|
|
Post by kitty on Mar 17, 2009 9:56:27 GMT -5
Ok Saints,
What are your thoughts about the current situation? Do you think they deserve the bonuses? Do you think the government will be able to step in and stop them from getting our tax dollars considering that the money is to help them same afloat and NOT a part of their profits of the year...
By the way...someone correct me if I am wrong...But isn't a bonus supposed to be based on if you actually make money and a profit rather than lose money?
I mean it's bad enough that they are getting paid their salaries but bonuses?!
By the way... When the auto companies came for a bailout... they were told that the union would have to back off of it's contract for their workers in terms of pay, benefits and raises..
So why wouldn't the same apply for the ceo's at AIG? It's still a contract that they can back out of...
Thoughts anyone?
Kitty
|
|
|
|
Post by ybrown on Mar 17, 2009 11:23:49 GMT -5
Ok Saints, What are your thoughts about the current situation? Do you think they deserve the bonuses? Do you think the government will be able to step in and stop them from getting our tax dollars considering that the money is to help them same afloat and NOT a part of their profits of the year... The bonuses are a part of their operating costs and both the outgoing and incoming President, Congress and the Senate knew about the bonuses when they approved the funds to AIG. There is a lot of grandstanding going on now, but these bonuses are no surprise to any elected official because any one of them could have restructured the contracts prior to the bailout/first payout. Not one person did. It all depends on the type of bonus. There are different types but the main ones are performance, sales, and unit/business/corporate bonuses. Performance bonuses are based soley on how good a job you did according to the business managers/leaders and it's not dependent on the overall profit of the business. For example my business unit used to give out $1,000 bonuses like they were candy. If you went a little out of your way to do something, the next thing you knew you got a commendation with a bonuses to be paid out later. For a business, it all adds up. Sales bonuses are based solely on an individual's sales performance. If an Account Exec./Sales/Marketing Rep. did tons of business but the overall business lost money, that rep. still gets paid regardless. It's in his contract. So is the rate of the bonus. The company is legally obligated to pay it. The insurance business is highly regulated and to not payout earned commissions is a big "no, no". The corporate bonus can be tied to overall profit of the business, but it doesn't always have to be. For example I knew every February that I was getting at least a $18K bonus (or more if the overall profit of the business was over and above the target). So every Feb. my business unit paid out millions in bonuses because each person received a percentage of their base salary as well as any other performance bonuses they earned throughout the year. It all depends on how the business structures the bonus and the conditions of it. Aside from employees signing a Non Compete, bonuses are one of the only ways for companies to retain quality employees. It could have applied but not one person in Washington brought it up. This is all Washington's failure, but we have to foot the bill. |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Mar 17, 2009 11:26:08 GMT -5
Ok Saints, What are your thoughts about the current situation? Do you think they deserve the bonuses? Do you think the government will be able to step in and stop them from getting our tax dollars considering that the money is to help them same afloat and NOT a part of their profits of the year... I Think it is outrageous!!! Our President hit the roof... He was hot, Pres. Obama told his ppl to find every legal way to block those bonuses.... Congress will force the executives of AIG to give back some of the bonuses... Remember, Bush bail out these ppl without any string attached... I rather for them to return the bail out money and it be distribute to every individuals that is 21 and over, drug free, that making 75,000 or less. That will be about $2000 each for us to use to stimulate the economy ;D They were given 170billion dollars!!! and they used most of it to help foreign banks, not the American ppl!!!  It make me mad... A contract was signed early 2008 for the bonuses. If they break the contract, AIG will be sued (which is not our problem). They should have let congress know about the bonuses before requesting a bail out and got with the executive to void the contract. They need to change their contract, If he business is loosing money, no bonuses!!! That's because bailing-out the Auto companies , is bailing out everyday ppl.... the worker that make the cars, the administration, the car dealers... millions of ppl jobs was online... They would have been the first to go, not the executives. Bush Administration is not for everyday ppl... plus they was embarass about the banks bail out, after they reported they don't know what happen to the money and the executive multi-million dollar vacation, right after they received the money. Also Pres. Obama changed the rules and regulations for the bail-out. He willing to work from the bottom up and not from the top!!! |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Mar 17, 2009 11:33:31 GMT -5
Ok Saints, What are your thoughts about the current situation? Do you think they deserve the bonuses? Do you think the government will be able to step in and stop them from getting our tax dollars considering that the money is to help them same afloat and NOT a part of their profits of the year... The bonuses are a part of their operating costs and both the outgoing and incoming President, Congress and the Senate knew about the bonuses when they approved the funds to AIG. There is a lot of grandstanding going on now, but these bonuses are no surprise to any elected official because any one of them could have restructured the contracts prior to the bailout/first payout. Not one person did. It all depends on the type of bonus. There are different types but the main ones are performance, sales, and unit/business/corporate bonuses. Performance bonuses are based soley on how good a job you did according to the business managers/leaders and it's not dependent on the overall profit of the business. For example my business unit used to give out $1,000 bonuses like they were candy. If you went a little out of your way to do something, the next thing you knew you got a commendation with a bonuses to be paid out later. For a business, it all adds up. Sales bonuses are based solely on an individual's sales performance. If an Account Exec./Sales/Marketing Rep. did tons of business but the overall business lost money, that rep. still gets paid regardless. It's in his contract. So is the rate of the bonus. The company is legally obligated to pay it. The insurance business is highly regulated and to not payout earned commissions is a big "no, no". The corporate bonus can be tied to overall profit of the business, but it doesn't always have to be. For example I knew every February that I was getting at least a $18K bonus (or more if the overall profit of the business was over and above the target). So every Feb. my business unit paid out millions in bonuses because each person received a percentage of their base salary as well as any other performance bonuses they earned throughout the year. It all depends on how the business structures the bonus and the conditions of it. Aside from employees signing a Non Compete, bonuses are one of the only ways for companies to retain quality employees. It could have applied but not one person in Washington brought it up. This is all Washington's failure, but we have to foot the bill. Thank for explaining... U type faster than me  |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Mar 18, 2009 7:06:30 GMT -5
This is what happens when instead of giving money to the ppl that really matter (the ppl) one gives money to corporations....... not sure if they can legally block it unless they change some "rules" or do something "illegal"...... cuz the only reason there's an issue is because they got money from the gov't.... but if they hadn't, this wouldn't have even made the news.......
|
|
|
|
Post by giantsdodie on Mar 18, 2009 8:14:46 GMT -5
This is what happens when instead of giving money to the ppl that really matter (the ppl) one gives money to corporations....... not sure if they can legally block it unless they change some "rules" or do something "illegal"...... cuz the only reason there's an issue is because they got money from the gov't.... but if they hadn't, this wouldn't have even made the news....... Oh it would have made the news.. This is a complicated mess to be sure, I believe we need to do our part individually and let GOD handle the rest.... |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Mar 18, 2009 10:36:45 GMT -5
This is what happens when instead of giving money to the ppl that really matter (the ppl) one gives money to corporations....... not sure if they can legally block it unless they change some "rules" or do something "illegal"...... cuz the only reason there's an issue is because they got money from the gov't.... but if they hadn't, this wouldn't have even made the news....... Nikkol, you are right.... it is only an issue because they received over 170 billion dollars in welfare money. If they didn't receive the bail-out.... I wouldn't give a hoop!!! $1 million was given to 73 executives and 11 of them nolong work for AIG |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Mar 18, 2009 11:58:18 GMT -5
Here's a response...... from Jamal Bryany...... not bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Mar 18, 2009 19:59:11 GMT -5
Hey Guys, This is going to get interesting.... Especially with the republican party... Some of the members of the republican party have stated that they find Obama and his team to be to blame for the AIG handouts of bonuses... So now the democratic party is looking for a way to get that money back... Guess what? They came up with a way... They are going to tax 90% of it back from those employees who received it. But they have to pass a bill to do this and need 2/3 vote. They need some republicans to agree and vote for this bill... So... will they?  If not I think it will again show shady dealings with politics. I'm tried of groups standing for one thing...Then when they find out that the mjority of voters don't agree with them, they try to pretend to have had another stance... Supposedly some of the employees are giving the money back already... But again... this is getting interesting... Kitty |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Mar 18, 2009 20:42:41 GMT -5
Who the Blame? Flashback: It Was Bush, GOP That Opposed Executive Compensation Caps March 18, 2009 02:02 PM It is a rather curious spectacle to see congressional Republicans express outrage at the exorbitant bonuses being handed out by bailed-out companies and blame the Obama administration for failing to curb the practice with AIG. Because when the first installment of the Troubled Asset Relief Program was passed it was the Bush administration and GOPers in Congress who were insisting that caps on executive compensation not be part of the legislation.
As the New York Times reported at the time that TARP was being crafted, "Congress and the administration remained at odds over the demands of some lawmakers, including limits on the pay of top executives whose firms seek help."
Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said that while he was upset with the levels of salary afforded to top executives, any cap on such would dissuade companies from participating in the TARP.
"If we design it so it's punitive and so institutions aren't going to participate, this won't work the way we need it to work," he told Fox News Sunday on September 21.
Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, told CBS news that: "It should be up to the board of directors of a private corporation to set the compensation of an executive; it shouldn't be Congress's role."
Senator Mel Martinez told CNBC that: "While it is very appealing to think about executive compensation as being a part of this, one of the drawbacks to that is perhaps that we would have fewer entities participate in what is essentially a voluntary act."
And House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, "outraged" over AIG's issuance of $165 million in bonuses, said he was not in favor of "the federal government be[ing] able to set salaries across the board," when the issue of executive compensation arose in September 2008.
The issue extended to when the Obama administration was tasked with writing its own version of the TARP. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, likewise dismayed over AIG's bonuses this past week, said back in early February that while he was "appalled" at some of the perks executives had received, he did want "the government to take over these businesses and start telling them everything about what they can do."
That said, the Obama administration too was pushing back against overly-strict caps on executive earning albeit still favoring some form of limitation.
Of course, a distinction could be made between executive compensation and issuance of bonuses. One being salary, the other being rewards. But in this and other cases, money is fungible. And back when the Troubled Asset Relief Program was being debated, it was the leadership of the GOP and the past administration that asked that the issue not be touched for fear that it would derail the legislation.
It was, after all, President Bush who warned lawmakers not to "insist on provisions that would undermine the effectiveness of the plan" while Barney Frank, chairman of the House banking committee, declared that there would be "no golden parachutes while we are the owners" of the bad assets of Wall Street firms. |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Mar 18, 2009 20:49:34 GMT -5
Hey Guys, This is going to get interesting.... Especially with the republican party... Some of the members of the republican party have stated that they find Obama and his team to be to blame for the AIG handouts of bonuses... So now the democratic party is looking for a way to get that money back... Guess what? They came up with a way... They are going to tax 90% of it back from those employees who received it. But they have to pass a bill to do this and need 2/3 vote. They need some republicans to agree and vote for this bill... So... will they? If not I think it will again show shady dealings with politics. I'm tried of groups standing for one thing...Then when they find out that the mjority of voters don't agree with them, they try to pretend to have had another stance... Supposedly some of the employees are giving the money back already... But again... this is getting interesting... Kitty AIG executives are returning the bonuses... ;D President Obama don't play... |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Mar 19, 2009 11:31:16 GMT -5
Hey Guys, This is going to get interesting.... Especially with the republican party... Some of the members of the republican party have stated that they find Obama and his team to be to blame for the AIG handouts of bonuses... So now the democratic party is looking for a way to get that money back... Guess what? They came up with a way... They are going to tax 90% of it back from those employees who received it. But they have to pass a bill to do this and need 2/3 vote. They need some republicans to agree and vote for this bill... So... will they? If not I think it will again show shady dealings with politics. I'm tried of groups standing for one thing...Then when they find out that the mjority of voters don't agree with them, they try to pretend to have had another stance... Supposedly some of the employees are giving the money back already... But again... this is getting interesting... Kitty The Bill was passed and 90% tax toward those who making $250,000 and up on All, not just AIG, major corporations ( Bank & Ins) that received the bail-out money of $1 billion or more. It doesn't includes small businesses and middle class. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Mar 19, 2009 12:15:21 GMT -5
My issue with the new law that was passed is if they (congress) can just make up new laws and have them passed this easily and it becomes "law", what does this mean for a LOT of other things......
Big corporations should've never got the money to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Mar 19, 2009 12:38:03 GMT -5
My issue with the new law that was passed is if they (congress) can just make up new laws and have them passed this easily and it becomes "law", what does this mean for a LOT of other things...... Big corporations should've never got the money to begin with. The Bush Administration pushed for the bail-out.... If they would have let these finanical Insitution fall... the economy would have been even worst than it is now. The law is set for those Corp. who received a billion dollar or more in bail-out welfare and on employees or executives bonuese, that make $250,000.00 or more a year gross annaul income... Taxpayers should not pay for corp greeds... |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Mar 19, 2009 12:40:18 GMT -5
Oh... the 10% is left up to the states to take care.... They found a legal way of dealing with this.... you can not reward failures... They are not touching the poor and middle class employees
|
|
