Author Topic: Retention Bonus...What do you think...? (Read 4181 times)

Redtail1949 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 18, 2009, 12:35:20 PM »

Just another little food for thought..

It is them this time but what happens if you get targeted by one of them and they move to take your wages by a special tax? Thats what we are looking at retaliation by legislation upon individuals that disgree or otherwise piss them off. Next might be imprisonment maybe execution.

To cover what they authorized to happen they are willing to suspend contract law and not the least the Constitution. Remember AIG donated generously to Obama Biden and Dodd as well as some Republicans McCain included. In this case was it a payback to them for their support? Thats what is important to know.

I heard so much about Bush and Cheney trampling on the Constitution WHAT IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK OBAMA IS DOING. WHAT ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER!

Good lord if we do not demand the resignations of Dodd.. Holder and the rest and put Obama and his Socilalist Agenda in full stopped position we as a nation are doomed.

Questor · « **Reply #31 on:** March 18, 2009, 01:59:53 PM »

The government knew those bonuses would be paid. They were disclosed in AIG's annual securities filing in May. It was further disclosed at several other occasions during the bailout process. The bonuses were no surprise to the government. It will be interesting to see if Barney Frank actually does subpoena the CEO of AIG to get the names of the individuals who got the bonuses.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:08:03 PM »

If the employee and the employer, met all the stipulations of the agreement, then the employee should get paid.

How can anyone agrue with this? Just becasue AIG is in the toilet does not mean they should have the right, to null & void thier agreements. They are not in bankrupsy and the bail out did not demand no bonuses.

Anybody who agrees that AIG should not pay on their agreement, then must also agree that GM can institute a 50% pay cut on Union assembly line workers which is in violation of the Union contract. If they get bail out money, you have to agree.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #33 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:51:28 PM »

Quote from: Questor on March 18, 2009, 01:59:53 PM

The government knew those bonuses would be paid. They were disclosed in AIG's annual securities filing in May. It was further disclosed at several other occasions during the bailout process. The bonuses were no surprise to the government. It will be interesting to see if Barney Frank actually does subpoena the CEO of AIG to get the names of the individuals who got the bonuses.

they should all just quit their jobs
then let congress run it right.......[you know they can do it haha]

every one said ''they shouldn't get a bonus for wreching the company''

as a whole the management was a failure
well who said the ones wrecking the company are still there
how do you KNOW EACH INDIVIDUAL that got a bonus didn't earn it

maybe they got the bail out and the bonus
as payment for not exposing some congressmen?

torpedoman · « **Reply #34 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:01:31 PM »

a person who makes the company a lot of money deserves a bonus however the guy who looses a ton of money causes the buisness to go belly up and wrecks the company car should not be rewarded he should be fired and as far as retaining "talent" if someone gave me a resume that listed his last employment as AIG i dont think i would hire him.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:02:44 PM »

So I’m not sure but this may be semantics. If you are say a Sales men at AIG and your job is to sell insurance products, you are paid on a commissions schedule that inclines as you sell more products. It may also and likely has “kickers”. Those kickers may for example be if you sell X number of a specific product, call it Y, you get an extra bonus of $2k. In this case, the employee met the goals, they should get paid the bonus. The fact that AIG is in the toilet is bad news but if they did not stipulate in the agreement that they (AIG) need to be in a particular financial status, then AIG and we are SOL.

Some employees (like me) have a bones plan based on by specific goals & objectives (deliverables) for the year. This bonus for me is worth as much as 25% of my base. However, the company I work for must also achieve certain revenue & net margin requirements. If either I or the company fail to meet those requirements, I get no bonus. So this year, and our physical year ends in June of this year, I will not get any bonus this year and I will have exceeded all my deliverables. So I’m okay with this because that’s the deal I signed up to. But if the company did not have those stipulations on their financial performance, then I would feel and be entitled.

So again, I agree we are entitled to see the structure of these bonus deals since AIG got a bail out. If the employee’s lived up to their end of the bargin, AIG should pay. Let it be a lesson to our government, that next time they may need to figure this out before they get a bail out. Each company should have to disclose the bonus programs as part of the bailout request. In this case, perhaps AIG would have had to go back to each employee and ask them to sign a new agreement. If AIG or any future bail out prospect can’t restructure the bonus programs, then maybe they get no bail out. Don’t know, but this is a mess and our government is to blame.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 18, 2009, 03:42:11 PM »

AIG should have been left to go bankrupt. When a company goes bankrupt, it does not close, that is liquidation. What happened here is the Government stucks its nose in, and propped up a failing company. If they would have been left to file, everyone would have came into work the next day. Now after filing AIG could have gotten out of its contracts and would have been more free to manuver toward making a profit. By the Govt. stepping in and stopping the bankruptcy, it forced AIG to HONOR its contracts, these bonuses are part of this CONTRACT. AIG was NOT in the insurance buisiness, in insurance you need to have capitol backing of your insurance contracts. They were in a securities backing sceme, banks were backing up loans that they were afraid might default through AIG, as long as real estate and housing prices kept rising there was no fear of securities default.

This AIG "scandal" is a way to keep our eyes of of BHO and the socialists agenda of destroying the bill of rights. They have us fighting and whining like school children about who is getting more from mommy.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 18, 2009, 05:15:05 PM »

AIG made available in its public filings this bonus plan. Barney and Dodd knew & Tim Guetner knew about the bonus plan. This is in fact a complete public smoke screen launched by the White House and the house & senate leadership. Obama and his political leaders are lying through their teeth to us and I again ask, where is the main stream media??? They are in on the lies.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #38 on:** March 18, 2009, 05:32:55 PM »

Did ya hear about the congressman that wants them(the bonusees) to commit suicide japanese style!

How about the guy that said today that they wanted the names released and did not care about the safety of their families!

Looks like the heat must be getting to those guys they are lashing out and biting the dog next to them. ever see a pack of dogs in a frenzy like that!

The cross hairs are on them so they are taking no prisoners!

Come on 2010.......... Turn out the lights the party's over! Remember when Dandy Don Meredeth used to sing that on Monday nights

Of course the brain dead electorate will have forgotten this fiasco by then! But......theres plenty of time for more C harlie F oxtrots to be exposed!

Cabin4 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 18, 2009, 05:44:25 PM »

Barney Franks boy friend ran a homo prostitiuion ring out of Barney Franks house in his home state.

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #40 on:** March 18, 2009, 05:52:30 PM »

Quote from: cabin4 on March 18, 2009, 11:58:13 AM

AIG should pay the bonuses to its employees if the employee met the provisions of the contract. Just because AIG as a corporation is in the toilet, does not mean all its employees are failures. Many people work at a low salary and get compensated for producing via bonuses. If the bail out money came with strings attached and AIG was prohibited from paying those bonuses, then the bonuses should not be paid. It’s my understanding that the bail out money did not have those strings attached, AIG is not in bankrupsy, so the employees should get their money, weather we like it or not.

The government gave the bail out money to AIG so they could continue paying it’s obligations and continue to operate. The bonuses are part of those obligations. Like it or not and believe me, I don’t like it but a deal is a deal. You can’t rewrite agreements post signing just because one party decides they no longer like the deal they originally agreed to.

I just heard on the news that many of these bonuses were over $100,000.00 That does not sound like a low income enployee to me. Dale

Cabin4 · « **Reply #41 on:** March 18, 2009, 06:06:07 PM »

It does not matter. A deal is a deal, big or small, rich or poor. Both employee and employer signed a contract. If the government did not want to bail out AIG because of how it compensates it's employees, they should not have given them the money. All this after the bailout complaining by the very people that gave AIG the bail out money is BS.

If congress and obamanation were serious about this and know what they were doing, they would have forced AIG to remedy the contracts as a condition of getting the money.

The chance to fix this should be at the 2010 elections.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 18, 2009, 06:24:59 PM »

More proof its all a smoke screen and the obamanation knows. They knew.

ABC News is reporting that negotiators for the House, Senate and the White House stripped out a measure that could have restricted the AIG bonuses. Now that they are a source of public outrage, members of the both parties -- and the White House -- express outrage.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/phony_outrage_to_cover_their_r.html

beerbelly · « **Reply #43 on:** March 19, 2009, 02:36:27 AM »

The way I see it .AIG is not at fault here! Congress is! AIG is not in charge of the tax payers cookie jar, congress is! Congress voted to give those folks the money, with no strings attached. No over sight, no nothing! If some one gave me some money the same way, I certainly would believe it was mine to spend any way I wanted.
AIG and all the rest should never have been give one penny of tax payers money! They all should have been allowed to go into bankrupts and reorganized under those rules. Most would be better off than they are today and we would not have had to borrow all that money the government gave them.
Congress are the ones that should be be answering the questions.
Beerbelly

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #44 on:** March 19, 2009, 03:22:29 AM »

It is all just one more examle of the inexperince we have elected .
Cabin 4 yes a deal is a deal , the first deal was they make a profit which they did not . They should get nothing as they earned nothing . Let them sue and then we can see what their legal rights are .

JimFromTN · « **Reply #45 on:** March 19, 2009, 03:54:31 AM »

I heard on the radio this morning that there are 2 seperate measures being discussed in the house and senate as to how to get the money back for the bonuses. The first idea is to tax any bonuses given to employees of a company that is receiving bailout money by 90%. The second idea is to tax the company 35% and the employee 35% for a total of 70%. When I think about this idea, it is probably a tax break for the person receiving the bonus seeing as they would probably be paying close to 40% anyhow. Its really just placing a tax on the company.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 19, 2009, 04:17:04 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on March 19, 2009, 03:22:29 AM

the first deal was they make a profit which they did not .

If thats written in the contract with the employee, then I will agree with you. If not, and the employee met their requirements, they should get the money. Its my understanding it is not written inthe contract. The fact that congress is talking about passing legislation to get the $162m back, tells us that is not in the contract. If this is correct, and congress passes legislation on this, it will be unconstitutional and jsut another example of how tyrannical and evil our government has become.

A deal is a deal. Both parties signed on the dotted line. The politicians should stay away and go fix the problem for the next time.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #47 on:** March 19, 2009, 12:49:14 PM »

I would expect that a profit would be a no brainer . Since the Govt. repsents us and we now own 80% i still say don't pay it and let them take us to court .

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #48 on:** March 19, 2009, 12:57:06 PM »

I heard on the news today that they are going to put a 90% tax on bonuses that were received in excess of $250,000.00. They also said there were 14 people that received a bonus of more than a $1,000,000.00.

They also said this is cover up for the big screw up the people in Washington did in the first place. They said this $150,000,000.00 is just a drop in the bucket as to the money they have given away. They compared it to 10 cents out of a 100 dollar bill and they said this whole thing of getting this money back is to just devert attention away from the fact that they screwed up in the first place. Dale

45-70.gov · « **Reply #49 on:** March 19, 2009, 01:05:13 PM »

MANY OF US WILL BE IN A 90% TAX BRACKET SOON

they just got there first

how can they pass an ''ecto post facto'' tax

this is just wrong

what is the difference between greed and ambition??

they is no difference.....just your perception and the amound of ENVY you feel

class envy.......that is worse than greed and the new devicive tool they are useing to devide and conquer

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #50 on:** March 19, 2009, 01:06:34 PM »

seems to be working !

-Shaggy- · « **Reply #51 on:** March 19, 2009, 01:58:52 PM »

Some of you guys don't seem to have a problem letting the government decide how much money an employee can be paid, even if they have a legal contract with their employer, as long as it is only the "rich, greedy bastards" that are affected. What happens in a few months or years, when the same government decides you are being paid too much and you have to give most of it back? Think you will mind then?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #52 on:** March 19, 2009, 02:01:42 PM »

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Quote from Thomas Jefferson.

This whole bonus issue reminds me of this quote. The White House knew, the Treasury knew, Barney Frank Knew and Chris Dodd knew about the bonus plan at AIG. They agreed to exept it from the deal for them to get TARP money. This is all a joke on the American people and these employees of AIG are caught in the middle. We have Senators and Congressman wanting to expose private citizens for public display! These are the same politicians that took MONEY from AIG!! What is going on America?? These politicians should be repelled back into the holes they came out of. They are trashing the constitution and our rights under it and under God. Look at what the obamanation political machine and his accomplices in the media did to Joe the Plumber, a private citizen…. They dug into his private records and held him up for public display because he dare challenge the great one a question!!!!

Give them their bonuses and let’s move on. A deal is a deal and like it or not it’s their money.

Tell the American people the truth and tell us what you’re going to do to fix it for next time. In the grand scheme $162m is an insignificant amount and our whole damn country is fixated on it including the clowns in the media and Washington that have bigger fish to fry.

Too many in Washington are swimming right now when they should be standing.

They will all be swimming on every issue until we kick them out on the carcass they rode in on.

What a disgrace.

moxgrove · « **Reply #53 on:** March 19, 2009, 04:19:32 PM »

Like it or not the AIG bonus structure was legit. If my neighbor is going under and I give him a float so he doesn't get foreclosed on and lower property values, then I better make stipulations at the time. If I don't and all of a sudden I see a van pull up with a new big screen and above ground pool, I may not like it, but can't do much about it.
If I have some thug friends break his legs, is that okay?
I guess if you are Congress it is.
I mean how does a punitive income tax qualify as fully apportioned= the only kind of tax the FEderal Gov. can issue? Oh darn I mentioned the Constitution. I must be a crazy Libertarian Militia terrorist.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #54 on:** March 19, 2009, 04:44:33 PM »

The House passed a Bill today that would institute a 90% tax rate on these bonuses. This is clearly unconstitutional on two fronts.

Non-technical explanation of the two constitutional violations:
1. Retro Active Laws
2. Laws that target specific people or persons

Our government has now crossed the line and is engaging in kangaroo actions resembling communist declarations. The precedence is overwhelming! What’s to say that tomorrow they pass a law that all guns are illegal?

Our government is out of control and now targeting specific people.

We can now all conclude our country is done with.

FLNT4EVR · « **Reply #55 on:** March 19, 2009, 05:09:32 PM »

These bonuses are the result of legal contracts,and were approved as part of Obama's Give Away Program. The Gov has no right or standing to do what they are doing. They can't just single out 1 group and legislate against them. This will eventualy end up before the supreme court.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #56 on:** March 19, 2009, 05:14:06 PM »

I think you are right and it should end up in court. Its a crystal clear violation of the constitution.

I think that when congresses laws are overturned as being unconstitutional, the politicins that voted yes on it, should be held in violation of their oath of office. This includes the president.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #57 on:** March 19, 2009, 06:08:19 PM »

Quote from: cabin4 on March 19, 2009, 05:14:06 PM

I think you are right and it should end up in court. Its a crystal clear violation of the constitution.

I think that when congresses laws are overturned as being unconstitutional, the politicins that voted yes on it, should be held in violation of their oath of office. This includes the president.

NOW C4 that would be like a lawyer defending a client thats found guilty and having to do the time along with him!

Now a president knowingly lying about knowing about it maybe!

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #58 on:** March 20, 2009, 01:56:00 AM »

Cabin 4 , i hope they do go to court on that count . If not the Consitution isn't worth the paper its written on .
I still say mang. should have not paid the bons and let the employees take them to court .

billy_56081 · « **Reply #59 on:** March 20, 2009, 01:56:24 AM »

WHat is happening here is they have us arguing like little children about Jimmy getting a bigger allowance from mama than we did. They are keeping us from seeing the big picture, they are printing money like it's going out of style. THe DOW is going to react by going up, then when inflation hits it will scream down.