Wall Street Bonuses Out of Control

[quote name='rickonker']In a capitalist economy, the government doesn't continuously transfer money to the financial sector, where it leads to massive golden parachutes and pay packages for CEOs.[/QUOTE]
Welp, I agree with you, but I would strongly suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for "capitalism" to show up.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Welp, I agree with you, but I would strongly suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for "capitalism" to show up.[/QUOTE]

Certainly not with the actions of the last two administrations.
 
[quote name='speedracer']It should be done in the style of that MTV show about parents spending absurd sums on daughters' sweet sixteen parties. Watching daughters throw shit fits because the folks can only afford the 500 class BMW for their birthday would be awesome.[/quote]

Nothing, nothing can describe the absolute fucking unbridled, uncensored RAGE I get watching those disgusting, filthy, abhorrent, de-fucking-spicable "sweet sixteen" parties. The opulent parties, the expensive gifts- the "drama": some bitch's music gets screwed up in her dance routine in front of her 1,500 guests and she runs off crying into the back, only to call her mother a bitch and claim that mother doesn't love her?! *flail* People are fuckin' losing their jobs, their homes, their LIVES and this bitch is upset about a jacked up song?

And that's why I hate selfish rich people. I'm all for salary caps. Lewis Black is my holmes yo.
 
If the government (supposedly for the good of its people) is paying these companies, it should pay the management minimum wage. These corporate CEOs need a reality check.
 
If CEO's get their wages lowered, everyone else's wages in the company will also get lowered, right down to the janitor. And don't even try and tell me that the companies won't do this either, if it comes to that.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']If CEO's get their wages lowered, everyone else's wages in the company will also get lowered, right down to the janitor. And don't even try and tell me that the companies won't do this either, if it comes to that.[/quote]

Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand, but I don't buy it. Big corporations put the squeeze on their workers a long time ago (I'm talking about the grunts, not the exec team). If they put more downward pressure on wages the best people will leave (economy be damned) and they'll be left with alot of deadwood. As for the janitor, his wage is safe because you can't go lower then minimum wage.

Basically CEOs are right now trying to figure out how to pacify their exec teams while making an end-run around regulations so they can pick up that big fat paycheck when all is said and done. And they'll win. In the end the rich always win - it's a historical fact.
 
[quote name='camoor']Basically CEOs are right now trying to figure out how to pacify their exec teams while making an end-run around regulations so they can pick up that big fat paycheck when all is said and done. And they'll win. In the end the rich always win - it's a historical fact.[/quote]

What about Rome?

What about Spain?

What about England?

Being rich gives you an edge (and lots of shiny things), but it doesn't prevent the inevitable.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"not to be living high on the hog" = $500K/year max.

Wow, and they said McCain was out of touch.[/quote]

Yes, then you also have to ask if this is a good thing. These limits are only being placed on companies receiving bailout money. What is stopping their good employees from leaving the company and getting a job where earnings aren't capped.

The rich get richer, the poor get dumber
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What about Rome?

What about Spain?

What about England?

Being rich gives you an edge (and lots of shiny things), but it doesn't prevent the inevitable.[/quote]

For every fall of Rome there's a rich Constantine and crew in Constantinople (meet the new boss, same as the old boss). The Eloi occasionally abandon a few of their own to pacify the Morlocks, however nothing really changes. Aberations like the democratic republics of Athens, Rome, and America are slowly corrupted and succumb to the inevitable shift of power back to the oligarchy.
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']Yes, then you also have to ask if this is a good thing. These limits are only being placed on companies receiving bailout money. What is stopping their good employees from leaving the company and getting a job where earnings aren't capped.

The rich get richer, the poor get dumber[/QUOTE]
These companies are so jacked up that their human capital is the least of their concerns. The "executive class" needs some serious reigning in. Right fucking now.
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']Yes, then you also have to ask if this is a good thing. These limits are only being placed on companies receiving bailout money. What is stopping their good employees from leaving the company and getting a job where earnings aren't capped.

The rich get richer, the poor get dumber[/QUOTE]

There is no good solution, unless we have a time machine and can go back and stop the government from starting these idiotic bailouts. Or maybe just going back and stopping Henry Paulson from becoming the worst Treasury secretary in the history of the country.
 
So how come Wall Street execs bonuses/salary are out of control, but Hollywood filmmakers - some of whom are multi-millionaires and making much more than Wall Street execs - get a tax breaks on buying film for their movies in the bloated economic stimulus bill Obama is supporting?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
Because Pelosi is constantly down on her knees for Hollywood this stimulus plan has her fingerprints all over it.
 
[quote name='Ruined']So how come Wall Street execs bonuses/salary are out of control, but Hollywood filmmakers - some of whom are multi-millionaires and making much more than Wall Street execs - get a tax breaks on buying film for their movies in the bloated economic stimulus bill Obama is supporting?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.[/quote]

Bailing out banks to the tune of 700 billion dollars ~ pork line item in the form of a tax break for buying film? That's a stretch even for a professional spinmeister like you.

In other news, we have found the first conservative who saw a tax break he didn't like.
 
[quote name='camoor']Bailing out banks to the tune of 700 billion dollars ~ pork line item in the form of a tax break for buying film? That's a stretch even for a professional spinmeister like you.

In other news, we have found the first conservative who saw a tax break he didn't like.[/QUOTE]

Right, because bailing out banks allows America's economy to survive. No banks = no credit = no way to get loans = no way to buy anything big = we are all screwed. Giving a filmmaker a tax break on film, on the other hand, is just a waste of money in the economic arena... unless you are stating filmmakers and actors are going to start giving personal loans out to individuals who need to buy a house or a car?

Or hold on, if a hollywood director makes a movie that bombs with that tax break (that the people pay for) and it costs the studio money, should the government step in and put a salary cap on all of those involved in making the film? lol.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Right, because bailing out banks allows America's economy to survive. No banks = no credit = no way to get loans = no way to buy anything big = we are all screwed.[/QUOTE]

What makes you think that bank bailouts were required for any banks to exist? The problems were with certain large banks that were far too leveraged. Smaller and local banks were doing fine. All the bailouts that have occurred so far, as well as the insane "stimulus" bill, are indefensible.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Right, because bailing out banks allows America's economy to survive. No banks = no credit = no way to get loans = no way to buy anything big = we are all screwed. Giving a filmmaker a tax break on film, on the other hand, is just a waste of money in the economic arena... unless you are stating filmmakers and actors are going to start giving personal loans out to individuals who need to buy a house or a car?

Or hold on, if a hollywood director makes a movie that bombs with that tax break (that the people pay for) and it costs the studio money, should the government step in and put a salary cap on all of those involved in making the film? lol.[/quote]

You completely missed the point. How much money does the high-quality film tax break line item represent? I'd be surprised if it was as much as .0001% of the money being used to bail out the banks. It's not that I disagree with you about the pork in the bill, it's that you're letting partisan politics steer your attention towards chickenshit line items and away from the fact that banks got emergency bailouts that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and rewarded their exec teams for failure with the 6th biggest round of bonuses in history.

There's another fundemental difference here. The government is negotiating a loan to the banks and the govt has the right to set the terms of the loan. If Warren Buffet was negotiating a loan to the banks and one of his stipulations was lowering the pay of CEOs, you'd cry foul if a third party came in and took that negotiating power away from Buffet. Well now the politicians are setting the rules for how our taxpayer money is loaned out. If the banks don't like it, they choose to pass on taking my taxpayer money, or they can pay it back as quick as possible. After all it's still a free country for rich people.
 
The Government has a right to dictate where and where they can't spend the loan money. However, any money that the company already has can be used as they see fit in my eyes.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-Missouri) got your back:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/executive.pay/index.html

~HotShotX[/quote]

If this happens, I'll shit myself. Of course, it'll be worded in such a way that the funds must be at least x% of their annual income. Or they'll set up a subsidiary that will take the money and the parent company won't have to abide by the terms. Or they'll just do what congress does; can't raise their pay right away, but they can do "cost of living" increases. TOTALLY different. What constitutes the payment? Bonuses? Stocks? Housing? Expense accounts? "Performance incentives" It doesn't matter what is done or how it's phrased, the rich will find a way to undermine any attempt to curtail exorbitant wealth hoarding.


[quote name='mykevermin']
EDIT: Aerosmith should have died in 1977. Motorhead's "Eat the Rich" is a superior tune.[/quote]
Damn strait. :cool:

[quote name='camoor']You completely missed the point. How much money does the high-quality film tax break line item represent? I'd be surprised if it was as much as .0001% of the money being used to bail out the banks. It's not that I disagree with you about the pork in the bill, it's that you're letting partisan politics steer your attention towards chickenshit line items and away from the fact that banks got emergency bailouts that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and rewarded their exec teams for failure with the 6th biggest round of bonuses in history. [/quote]

That "chickenshit" line item is worth more than the combined income of everyone in this thread over our entire lifetimes.


The fucked up thing is that they're still being rewarded for failure... just less. They only get half a million dollar bonus. Call me crazy... but shouldn't the penalty for failure be no bonus as long as we're playing hardball?
 
[quote name='Kayden']If this happens, I'll shit myself.
[/QUOTE]

Did you miss the news last week? Obama put forth a policy that any company getting bailout funds cannot have any employees with compensation over $500,000.

If they want to pay more they can give stock options--but there's a stipulation on those that the stocks cannot be sold until the company has totally paid back the bail out loans they received.

I'm not sure what the status is in terms of that being put in effect though.
 
I wouldn't say I missed the news. I generally intentionally avoid it. :lol: All I read is that it was proposed. I didn't know if it was actually in place. Even then, in place and enforced are two separate things.

Before any company gets a government handout they should have already not paid ANY bonus and lowered the top X% peoples salaries by X% to make the budget like every other family and small business in the country.

Government handouts shouldn't come into play when you can't pay bonuses, but when you're legitamately almost fucked.

That should be a law too. No company can operate in the red and give bonuses or pay $X0,000,000,000 to people that are already wiping their asses with Bennies.


[quote name='dmaul1114']Did you miss the news last week? Obama put forth a policy that any company getting bailout funds cannot have any employees with compensation over $500,000.

If they want to pay more they can give stock options--but there's a stipulation on those that the stocks cannot be sold until the company has totally paid back the bail out loans they received.

I'm not sure what the status is in terms of that being put in effect though.[/quote]
 
[quote name='KingBroly']If CEO's get their wages lowered, everyone else's wages in the company will also get lowered, right down to the janitor. And don't even try and tell me that the companies won't do this either, if it comes to that.[/quote]

How does that work?
 
[quote name='Kayden']I wouldn't say I missed the news. I generally intentionally avoid it. :lol: All I read is that it was proposed. I didn't know if it was actually in place. Even then, in place and enforced are two separate things.

Before any company gets a government handout they should have already not paid ANY bonus and lowered the top X% peoples salaries by X% to make the budget like every other family and small business in the country.

Government handouts shouldn't come into play when you can't pay bonuses, but when you're legitamately almost fucked.

That should be a law too. No company can operate in the red and give bonuses or pay $X0,000,000,000 to people that are already wiping their asses with Bennies.[/QUOTE]

I saw let them give the big bonuses. Let any company regardless of receiving government hand outs give huge bonuses. Instead just tax the company and the employee an insane amount for any bonuses given. Guarantee when a company is hit with a tax penalty for handing out $500k to a moron and the moron himself is taxed 80% of that bonus that shit will end REAL fast.
 
Bailout shouldntve happened. The government couldve started their own series of banks for that money, or secondarily bought all these companies several times over. Theres just not the political will for nationalization...yet.
 
By law, all bonuses are supposed to be taxed at about 50%, at least for us "poor" people.

[quote name='MSI Magus']I saw let them give the big bonuses. Let any company regardless of receiving government hand outs give huge bonuses. Instead just tax the company and the employee an insane amount for any bonuses given. Guarantee when a company is hit with a tax penalty for handing out $500k to a moron and the moron himself is taxed 80% of that bonus that shit will end REAL fast.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']I wouldn't say I missed the news. I generally intentionally avoid it. :lol: All I read is that it was proposed. I didn't know if it was actually in place. Even then, in place and enforced are two separate things.
[/QUOTE]

Dug up an article for you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123375514020647787.html

Looks like it is in place. It's not retroactive to companies already receiving bailout, but will be in place as part of the contract with any companies receiving bailout funds in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top