Government cuts pay for bailed-out executives

[jhenrie]

Give it to them where they breathe , overpaid *****s they are.

 

[BBB725]

Even when taxpayer money(MY money) is funding a failed organization?

That's public funded incompetency- are you for this? really?



Dave

The government never should have done any loans, let the free markets take it course. That being said and not happening I'm not for funding failed organization I'm really against the government control, because they won't stop.

Speaking of government funded incompetency where everyones outrage at ANY government program, their all bankrupt. Maybe we can fire all the politicians and start over:sifone:

 

[Uncle Dave]

Maybe we can fire all the politicians and start over:sifone:

That would be radical progress.


Only 2 kinds of politicians these days.


One guy takes my money and gives it to his friends.

The other guy takes my money and hands it out to everyone but me.


UD

 

[LaughingCat]

Give it to them where they breathe , overpaid *****s they are.

First of all, thank you for joining the party, Yoda.

For everyone wanting to limit pay, how much is too much and who decides?

I do not have a solid answer for this. But here's my overall rationale, the company wouldn't exist, and the high paid salesman/executive wouldn't be working for the compnay if not for the bail-out. So if they are going to ask for government cheese, one 'penalty' is a restriction on income. Otherwise, it contradicts most people thoughts of the government socializing and spending our tax money wild.

Using my logic, it means anyone who supports higher bonuses and compensation for the valuable executives of these bailed out companies are directly supporting SOCIALISM.

 

[GregP]

Limiting pay at bailout companies is obvious and a start but more needs to be done to convince managers to reinvest more money back into the company, use it to create more jobs, and even pay it out the the real owners, stockholders, in dividends instead of giving it to themselves. Since average executive compensation has gone up 10x compared to the rest of the economy, from 40x their average employees pay to 400x their companies average employees pay we need to start by finding ways to reduce their compensation packages by at least 90% (even going back to 40x seems pretty excessive).

My simple minded approach to "encourage" more reasonable compensation is to start by using the tax code to at least stop taxpayers from subsidising their excess compensation.

1. ALL employees of any company that received government bailout should be limited to $175k/yr (Congress salary seems a convinent figure) until ALL funds are repaid with interest.

2. ALL companies, public and private, should only be allowed to claim the first $175k of an employees compensation as a business expense. Anything above that must come from after-tax profits. For shareholder companies it must be reported as unrealized dividends to make it obvious what their compensation excess is costing the shareholder. If there is no booked profit, there is no above the line compensation. That includes severance/pension packages.

3. For publicaly owned/traded companies ALL above the line compensation should be subject to mandatory clawback provisions. If the company decreases employees by more than 10%, decreases in stock price by more than 20%, applies for any form of bankrupcy, or is purchased by another company all above the line compensation from the preceeding 3 years is automatically recalled.

4. If none of the above has any impact, then add a 100% co-tax on any compensation paid above 1M so at least there is some $ taken back to cover their next screw-ups.

-Greg

 

[BBB725]

I understand that without the bailout most of these companies would have went under. I also agree that the CEO's COO's etc. shouldn't reward themselves with hugh bonuses. Now where do you draw the line? SBA loans same thing apply? Educational loans? What about sports and teams getting government money for a new stadium, limit players salary? I know these aren't the same and may be a little ridiculous but when government gets involved where does it end?

 

[Chris]

The argument that if you don't pay the bonuses the best talent will leave is partially invalid. Yes, they'll leave. But that's probably not a bad thing.

We bolstered those companies to avoid a crash. But if they continue to have fundamental flaws that prevent them from flourishing, maybe it's best that their top talent goes elsewhere. When they happens, the business these rainmakers generated will surely follow them and pretty soon we're back to a free market where the best and strongest flourish. Crash averted, market stabilized, the strong survive.

 

[Chris]

For everyone wanting to limit pay, how much is too much and who decides?

In my world, the guy that sets the pay is the guy paying the bills. If that's the U.S. taxpayer, maybe we have some right to do so.

If these companies were finacially imprudent enough to mis-manage their companies to collapse in the first place and we were forced to reinforce them to prevent a ripple effect in our greater national economy, then it's not outside the realm of reason to expect some intervention in their decision-making processes. The banks that took money to prevent their collapse used it in some cases to purchase other healthy banks. Is that what we had in mind? Based on that, maybe we need to question some of the other things they're doing.

I know it's tough to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but these are the things we needed to think about before shovelling a couple hundred billion to these clowns. If you were to come to me for cash to save your failing business, I'd have a lien on your assets and a contract for your services with a major recourse.

 

[BBB725]

In my world, the guy that sets the pay is the guy paying the bills. If that's the U.S. taxpayer, maybe we have some right to do so.

If these companies were finacially imprudent enough to mis-manage their companies to collapse in the first place and we were forced to reinforce them to prevent a ripple effect in our greater national economy, then it's not outside the realm of reason to expect some intervention in their decision-making processes. The banks that took money to prevent their collapse used it in some cases to purchase other healthy banks. Is that what we had in mind? Based on that, maybe we need to question some of the other things they're doing.

I know it's tough to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but these are the things we needed to think about before shovelling a couple hundred billion to these clowns. If you were to come to me for cash to save your failing business, I'd have a lien on your assets and a contract for your services with a major recourse.

I agree completely with that, where the problem comes in is we the people with the money never approved this loan and we the tax payers aren't determining the pay our elected officials are. Most of these people in Washington couldn't hold a real job much less run a company and now they're going to determine pay?

 

[LaughingCat]

Posts 27 and 29 are very strong points. I especially like how #29 points out that some of the most incompetent people in American are in control of the most critical parts of our country simply by being the most popular fisherman at teh club and getting the most votes. I think the ideas of limiting pay are valid and necessary. As an Chris said in post 27, the good talent should take their clients to strong companies so we can let the crap co's reach their final demise. But that fact that we have a bunch of brainless nimwits (both political parties) running the show is scary.

 

[Chris]

I agree completely with that, where the problem comes in is we the people with the money never approved this loan and we the tax payers aren't determining the pay our elected officials are. Most of these people in Washington couldn't hold a real job much less run a company and now they're going to determine pay?

Executive Service Corps. We enlist accomplished management executives from the business community. They spend a certain period serving their country by providing management, consulting and oversight. They have no political affilliation or connection to anyone- have them report to the GAO. They make the management decisions based on pre-set guidelines and principles. Their compensation is a lifelong income tax reduction based on length of service. Their employer gets some benefits too.

 

[BBB725]

Executive Service Corps. We enlist accomplished management executives from the business community. They spend a certain period serving their country by providing management, consulting and oversight. They have no political affilliation or connection to anyone- have them report to the GAO. They make the management decisions based on pre-set guidelines and principles. Their compensation is a lifelong income tax reduction based on length of service. Their employer gets some benefits too.

You got my vote, you running in 2012 or 2016?:biggrinjester:

 

[Ratickle]

But that fact that we have a bunch of brainless nimwits (both political parties) running the show is scary.

It always blows my mind when a politician talks about how some business is bad so they have to manage it. :ack2: I cannot think of one government run program on budget, helpful for the money spent, has a long-term, in-the-black, forecast, or is not run by some failure as a honest person.

List some and cheer me up......

 

[BBB725]

It always blows my mind when a politician talks about how some business is bad so they have to manage it. :ack2: I cannot think of one government run program on budget, helpful for the money spent, has a long-term, in-the-black, forecast, or is not run by some failure as a honest person.

List some and cheer me up......

OSHA and EPA:biggrinjester:

 

[Ratickle]

OSHA and EPA:biggrinjester:

Yeah, right.......:ack2:

 

[LaughingCat]

FDIC. . . Oops, just went into the red.
PBGC. . . will likely be in the red.

I got nothin'

 

[Chris]

You got my vote, you running in 2012 or 2016?:biggrinjester:

If it were up to me, every American would have a period between the ages of 18 and 26 where they'd have to serve a minimum of 2 years in either the military or some service branch of government. Then you become a full citizen. If you don't (barring some exemption for cause) you become a resident with far fewer rights and benefits. Like voting.

 

[BBB725]

I'd like to see a tax payer ID card if you pay taxes you can vote if not too bad.:26:

 

[MarylandMark]

Some places like Greece do that. I agree- if only to make people more aware of what sacrifices our troops make. And don't get paid dirt in the cases I know for doing it...

I'm on Andrews AFB weekly- most there don't have a pot to **** in. See some "junk" in the trash pile- it is gone by lunch to someone elses house that had even worse/less.

 

[Ratickle]

If it were up to me, every American would have a period between the ages of 18 and 26 where they'd have to serve a minimum of 2 years in either the military or some service branch of government. Then you become a full citizen. If you don't (barring some exemption for cause) you become a resident with far fewer rights and benefits. Like voting.

Many countries are that way. My brother lives in Germany and all of his kids have too. It's part of getting your college tuition paid for.