Family Guy
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 676
- Reaction score
- 206
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04pay.html?_r=1&hpU.S. Plans to Curb Executive Pay for Bailout Recipients
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and VIKAS BAJAJ - The NY Times
Published: February 3, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will announce the executive compensation plan on Wednesday at 11 a.m.
Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.
The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives in the months ahead to accept deep reductions in their current pay.
Most of those guys literally could not live on $500,000. Their nut is over a million.
So you think someone should stay with a company that is in trouble and begging for tax payer money even when they can get significantly high compensation by moving to a company that is not in trouble. I'm sure, if you were given that choice, you would forego the money and stay with the sinking ship.It might just help by getting rid of those who just want to make large bank on the profits of the company, and replace them with people who will take the modest check and actually see the company succeed.
IMHO
So you think someone should stay with a company that is in trouble and begging for tax payer money even when they can get significantly high compensation by moving to a company that is not in trouble. I'm sure, if you were given that choice, you would forego the money and stay with the sinking ship.
In this, as in most things, you get what you pay for. If the good executives bail and the bad ones stay it will be a good thing even though the tax payers will have to eat the losses when the companies ultimately fail.
What exactly would a company mean to you unless you are a founder or relative or close friend of a founder?It depends on if the company meant anything to me or not.
What exactly would a company mean to you unless you are a founder or relative or close friend of a founder?
So you think someone should stay with a company that is in trouble and begging for tax payer money even when they can get significantly high compensation by moving to a company that is not in trouble. I'm sure, if you were given that choice, you would forego the money and stay with the sinking ship.
In this, as in most things, you get what you pay for. If the good executives bail and the bad ones stay it will be a good thing even though the tax payers will have to eat the losses when the companies ultimately fail.
Cautiously Capping Executive Pay - Forbes.com
Wow, this is somewhat extraordinary.. What do you think of a pay gap of 500.000 for companies bosses which have run "badly run" companies? Deserved or insane?
If companies are going to be going to us for a handout, then there should be some stipulations/strings attached for receiving that money. You wouldn't want a welfare recipient to keep popping out children,do recreational drugs(legal or illegal) or spend all day and night partying when she can not afford to take care of the children that she already has on her own. I do not give a **** how much a company pays their executives as long as they are not on tax payer funded assistance and they are not trying to weasel out of any obligations they have to employees on the bottom of the chain(airlines cutting salaries of workers while giving huge bonuses and pay to executives).
I seen some twits on FOX trying to say its none of the governments business regulating what a company pays their executives.Under normal conditions it is not the government's IE we the tax payers business to dictate wages, but when you go to us the tax payer for a hand out we have every right to demand and make sure you are not wasting our money. Because if we give you the money with no strings attached you are going to do the same old **** again. As far as I am concerned the government should tell everyone of these companies to piss off because they themselves out of their own free will did things to **** their company. So as a result they should suffer the same fate as the small companies that make bad decisions, which is go under. I think a 500,000 dollar cap is very generous.
If the Government will recoup these funds, then it is wrong to tell the Companies how they can spend it.
Should they? Sure.If you loaned someone money to pay off their utilities then should that person use that money that you loaned them to by video games,beer and smokes instead of actually using it all to pay of their utilities?
I believe a straight up home loan is somewhat of a different animal.If you borrow money from a bank to buy a house then are you not expected to buy a house instead of a car?
And you know this how? I thought so.Most of those guys literally could not live on $500,000. Their nut is over a million.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?