90% tax on US AIG bonuses

If only our govt had the Balls to tax at 90% pension pots awared last year to former bank staff receiving between 600,000 and 750,000 a year then Fred the shred wouldlnt be so smug.
 
vonhelmet said:
Seems fair to me. A bit dodgy to be paying bonuses out of your bailout funds to be honest...
Click to expand...

The government should never introduce knee jerk laws to satisfy public opinion.

It is also stupid changing a law to specifically target one group. It is nothing bar extreme discrimination. the bail outs our not just cash give aways. the governments have bought assets and some shares. governments will get this money back.

It is nothing apart from stupid knee jerk reaction to appease public opinion.

If they wanted to slash bonuses it should have been negotiated at the bail out stage. Not after. Basically change your contracts or no money and you lose your jobs.

This is absolutely absurd and sets a dangerous precedent.
 
Evangelion said:
If I was a shareholder, I'd be asking why the company is wasting money on taxpayer funded bonuses instead of maximising my profits.
Click to expand...

As it's part of their contracts and you can't do anything about it.
Loads of jealous people in this thread.

Or is it right to tear contracts up and change the laws to specifically **** over people as long as it's not you and you think they are well paid. It's total rubbish.
 
Hxc said:
They are contractually set out bonuses, surely? Do you think that all contracts should just be considered void due to governmental bailouts?
Click to expand...

and if they didnt get a goverment bailout would these people still be getting any bonuses or pensions at all though?

i dont see why they should get a full pension paid for with tax payers money they should be grateful for anything they get surely?
 
Hxc said:
They are contractually set out bonuses, surely? Do you think that all contracts should just be considered void due to governmental bailouts?
Click to expand...

Usually contracts have a "Force Majeure" for events outside their control which removes liability for extreme events happening. This could well be considered one.
 
arknor said:
and if they didnt get a goverment bailout would these people still be getting any bonuses or pensions at all though?
Click to expand...
Possibly.
arknor said:
i dont see why they should get a full pension paid for with tax payers money they should be grateful for anything they get surely?
Click to expand...

As it's part of there contract. It is not in the governments domain to tear up their contracts. If the government wanted to I'm sure they could have put conditions into the bail out, but they didn't. this is totally wrong.

Knee jerk reaction for public opinion, that are jealous or don't understand.
 
Goksly said:
Don't be daft. People just don't want to see their tax money going to people who are already stupidly rich, in the form of bonuses even though they have been seriously reckless and lost insane amounts of money.
Click to expand...

So jealousy. Otherwise the rich part would not be in that statement.

If they earn £1 or £1trillion should make no difference employment law should be the same for everyone.
 
Absoultely disgusting interference from the government, and a shocking precdent.

The vast majority of those working for AIG had nothing to do with the problems, so why should they be penalised by legalised highway robbery.

If Obama is the constitutional scholar he claims to be, he should refuse to sign it into law.
 
its all the city morons who ******* up the banking system now they are whinging for their bonuses, surely they should be performance related, i.e we screwed up the world financial markets due to our shoddy investments, does that not equal poor performance and no bonuses
 
AcidHell2 said:
So jealousy. Otherwise the rich part would not be in that statement.

If they earn £1 or £1trillion should make no difference employment law should be the same for everyone.
Click to expand...
its more the fact that a lot of them will already have more money than they will ever need to live comfortably.

there are areas that genuinely need tax payers money, banks are greedy and probably would have recieved the same amount of bailout regardless anyway but maybe they wouldnt need to lay off a lot of plebs so some rich guy with more money than he ever needs can get a pension he wouldnt miss anyway.
 
arknor said:
its more the fact that a lot of them will already have more money than they will ever need to live comfortably.
Click to expand...

And has nothing to do with what should happen as I said it is jelousy and you have proofed it. Money should not and hasn't come into employment law untill know. this can only be looked upon as an utterly stupid and scary move by the government.

Total knee jerk reaction to appease the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom