AIG bailout and BIG bonuses

[Sinvel]

I've searched around and I couldn't find a topic which talked about this, and I'm wondering what's your opinion.
I was completely pissed when I found out that company AIG was handing out over 160 million in bonuses to their CEOs while at the same time they were receiving bailout money of over 170 billion dollars (with a 'B') as of March 09. Now this definitely leaves a bad taste of shit in my mouth that they're using my tax dollars to pay those SOBs who ran AIG into the ground in the first place. Those of your who are unfamiliar with what's going on, please see:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/16/AIG.bonuses/index.html?iref=newssearch

And the Evolving story thus far:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses/index.html?iref=newssearch

Now I know that AIG, and is also true of many other financial companies, has to find a way to retain their valued CEOs, usually with stock options and the like, but since the company's stock has went to crap, they can only pay them in money. What the hell am I talking about?
Please read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/17sorkin.html?_r=1&hp

Awww C'mon... if I did a bad job of running a company (or doing any job for that matter), I would be fired so fast, it would make my mommy's head spin. If all the CEO's reason for staying in AIG are those big fat bonuses, it means that they don't really care about the company or anything that their directly responsible for. What companies desperately need are workers who have a vested interest in a company and actually care about the welfare of its employees, and have some sense of responsibility when running a company to the ground that effects so many people worldwide. Anyways, I'm just ranting now -- tell what do you think?

 

[Claytonic3000]

I think they should follow the 'tough shit' rule. When something really bad happens, and your in charge of making sure that it shouldn't have happened, you get fired.

 

[Pohlkat]

AIG was bound by contract to give those people 100% of their pay from 2007 for the year of 2008, regardless of how badly the company did. They really couldn't win here, those rich a-holes probably would have sued if AIG went against it's contract.

 

[Altorin]

AIG was bound by contract to give those people 100% of their pay from 2007 for the year of 2008, regardless of how badly the company did. They really couldn't win here, those rich a-holes probably would have sued if AIG went against it's contract.

Yes, but the company would be taking the higher ground.

If AIG had to spend 160 million of its bailout money to settle lawsuits, the general civvie wouldn't be pissed at AIG. The names of the people filing the suits would have to come out, and those people would be the ones who are in trouble, not the company as a whole.

 

[McClaud]

AIG was bound by contract to give those people 100% of their pay from 2007 for the year of 2008, regardless of how badly the company did. They really couldn't win here, those rich a-holes probably would have sued if AIG went against it's contract.

Considering it the case would be handled in a civil court with people who pay taxes, I'd say that AIG execs would be hard pressed to win anything.

Having said that, today, Chris Dodds announced that he, several Democrats and several prominent Republicans all wrote loopholes into the stimulus bill to allow AIG to pay bonuses to executives. This is one of the reasons why the White House criticized it as a "flawed bill" when it was signed (he had to sign it - Congress passed it with enough votes to override a Presidential veto).

Anyway, on the good side, several of the larger bonuses were returned to AIG by executives, since they want to avoid this huge-ass tax measure that Congress is passing on executive bonuses made with stimulus money, and a possible inquiry by the Justice Department.

 

[RagnorakTres]

Here's the thing: those bonuses accrue to a total of less than one percent of the total bailout they received. I want to know where the rest of it is.

Also, as already pointed out, AIG was contractually obligated to pay. They would have spent more on lawyers and a losing case if they hadn't payed.

 

[Eiseman]

Chuck Schumer (I hope I spelled that right) promised to tax all of the bonus money away from the execs, in a fine display of
"Stop complaining you rich bastards, this will happen" politics.

What do you call a tax like that anyway? A bonus tax? Loophole tax? A "Fuck you and the horse you rode on" tax?

 

[Micah Weil]

Chuck Schumer (I hope I spelled that right) promised to tax all of the bonus money away from the execs, in a fine display of
"Stop complaining you rich bastards, this will happen" politics.

What do you call a tax like that anyway? A bonus tax? Loophole tax? A "Fuck you and the horse you rode on" tax?

I prefer to think of it as Karma finally getting off it's ass and forcefully violating them with something spiked.

AIG...ugh, further proof that capitalism is a wonderful theory...
Seriously, I've already seen a spike in local pitchfork sales. Any company that pulls stupid shit like that should not only have to give all their bailout money back, but double that amount. They need to lose what they were given to help save their lousy selves.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I find it hard to pick a side. On one hand, that's a blatant misuse of tax payer money. On the other, I know people who work in companies like that, and they are genuinely dependent on their yearly bonus.

 

[Labyrinth]

"Well, our company's going to shit."
"Aww bugger. About that time ey chaps? Break out the cheque book, let's grab what we can."

 

[sneakypenguin]

Here's the thing: those bonuses accrue to a total of less than one percent of the total bailout they received. I want to know where the rest of it is.

Also, as already pointed out, AIG was contractually obligated to pay. They would have spent more on lawyers and a losing case if they hadn't payed.

Yes but you know how americans are we don't care if it really is insignificant we still want the other guy to suffer even if we don't benefit from it....And I suppose people also dont realize that contract protection is built into the constitution.

People we go crazy over 165 million but hey if the government spends loans or waste BILLIONS they don't bat an eye. Hypocrites.

Chuck Schumer (I hope I spelled that right) promised to tax all of the bonus money away from the execs, in a fine display of
"Stop complaining you rich bastards, this will happen" politics.

What do you call a tax like that anyway? A bonus tax? Loophole tax? A "Fuck you and the horse you rode on" tax?

I prefer to think of it as Karma finally getting off it's ass and forcefully violating them with something spiked.

AIG...ugh, further proof that capitalism is a wonderful theory...
Seriously, I've already seen a spike in local pitchfork sales. Any company that pulls stupid shit like that should not only have to give all their bailout money back, but double that amount. They need to lose what they were given to help save their lousy selves.

You do realize if we had let capitalism work AIG would be in bankruptcy and not paying....Yes it would hurt the economy now but helps in the long run. To bad people are short sighted.

EDIT also we knew about this for some time (almost a year) so why the sudden outrage like we had no idea this was happening. Gosh I hate politics sometimes.

 

[SimuLord]

Chuck Schumer (I hope I spelled that right) promised to tax all of the bonus money away from the execs, in a fine display of
"Stop complaining you rich bastards, this will happen" politics.

He, along with Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Max Baucus (D-MT) have considered a measure that would impose a 90% tax rate on bonuses paid with taxpayer money. I'm entirely in favor of it. I think AIG should pay off its creditors and then be liquidated with the proceeds going directly to the US Treasury.

 

[McClaud]

I find it hard to pick a side. On one hand, that's a blatant misuse of tax payer money. On the other, I know people who work in companies like that, and they are genuinely dependent on their yearly bonus.

Note this only applies to the executive bonuses. One guy got $11 million for failing.

And the tax would only apply to the companies that received bailout money, and only to executives who received a large compensation for their stupidity.

He, along with Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Max Baucus (D-MT) have considered a measure that would impose a 90% tax rate on bonuses paid with taxpayer money. I'm entirely in favor of it. I think AIG should pay off its creditors and then be liquidated with the proceeds going directly to the US Treasury.

The only reason Chris Dodd and Max Baucus are going forward with Republicans on this is because they wrote the loophole in the stimulus bill that is now the cause of all this uproar.