(03-23-2009 01:58 PM)Tripster Wrote:  

(03-23-2009 01:21 PM)STLouis Blazer Wrote:  

Quote:I have one in Electronics Engineering .... sorry 'bout that

I think we've established its not in English and its not in Accounting or Finance.

Quote:you applaud Beggers Getting Bonuses from Welfare Money that WE HAVE TO PAY BACK, NOT THEM ... they Default, I pay, I Default, I STILL PAY - - so where is the REAL FAIRNESS AT in that garbage ??

What in the world are you talking about? They (TARP recipients) are paying the money back, not you. And let's quit this "I'm having to pay for X...". Until you see an additional line on your paycheck that says "TARP tax" stop your crying about being a taxpayer who's money is being spent. Look, taxpayer money is wasted every day because that's all politicians do. how do you think they get paid? How do you think they pay for their flights on government aircraft? At the end of the day, you pay taxes and they spend it. Your taxes weren't increased because of TARP so quit your victim taxpayer drivel.

Oh, so the Great Gatsby of Financiers never uses Quip Slang in his Propah English ??? (a little England English lingo there).

And who the heck are you trying to convince that we won't be the suckers paying this all back in the long run .... what drugs are you on 'cause (unPropah English Quipy Slang there) I want some !!!

They can call it TARP, TURF, or TRAP for all I care, we always end up eating "From The Bottom Up" on these kinds of things anyway. No one expects a Corporate Entity to ever pay back a "so-called loan" and they darn sure never expect them to pay back a Hand-Out ... errrr ... I mean Bail-Out.

And geeze, you and RobertN need to get together and go for some beers or something - - he loves paying taxes just like you do.

Do you realize there was really no Personal Income Tax for a long long time in the United States ..... WOW TRIP, HOW DID WE EVER SURVIVE ???

Better than we are now and if you think I care about paying the filth we have in Congress or the White House a Paycheck, you need to watch some more South Park 'cause (darn Quip Slang lingo) your brain hasn't quite mushed enough yet.

And as you suggest, I am finished with this Drivel'ly Diatribe with you - - it is akin to beating down a concrete wall with a toothpick - - your a Tax Lover and there aren't many things in this world as tight azz'd (well maybe Nancy Pelosi, but that one is all yours).

Par votre congé ..... (that's French just in case you didn't know)

.

Well, you seem to indicate StLouis is a female. I am single so if she is single, I suppose it can be worked out. Hey, StLouis is only across the state from where I am near Chicago.

(03-23-2009 02:19 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, you seem to indicate StLouis is a female. I am single so if she is single, I suppose it can be worked out. Hey, StLouis is only across the state from where I am near Chicago.

I didn't think that sort of thing mattered to you Robert ???

I mean if StLouis is Gay, you will discriminate against him and refuse to go have some beers with the man ??????

Now that is not being a good Baurwnee Furwank Liberal there Robert !!!!!

SHAME SHAME SHAME

.

I am not a she and I no longer live in St.Louis.

StLB - do you work for AIG? Regardless, does anyone know how many AIG employees are receiving bonuses and how much of their compensation package consists of bonuses? What do you expect is the total compensation range for those involved?

I would expect at least the VP level and up at AIG to voluntarily forgo bonuses, but moving down the the management tree, it seems more like Congress is taking away people's salaries with the punitive-retroactive-tax plan. If the bonuses only apply to those who are making seven figure earnings to begin with, then that's one thing ... if they apply to those earning in the low six figures or even five figures, then that makes the whole media-politician feeding frenzy that much more disgusting.

(03-23-2009 02:32 PM)I45owl Wrote:  StLB - do you work for AIG? Regardless, does anyone know how many AIG employees are receiving bonuses and how much of their compensation package consists of bonuses? What do you expect is the total compensation range for those involved?

I would expect at least the VP level and up at AIG to voluntarily forgo bonuses, but moving down the the management tree, it seems more like Congress is taking away people's salaries with the punitive-retroactive-tax plan. If the bonuses only apply to those who are making seven figure earnings to begin with, then that's one thing ... if they apply to those earning in the low six figures or even five figures, then that makes the whole media-politician feeding frenzy that much more disgusting.

I45, I have to say you are right on this one.

I am more talking about the Big Wigs that never get punished and are the major faults that ruined the company in the first place.

I mean if the lower level guys DID their jobs to the best of their abilities, then yeah, give them their due, their complicity in AIG's failure is either moot or nil and if they did what they were supposed to do, they deserve their money. I know they rely on that as planned income for adjusting their budgets.

But those Vampires at the top, no way should they get a singe cent and any money that is owed them, should be split up and added into the lower rungs bonuses.

The "Board Room Dogs" aren't who make the company work and we all know it - - it is always the "Rank and File Employee", that often and usually has no power or no say so in the Failed Policies that killed this and any other Huge Corporation, who make up the Working Backbone of the company.

I think Congress needs to set a table into law of who can legally receive a bonus out of this mangled wreck and if it is a Proper Assessment and Pay Out of these Bonuses, the MSM/MSP need to STFU.

I can stand seeing Joe Lower Rung get his bonus if it is deserving - - because he most likely is the most deserving of the Entire Staff and the Most Innocent in the Failure the Big Dawgs caused upon him.

.

No, I don't work for AIG but I do work for an investment bank and will be affected by the punitive tax measures.

At these firms the comp is set like this: decent salary (usually less than what an industry finance job would pay) and then the promise of a "bonus" on the back end. The bonus is calculated by title, personal performance, group performance, and then how the overall company did. Here's the kicker: let's say I work the full year of 2009 and in December am told my bonus number, which is paid the following Feb/March. I have to be working at the time the bonus is paid in order to receive it. This means if I quit or am fired before that time I get nothing. So, after putting in 80-100 hrs a week all year, doing what's expected, etc etc there is still a way I won't get the bonus paid.

Another thing is that in cities like NYC the salary for junior (non-executives) does not go very far, especially if you have student loans and/or a family. The bonus usually makes up 50%+ of your total compensation and its at that time a lot of junior guys "catch up" (lived in the red all year out of savings and then made big debt payments or purchases at bonus time).

My group had a better year in 08 than 07 and the jr bankers still had bonuses cut by about 35% and up (at some firms it was much higher).

If the retroactive tax takes effect it will hurt hundreds of thousands of the lower level employees in a big, big way.

my finance company(Fortune 100), had bonuses 35% below last year as well, always payout at end of February. Must be a common industry percentage cut.

The Democrats are dumber than I thought. My impression was that the 90% tax was directed solely at companies that received the bailout and had three initials including two vowels and all of which preceded "H" in the alphabet. If they're targeting everyone in the industry because they were too gutless to put the rules in the bailout, then they're not just dumb, they're evil.

Remember this?

Here's the bullet points directly from the House GOP plan:
* Rather than providing taxpayer funded purchases of frozen mortgage assets, we should adopt a mortgage insurance approach to solve the problem.
* Currently the federal government insures approximately half of all mortgage backed securities. (MBS) We can insure the rest of current outstanding MBS; however, rather than taxpayers funding insurance, the holders of these assets should pay for it. Treasury Department can design a system to charge premiums to the holders of MBS to fully finance this insurance.
* Have Private Capital Injection to the Financial Markets, Not Tax Dollars. Instead of injecting taxpayer capital into the market to produce liquidity, private capital can be drawn into the market by removing regulatory and tax barriers that are currently blocking private capital formation. Too much private capital is sitting on the sidelines during this crisis.
* Temporary tax relief provisions can help companies free up capital to maintain operations, create jobs, and lend to one another. In addition, we should allow for a temporary suspension of dividend payments by financial institutions and other regulatory measures to address the problems surrounding private capital liquidity.
*Immediate Transparency, Oversight, and Market Reform. Require participating firms to disclose to Treasury the value of their mortgage assets on their books, the value of any private bids within the last year for such assets, and their last audit report.
* Wall Street Executives should not benefit from taxpayer funding. Call on the SEC to review the performance of the Credit Rating Agencies and their ability to accurately reflect the risks of these failed investment securities.
*Create a blue ribbon panel with representatives of Treasury, SEC, and the Fed to make recommendations to Congress for reforms of the financial sector by January 1, 2009.

I would have favored insuring the underlying mortgages, rather than the MBS's themselves, and paid for the insurance with a quarter to half percent overrride on the existing mortgages.

(03-23-2009 05:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Remember this?

Here's the bullet points directly from the House GOP plan:
* Rather than providing taxpayer funded purchases of frozen mortgage assets, we should adopt a mortgage insurance approach to solve the problem.
* Currently the federal government insures approximately half of all mortgage backed securities. (MBS) We can insure the rest of current outstanding MBS; however, rather than taxpayers funding insurance, the holders of these assets should pay for it. Treasury Department can design a system to charge premiums to the holders of MBS to fully finance this insurance.
* Have Private Capital Injection to the Financial Markets, Not Tax Dollars. Instead of injecting taxpayer capital into the market to produce liquidity, private capital can be drawn into the market by removing regulatory and tax barriers that are currently blocking private capital formation. Too much private capital is sitting on the sidelines during this crisis.
* Temporary tax relief provisions can help companies free up capital to maintain operations, create jobs, and lend to one another. In addition, we should allow for a temporary suspension of dividend payments by financial institutions and other regulatory measures to address the problems surrounding private capital liquidity.
*Immediate Transparency, Oversight, and Market Reform. Require participating firms to disclose to Treasury the value of their mortgage assets on their books, the value of any private bids within the last year for such assets, and their last audit report.
* Wall Street Executives should not benefit from taxpayer funding. Call on the SEC to review the performance of the Credit Rating Agencies and their ability to accurately reflect the risks of these failed investment securities.
*Create a blue ribbon panel with representatives of Treasury, SEC, and the Fed to make recommendations to Congress for reforms of the financial sector by January 1, 2009.

Good catch - I was obviously too narrow in my condemnation. The way I remember it was that Democrats were the tip of the spear with the no-executive-bonuses campaign, but McCain certainly led the GOP masses into being led by whatever the prevailing whim of the moment was. For their part, Democrats have been on an anti-executive-bonus frenzy for at least 10 years.

(03-23-2009 05:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would have favored insuring the underlying mortgages, rather than the MBS's themselves, and paid for the insurance with a quarter to half percent overrride on the existing mortgages.

I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling the whoosh go right over my head on this one.

Paul Krugman had a reasonable explanation on NPR of why the latest Gerstner plan wouldn't help much of anything. More here and here. I sense that Krugman is not the favorite economist of posters on this board, but it seems like you're close to agreement with him on this issue. Aside from having poor understanding of economics, I'm not entirely sure how mortgage insurance or MBS or non-recourse loans work. I'm not sure that Krugman has proposed an actual solution.

From my perspective, all I hear is "we will not repeat the mistakes of the past" and a cacophony that sounds a whole like they're doing everything they can to artificially prop up housing prices (remove moral hazard, reduce interest rates, renegotiate mortgages, yada yada).

Just to clarify. This was not McCain's proposal. AFAIK he never got onboard with it. This was the house republicans' proposal. Shrub, McCain, and Obama all opposed it.

(03-23-2009 09:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Just to clarify. This was not McCain's proposal. AFAIK he never got onboard with it. This was the house republicans' proposal. Shrub, McCain, and Obama all opposed it.

Fair enough. I just threw in some gratuitous McCain bashing since he seems to fly by the seat of his pants without really sticking to an overarching principle. He just set a bad standard for leadership, IMHO.

(03-23-2009 02:26 PM)STLouis Blazer Wrote:  I am not a she and I no longer live in St.Louis.

Trippy confused me by calling you "hon". That is why I got the impression you were a woman. Sorry. I don't blame you for moving out of St. Louis though. Summers are hell in St. Louis.

(03-24-2009 02:10 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-23-2009 02:26 PM)STLouis Blazer Wrote:  I am not a she and I no longer live in St.Louis.

Trippy confused me by calling you "hon". That is why I got the impression you were a woman. Sorry. I don't blame you for moving out of St. Louis though. Summers are hell in St. Louis.

Robert, I used to have this Supervisor that wasn't Supervisor material any more than you are Soldier material and he would call everyone in sight "Hon" ...

I now use it to be simply aggravating when I want to punch a point.

And you are the Gay Blade Liberal there Bubba, so don't slam me for using a 'Term of Phrase' you SHOULD consider one of "Endearment" toward your Gay Buddy Crowd.

Can't have it both ways Hon ....

.