90% tax on US AIG bonuses
- Thread starter DominicStar
- Start date
The best talent the company has caused them to lose c.$100bn in one financial year
The bailouts were rushed through very swiftly, sometimes in a matter of days involving regulators like competition commissions, governments, in the EU cases sometimes the EU itself. The priority was stopping the companies crashing and some of them wouldn't have survived a further 24 hours. Personally, I'm glad they sorted out the nitty gritty then came back to this later.
?
they are going by the government rules. The government has now changed though rules after the contract has been signed. You have no clue do you.
As did some of our banks, forcing renegotiated terms which were beneficial to themselves and bigger settlements. We had to accept what they forced and renegotiated and I see no reason why they shouldn't reciprocate.
Soldato
A lot of talk about "contractural agreements" etc. Are these bonuses actually that? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they are or aren't. I don't think we actually know the answer to that. My personal suspicions lead me to think that they are mostly discretionary.
A bonus should only be paid if the individual performs well and deserves one. Period. i.e. Top exec's get nothing, but "Tom" the trader who made £x million profit gets one. As a taxpayer that's what I would want to see. We need people like "Tom".
A bonus should only be paid if the individual performs well and deserves one. Period. i.e. Top exec's get nothing, but "Tom" the trader who made £x million profit gets one. As a taxpayer that's what I would want to see. We need people like "Tom".
If it wasn't for the bailouts the company would have totally collapsed and not been able to pay them anything.
They're not just doing this to punish evil rich bankers. It's because they would be recieving the governments money. The contract was agreed beforehand yes, but thats totally meaningless, if it wasn't for the bailout the cash simply wouldn't be there.
It is not meaningless. it is still their contracts. If the government wanted to do something. the time to do it was before they gave the money. Not after and certainly not in this way.
I disagree with you as you can not come up with a sensible reason why this is the right thing to do.
Nick leeson is not the same. It was easily proved he deliberately broke regulations and hence he was sacked. Thus not getting anything. That is nothing like he situation we find ourselves in now.
The company is much bigger than the small team that lost most of the cash.
No, that's a really bad precendent, changing the rules after the agreement has already been made should never be considered acceptable.
?
Well, if you don't mind them coming back later to change the rules anything they want...
The banks haven't changed the rules of money recieved ex post facto at any point. They renegotiated prior to acceptance. If this had been negotiated prior to acceptance of bailout cash, I'd have much less problem with it.
Most bonuses are contractual provided certain conditions have been met (often personal performance). If the employees met those conditions, then they are contractually entitled to the bonus. If they didn't, they did not.
You can argue that's discretionary, because not everyone gets paid it, but it's not a case of they can decide at bonus time who gets paid in most places.
That is what's happening in most cases. The government and the jealous proletariat want to punish Tom even though Tom did a good job, irrespective of the fact that causing Tom and his other good colleagues to leave the company is about the best way of ensuring the bailout money never comes back to the government.
It's the precedent of the government to make laws to do what ever they wish, that is totally wrong. So as it's not you, you think the government should be able to make any law they want. Lets tax all Redmelos at 100% tax rate for the next 5 years. It's ok no one will support you as it doesn't affect them.
See that's what everyone in this thread is saying. Somehow I think you are all lying. Can suddenly see how stupid this law is but don't want to change their stand.
Soldato
Dey tk er casssh! 
I dont care about the law. I care about the audacity these companies have giving out massive bonuses while begging for money from the government.
The law is a reaction to this childlike behaviour. IF the government had not bailed them out there wouldnt be any bonus in the first place so I really dont see how they are off worse.
The law is a reaction to this childlike behaviour. IF the government had not bailed them out there wouldnt be any bonus in the first place so I really dont see how they are off worse.
The law bit is the very thing you should be concentrating on, in this entire affair.
Can you really not see how this is a stupid and dangerous law?Those conditions need to be set out before the bail out. Not suddenly change the goal posts after.
neither can you but its ok because everyone who disagrees must be jealous
barings bank would still like some bailout billions though.
nick leeson took risks they didnt pay off, so did everyone giving out loans , mortages and credit to people who couldnt afford the debt. yet they still get huge pensions etc
neither can you but its ok because everyone who disagrees must be jealous
barings bank would still like some bailout billions though.
You keep focusing on that, but it's not my main argument. Why not concentrate on the rest of it.
So reasons like it sets a dangerous precedent for the government to make laws at a whim. Ot the fact that contracts have certain laws and the government has just circumvented these. Nope I don't have any reasons
People should be protected if they earn £1 or £1million. I bet you would be up in arms if this affected the £15k a year till people.
It's not the same at all. He broke a million and one rules. The situation isn't anything like each other. How can you not understand that.
Last edited:
Soldato
But they would have had the same contracts then as they have now, so how could have they of set out the conditions before the bail out ?, I mean it's not like the Government could have held them to ransom as they had to bail the bank out regardless for the sake of keeping the economy intact.
Soldato
I'm sure that if all of us jealous people knew what contractual terms were being negotiated in the first place, there would be far fewer of these obscene payments ever sanctioned; most of us only get to learn about these things at times like these. I'll wager that the majority of shareholders didn't even know the details.
This is almost the same factional thing as conspiricy theories, though maybe a little better mannered; one set of people believe these fat cats who brought this situation about should be paid, the others feel outraged by the suggestion that their money should be used in such a way.
People who perform well and make wealth should be rewarded (not with the ludicrous amounts we hear about imo) but the people who made all the major decisions that brought us to this mess should be penalised; at present, the system rewards these gamblers (of our money) if they win but if they lose, does not penalise them ..... talk about a win, win situation.
This is almost the same factional thing as conspiricy theories, though maybe a little better mannered; one set of people believe these fat cats who brought this situation about should be paid, the others feel outraged by the suggestion that their money should be used in such a way.
People who perform well and make wealth should be rewarded (not with the ludicrous amounts we hear about imo) but the people who made all the major decisions that brought us to this mess should be penalised; at present, the system rewards these gamblers (of our money) if they win but if they lose, does not penalise them ..... talk about a win, win situation.
They could have set out such conditions as part of the bailout terms. It would then have been for the banks to decide whether to take the money or decline it and allow themselves to fail.
What the US government is doing is attaching retrospective penalities to an already completed agreement, then claiming they can do it because they took the original agreement. Hopefully it will get struck down as unconstitutional due to the ex post facto nature of the penalty.