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.
|
You're kind of missing my point. I'm not talking about where we are now; I was suggesting how this could have been handled differently to prevent this issue.
We were told that AIG going under would be catastrophic for the entire financial sector. We were told that they would go under without government funds. The company turned to the government for funds. Those funds could have been tied to AIG changing the terms for bonuses, had the same people in congress who claim to be outraged today actually been concerned with what AIG would do with the money.
Under those circumstances, since you'd have had zero guarantee of getting your bonus anyway since the company was, we were to believe, on the brink of bankruptcy, you probably wouldn't sue. What would it get you? The hastening of the company going under? I seriously doubt the AIG contracts stipulate that employees would be paid bonuses even if the company is entirely insolvent, and if they do, it makes you wonder how they stayed in business as long as they did.
I agree with you that if you are looking for examples of potential government economic screw ups, we've got some doozies right now that eclipse the bonuses. I also agree with you that I don't think punitive taxes on the bonuses are the way to handle it.
ETA: Is no one else facing changes in employment terms because of the state of the economy? I know I am.
And delusional as Kevin finds my idea, I'm apparently not alone:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/aig.contracts/
And, AIG's trouble would have been none of my concern had they not gotten a big influx of cash from the government. I suppose I'm culpable because I did vote for Bush in 2004. I'm not sure it makes any sense at all to give money to private companies with no expectations about how the money will be used, especially considering the conditions under which they approached the government.
Threaded Mode
