LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   AIG--Should the Execs get those bonuses? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=196553)

Jae Onasi 03-20-2009 03:42 PM

AIG--Should the Execs get those bonuses?
 
I'm really ticked off about my tax dollars being used for the executives' exorbitant salaries, and Congress not thinking ahead to put more strings on the money so this couldn't be used that way. It would have been very easy for congress to stipulate what that money could and couldn't be used for.

Also--why on God's green earth are they getting performance bonuses when their company performed so poorly they had to get bailed out? The execs would have gotten zero bonuses if AIG was bankrupt.

ForeverNight 03-20-2009 03:51 PM

Now I can't really claim to know all the facts in this situation, but -from what I remember and have heard- the bonuses given were part of a contract. A legally binding contract. Now, since the condition of those contracts have been met -from what I've heard it was staying on with the company for a year or something like that- the obligation to the company is to meet their end of the bargain... unless you're suggesting that they not pay these people what they've 'earned'.

Am I ticked? Yes. Do I think that it shouldn't have happened? From all I've seen/heard, no.

Jae Onasi 03-20-2009 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForeverNight (Post 2603967)
Now I can't really claim to know all the facts in this situation, but -from what I remember and have heard- the bonuses given were part of a contract. A legally binding contract. Now, since the condition of those contracts have been met -from what I've heard it was staying on with the company for a year or something like that- the obligation to the company is to meet their end of the bargain

I'd love to have a job where all I have to do is show up to get a bonus, even if the company is tanking around me.

Quote:

... unless you're suggesting that they not pay these people what they've 'earned'.
I'm just confused on how AIG can have the gall to call it a performance bonus when they obviously came nowhere remotely close to performing anything successfully.

Quote:

Am I ticked? Yes. Do I think that it shouldn't have happened? From all I've seen/heard, no.
I think the government is well within its rights to say 'we're giving you a buttload of cash, but you're not allowed to spend it on bonuses, extravagant parties and retreats, or private jet travel'. I'm happy Congress apparently is going to tax their bonus money at some gawdawfully ridiculous rate (I heard 90%) so that we taxpayers aren't stuck paying for ridiculous bonuses that they never would have had anyway if AIG had been allowed to go under. Perhaps AIG should have been allowed to go under--it's clear from the money they've spent on bonuses and extravagant executive retreats since they got the monet that they don't have their priorities straight.

EnderWiggin 03-20-2009 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi (Post 2603970)
I'd love to have a job where all I have to do is show up to get a bonus, even if the company is tanking around me.

The bonuses are mostly in return for pay cuts - the executives decided that instead of making $∞/year, which looks bad, they would only make $(.5∞)/year and then take another .4∞ at the end of the year as a bonus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae
I think the government is well within its rights to say 'we're giving you a buttload of cash, but you're not allowed to spend it on bonuses, extravagant parties and retreats, or private jet travel'. I'm happy Congress apparently is going to tax their bonus money at some gawdawfully ridiculous rate (I heard 90%) so that we taxpayers aren't stuck paying for ridiculous bonuses that they never would have had anyway if AIG had been allowed to go under.

Whereas I believe that this (the taxation) is ridiculous. The government is abusing a bit, IMHO. The bonuses were granted to them by their contracts, so why can't Congress keep their hands out of it? I mean, seriously, I'm pretty liberal, but now they're interfering because they don't like how their first interfering is working out!

The people are granted their bonuses, I don't think the government has a right to take that away all willy-nilly like.

Do I think that this should be occurring? No, but we reap what we sow. This is how the system we designed is set up, and therefore, this is the way we should run it.

If we didn't like how the company was run, we should never have bailed them out in the first place.

Also, what do you care? AIG promised to pay back every cent. Now, if the bailout does what it was designed to, which is save AIG, then it won't matter to you because your "taxpayer dollars" (which you were going to give up anyway, but are now just going to a different end location) will be fine. If that's the case, and they'll repay, then let them run the company. If they tank anyway, and don't repay, then all of your taxpayer dollars are out the window, no matter what they were spent on.

FTR, these bonuses are comparatively trivially sized in relation to the bailout (it's like 0.02% or something).

_EW_

Q 03-23-2009 12:01 PM

Yeah, the bonuses are trivial, but it's the principal of the matter. Should people be rewarded for poor job performance?

I'm still wondering why none of those responsible for the supposed necessity of all of these bailouts are in any danger of going to prison. I seem to remember that Charles Keating had to go and IIRC he died there like he should have. I guess that his rape-and-pillage scheme didn't line the right people's pockets.

Tysyacha 03-23-2009 08:34 PM

In my opinion, AIG only stands for A$$holes Incredibly Greedy. We should not have bailed them out in the first place, because that only set the stage for them clamoring for even more money. Are they God, or acting like gods, in terms of the national and global economy? Let's remember that years ago, there was no AIG, and we did reasonably OK. Sure, if there were no more providers of computers, or more likely electricity, food, or water, THEN I'd be worried, but what did AIG do? Collect premiums on a legalized form of gambling, because people pay premiums and expect catastrophic stuff NOT to happen.

Maybe I'm as stupid as the AIG execs, but I fail to see how they can't be allowed to fail...

Darth Avlectus 03-23-2009 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi (Post 2603966)
I'm really ticked off about my tax dollars being used for the executives' exorbitant salaries, and Congress not thinking ahead to put more strings on the money so this couldn't be used that way. It would have been very easy for congress to stipulate what that money could and couldn't be used for.

As much you (or anybody else) has a right to be angry about it. Our hard-earned tax dollars being flushed completely down the toilet. I saw talk of this over a year ago when it all happened. The reaction we all had was basically rolling our eyes because, let's face it, we all knew where this was going to lead to: the sitch we have today. None of us really thought that anything was going to be done about it as a result because we're all so used to just getting screwed, by now.

It does make one wonder just how far they (congress) have their heads up their asses, doesn't it Jae? And if lack of foresight and stipulations in advance is any indication, this next few years with congress is going to be a long bout. Unless this was intentional...but that would be speculation on my part. I have no source, but it is something I am considering...now if only they'll put their foot down their throat to prove it.

Quote:

Also--why on God's green earth are they getting performance bonuses when their company performed so poorly they had to get bailed out? The execs would have gotten zero bonuses if AIG was bankrupt.
I know I certainly don't support lackluster, mediocre, or in this case just utterly FAILING performance. That defeats the hardworking mentality that shaped and founded this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin (emphasis mine)
The bonuses are mostly in return for pay cuts - the executives decided that instead of making $∞/year, which looks bad, they would only make $(.5∞)/year and then take another .4∞ at the end of the year as a bonus.


Whereas I believe that this (the taxation) is ridiculous. The government is abusing a bit, IMHO. The bonuses were granted to them by their contracts, so why can't Congress keep their hands out of it? I mean, seriously, I'm pretty liberal, but now they're interfering because they don't like how their first interfering is working out!

That is a very good point and question. You do something, it's not working out the way you like--probably due to lack of thinking ahead, so then you come in and do more since you dislike the results.

Why can't congress keep their hands out of it? We could ask but I doubt we'd get the answers we are looking for. Though as I hinted, I think it is as a result of either

a) head up hienee
b) to make an example (though this is a pretty wasteful and inefficient way to do it, no?)
c) something else I could say but would not be tolerated because it is speculative...let's just call it underhanded though

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ender
The people are granted their bonuses, I don't think the government has a right to take that away all willy-nilly like.

Do I think that this should be occurring? No, but we reap what we sow. This is how the system we designed is set up, and therefore, this is the way we should run it.

Hmm. Is that cynicism I'm hearing?

Well, I guess. Still........We elected officials to do a job, and hope they would do it well. We see this, and it makes us scratch out heads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ender, emphasis mine again
If we didn't like how the company was run, we should never have bailed them out in the first place.

QFE&T :carms: My sentiments exactly.

Quote:

Also, what do you care? AIG promised to pay back every cent. Now, if the bailout does what it was designed to, which is save AIG, then it won't matter to you because your "taxpayer dollars" (which you were going to give up anyway, but are now just going to a different end location) will be fine. If that's the case, and they'll repay, then let them run the company. If they tank anyway, and don't repay, then all of your taxpayer dollars are out the window, no matter what they were spent on.

FTR, these bonuses are comparatively trivially sized in relation to the bailout (it's like 0.02% or something).

_EW_
Hmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tysyacha (Post 2605136)
In my opinion, AIG only stands for A$$holes Incredibly Greedy. We should not have bailed them out in the first place, because that only set the stage for them clamoring for even more money. Are they God, or acting like gods, in terms of the national and global economy? Let's remember that years ago, there was no AIG, and we did reasonably OK. Sure, if there were no more providers of computers, or more likely electricity, food, or water, THEN I'd be worried, but what did AIG do? Collect premiums on a legalized form of gambling, because people pay premiums and expect catastrophic stuff NOT to happen.

Maybe I'm as stupid as the AIG execs, but I fail to see how they can't be allowed to fail...

No, you're right on I think.

We watched as they had a 'meeting' in Hawaii late last year and the took 14 $25k (or was it 250K?) per trip, private jets there. If they were really so incredibly concerned about failing, would they have been doing this crap? ...I don't think so.

I'm a fairly conservative guy, yes, however I am for the right kinds of regulations. Regulations well thought out that safeguard against catastrophe and punish underhanded behavior. Even so, I guess regulations ultimately can't make someone a better manager of their business, and like all things are eventually not foolproof. I'm also for leaders who do what they are supposed to--fat chance though.

The whole reason I waould be for less government is on account of presonal resposibility and common sense. So that we don;t have bumbling government of this kind enforcing it (or apparently not). It would seem (in that department) for both business and government, we (the US) have sorely been lacking. Feel free to agree or disagree.

EDIT: we can be as ticked off as we want to be, but it isn't really going to change anything...though our vote will, so pray that our power of vote remains intact! ;)

Lord of Hunger 03-24-2009 01:42 AM

Fortunately, there is one good thing about AIG getting bailed out: not only will it save our economy but the FED Chairman said that once AIG's paid back every dime of that bailout money the FED's going to take AIG apart and sell it on the market. :D

Also, I'm on a similar wavelength with EnderWiggen. I think the true criminals in this economic crisis is Congress (both parties, but the Democrats in particular since they were in charge when this happened).

I'll cite some examples of their corruption:

1) Barney Frank, a rep., was responsible for encouraging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give out the housing loans to people who could not pay them back.
2) Chris Dodd, a senator, was responsible for creating the loophole in the Stimulus Bill that allowed the bonuses for AIG to go through.
3) When the Republicans blocked the passing of the Bailout last year, it sent the stock market down even more.
4) Both the Stimulus Bill and the Bailout Bill contained thousands of earmarks despite calls from some of the few rational Republicans and Democrats to remove them.
5) Do I need to even mention the ridiculous salaries and perks that our Congress men and women get? Corporate America lives the life of luxury, but at least they earned it (well, most at least). Our representatives are elected officials who are supposed to improve our lot, and yet all they do is bicker, waste our money on earmarks, and save up for the next campaign.

AIG --- big time, but Congress has been us over much more and a lot longer.

EnderWiggin 03-24-2009 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of Hunger (Post 2605243)
Chris Dodd, a senator, was responsible for creating the loophole in the Stimulus Bill that allowed the bonuses for AIG to go through.

As I said - not a loophole, but a contractual obligation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOH
AIG big time, but Congress has been us over much more and a lot longer.

I'd be inclined to agree.

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura 03-26-2009 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi (Post 2603966)
I'm really ticked off about my tax dollars being used for the executives' exorbitant salaries, and Congress not thinking ahead to put more strings on the money so this couldn't be used that way. It would have been very easy for congress to stipulate what that money could and couldn't be used for.

Congress had to create a stimulus package in a manner that was not easy to iron out all the loopholes because the whole bailout in itself was never planned. The whole idea of congress stepping in because a private corporation was too massive to go bankrupt was only done under extraordinary circumstances.

There were measures taken to put a cap on how much an executive could earn if they received bailout money, (<$100,000) but AIG got away with it because that number didn't include bonuses in the original plan. That was absolutely outrageous of them because it wasn't just a display of their personal greed, but it created much more friction for a government and State who stepped in to deal with their mistakes.

Now the way to siphon the money they stole is to essentially change the law so that the government could take back what is rightfully AIG's funding. Legally, AIG could give its executives whatever bonuses they want; but it completely defiles the purpose of the government bailout funds. Now if the Government were to step in again, some might say they have gone too far as to take funds that legitimately belong to a corporation... where they got it wouldn't really factor in to a legal battle.

To sum up my feelings on this... the AIG executives who abused the aid they were given should rot in hell. Any future bailout by congress should have very ridged stipulations placed on all executives for ALL assets that were saved by taxpayer funds. If the government essentially rationed ALL executive's payments, then it could legally control any loopholes such as the bonuses. Once bailout money is accepted, all rights executives have to any earnings should be forfeit.

This way, any bailout plan could be established where the government would essentially have control over any assets in a legally-binding agreement. If any loopholes are found, they can be corrected BEFORE they are exploited by greedy execs.

Tommycat 03-27-2009 01:01 AM

um... I think they should have gotten these bonuses(after reading the letter published by the NYTimes). "Dear AIG, I QUIT!"
Quote:

Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.
Seems to me that if I worked all year for a whole dollar, but was to get a bonus at the end of the year, I think I would like that bonus, please.

Web Rider 03-27-2009 02:42 AM

If AIG hadn't taken the govt money and got back up on it's own, I wouldn't care.

The point of the money was to save AIG, there IS NO COMPANY to pay out bonuses if AIG dies, so their bonuses, while I feel they deserve them, should be delayed, regardless of the contract, until that amount of money can come from AIG, not taxpayers/government.

Some of the more favorable arguments, such as the government using it's controlling shares(which is technically what it bought), to sue AIG as shareholders and cause AIG to revoke the contracts. Which is all fairly legal. As for the 90% taxing, considering many of these people are well and clearly multi-millionaires without these bonuses, I don't feel bad for them in the slightest. Aside from saving the the world, or at least a city, I can't think of any job that could be done by anyone less than Superman that would warrant a $100+ bonus.

Tommycat 03-27-2009 03:27 AM

meh, actually in his letter, he even mentions that the ones who brought the company down are getting away scott free, while the ones who were actually keeping the company afloat(as much as they could) were getting the shaft(I'm paraphrasing obviously). They delayed getting paid for a year. These bonuses should have been their actual salary. Granted, I still follow the rule of not feeling bad for someone who makes more in interest on his savings, I still can understand why they would deserve the pay. You do a job, you get paid.

Darth_Yuthura 03-27-2009 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2606888)
meh, actually in his letter, he even mentions that the ones who brought the company down are getting away scott free, while the ones who were actually keeping the company afloat(as much as they could) were getting the shaft(I'm paraphrasing obviously). They delayed getting paid for a year. These bonuses should have been their actual salary. Granted, I still follow the rule of not feeling bad for someone who makes more in interest on his savings, I still can understand why they would deserve the pay. You do a job, you get paid.

That's the problem. They didn't do the job, at least without running it into the ground. Of course, that really goes for their predecessors in most corporations. Regardless, the payment for the executives was the bailout money to their corporation. $1 salaries are more than fair because the bailout money saved them from losing everything if their corporation went bankrupt. How much would they have lost if their stocks held no value? THAT'S the payment, not the salaries + bonuses. By accepting bailout money, they should be counting their graces because taxpayers saved them from bankruptcy. To give themselves huge bonuses is to continue with the bad management that brought their corporation down in the first place.

Tommycat 03-27-2009 09:17 AM

Again, many of the people getting the bonuses DID their job. while the people responsible for nearly sinking AIG left like rats on a sinking ship.

wow... really I couldn't think of something better? I mean honestly that's just weak... I need sleepybye.

Web Rider 03-27-2009 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2606955)
Again, many of the people getting the bonuses DID their job. while the people responsible for nearly sinking AIG left like rats on a sinking ship.

Yup, but these guys who did thier jobs are probably not the ones that are worth objecting to, it's those couple guys who got like, 50 million bonuses.

Darth_Yuthura 04-01-2009 08:06 AM

Those who got their $50 million bonuses didn't steal it from taxpayer's money.

Jae Onasi 04-01-2009 10:32 PM

AIG needs to fire their PR person. And their party planners. And the idiots who think we won't notice if they're wasting millions of our dollars on their stupidity.

oh lolz...I so love April fool's...Revan vs AIG...wish it was true - d3


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.