AIG, Clueless Again on Exec Bonuses
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. It’s in incredibly bad taste to give out 7-figure bonuses to the execs who drove your company (and the whole economy) to ruin while holding your hand out to collect billions in government bailouts. Worse than the auto CEOs flying separate corporate jets to go begging in Washington, at about $20K a pop. This is simply an outrage. Bonuses are supposed to reward performance. This performance is not worth rewarding, and taxpayers shouldn’t be funding these bonuses.
President Obama ordered Secretary Geithner to use “every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.” I totally support his call. And I look forward to seeing these thieving and clueless pretenders to the throne of economic wisdom grovel before Congress tomorrow.
Of course, if the execs are smart, they’ll donate their huge bonuses to the recovery effort. And if they’re not, it wouldn’t surprise me if they find themselves the victims of physical attacks on their homes or their persons. I don’t condone that kind of violence (in fact, I don’t condone violence at all), but it would be a predictable result of this kind of class warfare mentality, and they should not be shocked to see angry mobs at their gated communities. People have lost their homes, lost their jobs, because of the incompetence of these executives and the companies they operate. To take home bonuses several times the size of the typical American paycheck under these circumstances has no positive benefit, it only serves to incite.
This is OUR money these companies are squandering, after all.
A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com
Shel:
2 points:
1) Such a tax would amount to a punitive tax against specific individuals; it would violate the moral requirement of due process.
2) They’re *retention* bonuses. Trying to keep and attract talent. Hobbling the most important corporation in America by hindering its HR efforts is unwise.
Chris.
Shel:
2 points:
1) Such a tax would amount to a punitive tax against specific individuals; it would violate the moral requirement of due process.
2) They’re *retention* bonuses. Trying to keep and attract talent. Hobbling the most important corporation in America by hindering its HR efforts is unwise.
Chris.
Shel:
2 points:
1) Such a tax would amount to a punitive tax against specific individuals; it would violate the moral requirement of due process.
2) They’re *retention* bonuses. Trying to keep and attract talent. Hobbling the most important corporation in America by hindering its HR efforts is unwise.
Chris.
Shel:
2 points:
1) Such a tax would amount to a punitive tax against specific individuals; it would violate the moral requirement of due process.
2) They’re *retention* bonuses. Trying to keep and attract talent. Hobbling the most important corporation in America by hindering its HR efforts is unwise.
Chris.
USA Today offers two different congressional ideas on how to do this legally. I think it is totally appropriate to impose a 100% tax on bonuses given to employees of companies getting bonus money. They get to honor their contracts, and the people get to recover money that should never have been permitted by a decently worded contract: “In the House, Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, introduced a bill that would tax at 100% bonuses above $100,000 paid by companies that have received federal bailout money.
“We will use any means necessary,” said Ryan. “It boggles my mind how these executives can be so unaware of what the American people are going through.”
• House Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank said the government should assert its rights as the owner of about 80% of AIG and sue to recover the bonuses.
Here’s the URL: https://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-03-16-aig_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular
“The time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company. And then say, as owner, ‘No, I’m not paying you the bonus. You didn’t perform. You didn’t live up to this contract,”‘ Frank told reporters.”
USA Today offers two different congressional ideas on how to do this legally. I think it is totally appropriate to impose a 100% tax on bonuses given to employees of companies getting bonus money. They get to honor their contracts, and the people get to recover money that should never have been permitted by a decently worded contract: “In the House, Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, introduced a bill that would tax at 100% bonuses above $100,000 paid by companies that have received federal bailout money.
“We will use any means necessary,” said Ryan. “It boggles my mind how these executives can be so unaware of what the American people are going through.”
• House Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank said the government should assert its rights as the owner of about 80% of AIG and sue to recover the bonuses.
Here’s the URL: https://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-03-16-aig_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular
“The time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company. And then say, as owner, ‘No, I’m not paying you the bonus. You didn’t perform. You didn’t live up to this contract,”‘ Frank told reporters.”
USA Today offers two different congressional ideas on how to do this legally. I think it is totally appropriate to impose a 100% tax on bonuses given to employees of companies getting bonus money. They get to honor their contracts, and the people get to recover money that should never have been permitted by a decently worded contract: “In the House, Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, introduced a bill that would tax at 100% bonuses above $100,000 paid by companies that have received federal bailout money.
“We will use any means necessary,” said Ryan. “It boggles my mind how these executives can be so unaware of what the American people are going through.”
• House Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank said the government should assert its rights as the owner of about 80% of AIG and sue to recover the bonuses.
Here’s the URL: https://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-03-16-aig_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular
“The time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company. And then say, as owner, ‘No, I’m not paying you the bonus. You didn’t perform. You didn’t live up to this contract,”‘ Frank told reporters.”
USA Today offers two different congressional ideas on how to do this legally. I think it is totally appropriate to impose a 100% tax on bonuses given to employees of companies getting bonus money. They get to honor their contracts, and the people get to recover money that should never have been permitted by a decently worded contract: “In the House, Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, introduced a bill that would tax at 100% bonuses above $100,000 paid by companies that have received federal bailout money.
“We will use any means necessary,” said Ryan. “It boggles my mind how these executives can be so unaware of what the American people are going through.”
• House Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank said the government should assert its rights as the owner of about 80% of AIG and sue to recover the bonuses.
Here’s the URL: https://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-03-16-aig_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular
“The time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company. And then say, as owner, ‘No, I’m not paying you the bonus. You didn’t perform. You didn’t live up to this contract,”‘ Frank told reporters.”
New blog post: AIG, Clueless Again on Exec Bonuses https://tinyurl.com/cotq5a
New blog post: AIG, Clueless Again on Exec Bonuses https://tinyurl.com/cotq5a
New blog post: AIG, Clueless Again on Exec Bonuses https://tinyurl.com/cotq5a
New blog post: AIG, Clueless Again on Exec Bonuses https://tinyurl.com/cotq5a
Shel:
Companies have expenses. Rent, utilities, salaries, etc. Retention bonuses for key personnel are in that category, no?
When you invest in a company, you don’t get to micromanage what they spend the money on. You empower a manager to do that, which is how Liddy becaome CEO.
Chris.
Shel:
Companies have expenses. Rent, utilities, salaries, etc. Retention bonuses for key personnel are in that category, no?
When you invest in a company, you don’t get to micromanage what they spend the money on. You empower a manager to do that, which is how Liddy becaome CEO.
Chris.
Shel:
Companies have expenses. Rent, utilities, salaries, etc. Retention bonuses for key personnel are in that category, no?
When you invest in a company, you don’t get to micromanage what they spend the money on. You empower a manager to do that, which is how Liddy becaome CEO.
Chris.
Shel:
Companies have expenses. Rent, utilities, salaries, etc. Retention bonuses for key personnel are in that category, no?
When you invest in a company, you don’t get to micromanage what they spend the money on. You empower a manager to do that, which is how Liddy becaome CEO.
Chris.
The fact that “This performance is not worth rewarding” is kind of moot, isn’t it, given that these aren’t performance bonuses?
These people are being paid to stay on, in a context when they’ve got other option.
I know, I know “Let ’em go!” everyone says. But someone’s got to run the place, and I doubt anyone’s kicking down the door to work there. Also, let’s not assume, in our outrage, that EVERY executive there is either incompetent or immoral.
Oh, Chris I never said they were all incompetent or immoral–but I do think it’s immoral to take the public’s money that’s supposedly for keeping the company afloat, and using it to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to its own executives–sort of like banks taking the Bush bailout last fall and instead of loosening credit, using it for mergers and acquisitions. This is not the contract that was sold to the American people–that contract was to get these companies back on their feet. Yes, the AIG contract has the advantage of being written and signed. But I submit there’s a moral contract with their funders, the American people, that AIG is breaking.
The fact that “This performance is not worth rewarding” is kind of moot, isn’t it, given that these aren’t performance bonuses?
These people are being paid to stay on, in a context when they’ve got other option.
I know, I know “Let ’em go!” everyone says. But someone’s got to run the place, and I doubt anyone’s kicking down the door to work there. Also, let’s not assume, in our outrage, that EVERY executive there is either incompetent or immoral.
Oh, Chris I never said they were all incompetent or immoral–but I do think it’s immoral to take the public’s money that’s supposedly for keeping the company afloat, and using it to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to its own executives–sort of like banks taking the Bush bailout last fall and instead of loosening credit, using it for mergers and acquisitions. This is not the contract that was sold to the American people–that contract was to get these companies back on their feet. Yes, the AIG contract has the advantage of being written and signed. But I submit there’s a moral contract with their funders, the American people, that AIG is breaking.
The fact that “This performance is not worth rewarding” is kind of moot, isn’t it, given that these aren’t performance bonuses?
These people are being paid to stay on, in a context when they’ve got other option.
I know, I know “Let ’em go!” everyone says. But someone’s got to run the place, and I doubt anyone’s kicking down the door to work there. Also, let’s not assume, in our outrage, that EVERY executive there is either incompetent or immoral.
Oh, Chris I never said they were all incompetent or immoral–but I do think it’s immoral to take the public’s money that’s supposedly for keeping the company afloat, and using it to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to its own executives–sort of like banks taking the Bush bailout last fall and instead of loosening credit, using it for mergers and acquisitions. This is not the contract that was sold to the American people–that contract was to get these companies back on their feet. Yes, the AIG contract has the advantage of being written and signed. But I submit there’s a moral contract with their funders, the American people, that AIG is breaking.
The fact that “This performance is not worth rewarding” is kind of moot, isn’t it, given that these aren’t performance bonuses?
These people are being paid to stay on, in a context when they’ve got other option.
I know, I know “Let ’em go!” everyone says. But someone’s got to run the place, and I doubt anyone’s kicking down the door to work there. Also, let’s not assume, in our outrage, that EVERY executive there is either incompetent or immoral.
Oh, Chris I never said they were all incompetent or immoral–but I do think it’s immoral to take the public’s money that’s supposedly for keeping the company afloat, and using it to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to its own executives–sort of like banks taking the Bush bailout last fall and instead of loosening credit, using it for mergers and acquisitions. This is not the contract that was sold to the American people–that contract was to get these companies back on their feet. Yes, the AIG contract has the advantage of being written and signed. But I submit there’s a moral contract with their funders, the American people, that AIG is breaking.