The bill would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.
Sarge wrote:
Atomm wrote:I've avoided bringing this up because I don't want it to turn all political.... Since you opened the can, I can now discuss without feeling guilty about opening said can. 😛
1. I'm with Sarge. When Congress starts targeting a subset of individuals, it scares me a lot. Who says I'm not next? There is a reason the Constitution specifically forbids passing a law that targets a specific group or individual.
2. This is about 165 Million being paid to non-Executives as retention bonuses. Those bonuses are in place to keep around the people who actually understand the shit that got us in trouble can try to straighten out that shit. Again, this 165 Million is not executives like a lot of the news stories claim. It is extremely intelligent worker bee's. By doing this, Congress has eliminated any ability of the companies we are trying to save to hire the best and brightest. Instead, they will now have to rely on the lowest qualified to get one of the most complicated financial jobs done. This makes no sense to me. Congress should not be meddling in something they don't understand.
3. These retention bonuses were approved by Congress and the Treasury when the bailout bill was passed. There was a reason they put it there. I've been at a company that was shutting the doors. There is a reason they pay retention bonuses. There is also a reason they are so high. They want to make sure you have the incentive to stick around until the job is done.
4. Congress = Pork. Kettle Meet Pot...... On one hand Congress creates a 2 Trillion dollar deficit with their budget proposal and congress is saying thing these guys should commit suicide over 165 Million in retention bonuses. WoW! Where is the outrage from the people at the politicians that do way more damage than this year after year?
I'm sorry Doc, but I think your anger would be better directed to those in Congress who do us more damage instead those people who are trying to fix the problem And yes, I know they created the problem, but we need them to fix it. It's not a situation we want to be in, but it is the truth of the matter.
"Using the tax code to exact retribution or divert public attention from the government's own errors is unjustifiable," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire
"Citigroup lost one third of its market value in the half hour after it became apparent that Congress was going to pass the bill," Connelly said. "That's no way to attract private capital to the banks. ... One of the clear unintended consequences of what Congress is considering right now is to make it much harder for the banks to raise private capital, which is exactly what the public purpose of both the Congress and the administration is to do right now, is to get the government out of the business of owning banks and get private capital in."
Atomm wrote:User: [email protected]
Password: 2009bugmenot
This first article talks about the brain drain this legislation will create. Remember, there are other companies who are stable and pay very well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...dule&sub=AR
This second article talks about the brain drain they are creating at Fannie Mae, not to mention it is completely counter to what the employees were told initially.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...nav=hcmoduletmv
My take is the government is going back on their word (gasp!) and that they are going to tie the hands of the very companies they are trying to save.
This really comes down to what motivates people to stay on a drowning ship.
What if I told you I would pay you a $5 bonus to stay on a drowning ship as long as we were able to save it.... Remember, as you are trying to save this ship, it is going down.
What if that amount was $500?
How about $250,000?
or
You could leave that ship and go to another ship that appears to be stable....
Which would you choose?
It's all about how much money is it worth for you to assume the risk of the company you are working for. Not to mention, the unpaid overtime these guys are being pushed to do.
This really comes down to risk vs reward for the employees and the government. They are tied together whether Congress wants to admit it or not.
Atomm wrote:Bubba, what if I told you that you could do your job for 2 more years, then no one was going to hire you ever again doing what you do?
Atomm wrote:LOL!
Smartass!
FYI, we just lost 12 heads today. 8 in January. About 20% reduction in force total. This stuff is scary.
lexx wrote:My wife was laid off today at noon and I've lost 3 contracts now. Things are going to get tight really quick.
wsj wrote:There is not a shred of justice in the hysteria that followed. As AIG chief Ed Liddy explained on the Hill last week, the people receiving retention bonuses were not the same people who launched AIG's unhedged housing bets that brought the company down. Those people were gone. Their pay is already being clawed back.
Those who remained had been asked a year ago to stay and work themselves out of a job. In accepting the terms offered to them, they committed no offense (say, failing to pay taxes). Their only crime was possessing marketable knowledge -- all the more marketable because of the opportunity for hedge funds and other counterparties to profit from AIG's distress. Had the company submitted to Chapter 11 rather than a government takeover, a bankruptcy judge might well have authorized identical incentives to minimize losses and maximize recovery for legitimate stakeholders.
Atomm wrote:Way to go Bubba! Show up your father-in-law!