive their bonuses are the ones you want to keep. You think hacking all these people's pay and having them leave the company is what will turn it around??

If they earned the money without failure, then thats great. I am about capitalism, not this sad excuse called corporate welfare. I would of not given out the releif. Lots of this money left the country anyways. Congress is going after this because of the sensationalism, while trying to hide the fact they are fuckups.

[Billy]

Except that paying you $10 million isn't part of a contract for a business the government is trying to keep afloat.

You are dead on on why people are ticked, and was exactly the point I made in the other thread. Because people are "living large". It's all about perspective, and you and everyone else who's ticked fails to see it in perspective. You just see the word "millions" and "executives" and draw your own conclusions based on your decidedly non-millions non-executive lifestyle. All you see is someone doing better than you and you feel that knocking them down to your level is the only solution.

The bottom line is, you have no idea how this business is run, you have no idea who the people receiving the bonuses are, and you have no idea about their job performance, or what their contracts entitle them to. So bitching about it is stupid.

Lastly, understand the concept of how business people work. Many work similar to waiters. They have a base salary, and then receive a "bonus" based on their performance. No doubt that, even with the bonuses, these people are probably only receiving a fraction of what they might normally make in a year. Part of keeping the company afloat is keeping employees working there. Obviously the ones that met their marks well enough to receive their bonuses are the ones you want to keep. You think hacking all these people's pay and having them leave the company is what will turn it around??

I laughed when you started explaining to me what a "bonus" was.

For you non-corporate types, I will let you in on a little secret: Bonuses are typically paid out based on company performance. If your company doesn't meet its financial goals, no one gets bonuses. Now while I do not know how AIG pays out its bonuses, it is a pretty good bet that they pay out bonuses based on company performance like most other giant coorporations. Because in large coorporations, individual performance is very difficult to measure since so many people are involved, the general policy is to simply award everyone for a good overall company performance, rather than try to reward individuals, since that is prone to corruption and misappropriation of funds.

Now to my point. What I am infuriated about is not about the bonuses, rather that they consider the bailout as income (since they paid out bonuses to their employees). We can equate that to your 20 something spoiled brats who get themselves into a lot of financial trouble and then ask mommy and daddy for some cash. And instead of learning from their mistake, they treat parental help as a source of income and never try to fix their financial situation, but instead, keep partying and rely on that gift over and over again. I am mostly afraid that AIG will not mature from this experience. Their actions display to me that they are the spoiled brat, and instead of taking actions to slim down, become efficient, and work through this, they are taking our money and celebrating as if AIG is doing great! And when they mess up again, then what? Another bailout? When will it end? Will it end?

I am so happy that my government decided for me that I become a customer of AIG. And the great thing for AIG is they don't have to provide me with anything!

[pysex]

you do know that China is buying up our debt right now right?


and that Secretary Clinton has gone to Mexico twice now in the new administration....


guys...these are all the intricate steps to the dismantling of American sovereignty...

i don't know if it's going to be our generation but there will be some earth shattering change soon enough and things will be very different (revolution, apocalypse, world war, etc.)


the American people have lost their fury

the government no longer fears us because we depend on it....we live off of it

we've lost personal responsibility, justice, and passion....we're fucking doomed

[Dogmeat]

you do know that China is buying up our debt right now right?


and that Secretary Clinton has gone to Mexico twice now in the new administration....


guys...these are all the intricate steps to the dismantling of American sovereignty...

i don't know if it's going to be our generation but there will be some earth shattering change soon enough and things will be very different (revolution, apocalypse, world war, etc.)


the American people have lost their fury

the government no longer fears us because we depend on it....we live off of it

we've lost personal responsibility, justice, and passion....we're fucking doomed

Yup. And the only cure it to start killing as many poor people as we possibly can.