- This topic has 380 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
paramount.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 6, 2009 at 11:01 AM #442360August 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM #441595
briansd1
Guestflu, it might be not be fair. But private enterprise can pay whatever they want.
It’s when they are subsidized and supported by the taxpayers that I have a problem with pay.
A private company can pay whatever it wants. But if they go bankrupt from doing it, then tough luck.
That’s why I believe that taxpayers need to start cutting-off funds to state and local governments so money is not spend frivolously.
The Federal government can print money so that’s another story.
August 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM #441792Guestflu, it might be not be fair. But private enterprise can pay whatever they want.
It’s when they are subsidized and supported by the taxpayers that I have a problem with pay.
A private company can pay whatever it wants. But if they go bankrupt from doing it, then tough luck.
That’s why I believe that taxpayers need to start cutting-off funds to state and local governments so money is not spend frivolously.
The Federal government can print money so that’s another story.
August 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM #442125Guestflu, it might be not be fair. But private enterprise can pay whatever they want.
It’s when they are subsidized and supported by the taxpayers that I have a problem with pay.
A private company can pay whatever it wants. But if they go bankrupt from doing it, then tough luck.
That’s why I believe that taxpayers need to start cutting-off funds to state and local governments so money is not spend frivolously.
The Federal government can print money so that’s another story.
August 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM #442194Guestflu, it might be not be fair. But private enterprise can pay whatever they want.
It’s when they are subsidized and supported by the taxpayers that I have a problem with pay.
A private company can pay whatever it wants. But if they go bankrupt from doing it, then tough luck.
That’s why I believe that taxpayers need to start cutting-off funds to state and local governments so money is not spend frivolously.
The Federal government can print money so that’s another story.
August 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM #442370Guestflu, it might be not be fair. But private enterprise can pay whatever they want.
It’s when they are subsidized and supported by the taxpayers that I have a problem with pay.
A private company can pay whatever it wants. But if they go bankrupt from doing it, then tough luck.
That’s why I believe that taxpayers need to start cutting-off funds to state and local governments so money is not spend frivolously.
The Federal government can print money so that’s another story.
August 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM #441605afx114
Participant[quote=flu]Just curious, do you folks think paying someone $100million is an outrage if he/she brings in $600million?[/quote]
Has Citigroup paid back the taxpayers for their bailout yet? If no, then it is an outrage. Taxpayers should be paid back first before the company starts doling out bonuses. If Citigroup has paid back their bailout cash then he could be paid one googillion dollars and I wouldn’t care.
Supporting big payouts to bailed out executives while opposing the same for firefighters is a bit of cognitive dissonance, wouldn’t you say?
August 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM #441802Participant[quote=flu]Just curious, do you folks think paying someone $100million is an outrage if he/she brings in $600million?[/quote]
Has Citigroup paid back the taxpayers for their bailout yet? If no, then it is an outrage. Taxpayers should be paid back first before the company starts doling out bonuses. If Citigroup has paid back their bailout cash then he could be paid one googillion dollars and I wouldn’t care.
Supporting big payouts to bailed out executives while opposing the same for firefighters is a bit of cognitive dissonance, wouldn’t you say?
August 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM #442135Participant[quote=flu]Just curious, do you folks think paying someone $100million is an outrage if he/she brings in $600million?[/quote]
Has Citigroup paid back the taxpayers for their bailout yet? If no, then it is an outrage. Taxpayers should be paid back first before the company starts doling out bonuses. If Citigroup has paid back their bailout cash then he could be paid one googillion dollars and I wouldn’t care.
Supporting big payouts to bailed out executives while opposing the same for firefighters is a bit of cognitive dissonance, wouldn’t you say?
August 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM #442204Participant[quote=flu]Just curious, do you folks think paying someone $100million is an outrage if he/she brings in $600million?[/quote]
Has Citigroup paid back the taxpayers for their bailout yet? If no, then it is an outrage. Taxpayers should be paid back first before the company starts doling out bonuses. If Citigroup has paid back their bailout cash then he could be paid one googillion dollars and I wouldn’t care.
Supporting big payouts to bailed out executives while opposing the same for firefighters is a bit of cognitive dissonance, wouldn’t you say?
August 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM #442380Participant[quote=flu]Just curious, do you folks think paying someone $100million is an outrage if he/she brings in $600million?[/quote]
Has Citigroup paid back the taxpayers for their bailout yet? If no, then it is an outrage. Taxpayers should be paid back first before the company starts doling out bonuses. If Citigroup has paid back their bailout cash then he could be paid one googillion dollars and I wouldn’t care.
Supporting big payouts to bailed out executives while opposing the same for firefighters is a bit of cognitive dissonance, wouldn’t you say?
August 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM #441632Daniel
ParticipantThe bonus is probably in a watertight contract, so Citi will end up paying it (unless Congress screams again).
But this type of “performance” bonuses are precisely what’s wrong with the whole system: say there was John Doe from AIG or BoA or whatever on the other side of the Citi trade. Is John Doe going to pay $100 million out of his pocket to share in the loss? I think not. He may get fired. So what? When presented with the odds, any sane, rational trader in this world would make a big trade if the probabilities were: 50% chance of making $100 million dollars, 50% chance of getting fired. I know I would.
August 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM #441829ParticipantThe bonus is probably in a watertight contract, so Citi will end up paying it (unless Congress screams again).
But this type of “performance” bonuses are precisely what’s wrong with the whole system: say there was John Doe from AIG or BoA or whatever on the other side of the Citi trade. Is John Doe going to pay $100 million out of his pocket to share in the loss? I think not. He may get fired. So what? When presented with the odds, any sane, rational trader in this world would make a big trade if the probabilities were: 50% chance of making $100 million dollars, 50% chance of getting fired. I know I would.
August 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM #442162ParticipantThe bonus is probably in a watertight contract, so Citi will end up paying it (unless Congress screams again).
But this type of “performance” bonuses are precisely what’s wrong with the whole system: say there was John Doe from AIG or BoA or whatever on the other side of the Citi trade. Is John Doe going to pay $100 million out of his pocket to share in the loss? I think not. He may get fired. So what? When presented with the odds, any sane, rational trader in this world would make a big trade if the probabilities were: 50% chance of making $100 million dollars, 50% chance of getting fired. I know I would.
August 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM #442232ParticipantThe bonus is probably in a watertight contract, so Citi will end up paying it (unless Congress screams again).
But this type of “performance” bonuses are precisely what’s wrong with the whole system: say there was John Doe from AIG or BoA or whatever on the other side of the Citi trade. Is John Doe going to pay $100 million out of his pocket to share in the loss? I think not. He may get fired. So what? When presented with the odds, any sane, rational trader in this world would make a big trade if the probabilities were: 50% chance of making $100 million dollars, 50% chance of getting fired. I know I would.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.