Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
I doubt an AIG exec is going to have a very lucrative 2010, so I think I'd still sue. The company's troubles are none of my concern. I'd figure there's a good chance AIG is going under anyhow and if that occurs, I'll never see a penny of that money they owe me.
As you've seen, the bonuses are hardly a blip on the radar screen in the grand scheme of things. We're only talking about like $170 million when there are many billions at issue.
So no, taking a bonus is not going to mean an individual is choosing between AIG not existing anymore or him getting paid. Your example has no foundation in reality.
|
I foresee lawsuits. Not many, since in some cases the legal fees may end up being more than the bonus, but enough.
The tax and the apologies, in my opinion, are more of a response to the populist rage than to a real administrative objection to the bonuses. The term "bonus" is misleading anyway--it's not always performance-based, especially in law or finance.