Someone Explain the Problems with AIG and Bonus money

[CompTweaker]

As I already posted on this same comment of yours in another thread regarding mymom, if you have suspicions that a member is a troll, please send a PM to the mods and let us handle it. Thanks.

Point taken, and I will follow those guidelines from now on....I didnt mean to cause a problem, but my opinion was in direct relation to their opinion. If one person attacks a group as a whole, isn't it fair to respond back to that person in defense?
I couldve been wrong in thinking that person was a previous member who was banned, but in their 3 posts, in 2 of them, the attacks made against people who cant pay their debts seemed very familiar and judgemental.

Am I missing something?

[justbroke]

I want to say something about bonuses. My bonus use to represent 20% of my salary. So that's 20% of my salary "at risk". Every year, I do my part and bring in more business than I am supposed to. So I do 120% of the work required to get my "base" salary. They call that "at plan". Then, on top of that, if I exceed my preset goals, and the company exceeds its goals too, I can get more than the alleged 20%. That's how it works in theory.

In actuality, I've been getting as little as 3% (when at plan) and as much as 17% (when I was 300% of plan and the company did extremely well).

I will be the last person on this forum or anywhere in this Country to complain about people who have salary at risk (because that's their compensation plan).

Also, I've worked under a retention bonus plan as well. That bonus is paid to keep you there for 1, 2, 3 years. When that 1, 2, or 3 years is up... you're free to go. I had a 5 figure retention bonus (at my prior company) for one year.When it was paid... I left shortly thereafter. (So, everyone should hate me too then.) They gave me this bonus to keep me there because there was already a mass exodus. These retention bonuses are paid to keep key personnel for a specific period of time while the company winds down or to stop personnel loss.

The company prior to that shut down the division, and guess what. They paid me a retention bonus to stay 6 extra weeks to wind down that division and to keep the customers happy during the transition.

Bonuses are a part of life, and a part of people's salaries. As one person put it last night... take the top 6-7 sports salaries, and that is more than what was paid in AIG bonuses.

Let's put this all in perspective and understand just what a.) at risk salary is and how the bonus works in that situation, and b.) just what is a retention bonus and what that does... before we just say no to "bonuses". Just because most people work in Industries were bonuses aren't commonplace, people must realize that they are common in certain industries. They can be paid even if the company does marginally because it really is a part of your salary, or a company strategic plan to keep the best people (retain them) over a certain period of time.

I think this irrespective of any government money injected into the company.

I'm going to shut up now.

[floridian]

this youtube is sort of the way i feel about it, but thats merely my opinion.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

[FLBK7]

Justbroke, I don't think anyone has a gripe against the idea of bonuses in general or against the bonus recipients who are entitled to them in their contracts. Bonuses are basically a form of salary and are incorporated into employment contracts for various reasons: To reward excellent performance, to retain talent, to challenge good employees to strive for even more, etc.

I believe the current furor against AIG is that AIG could not pay out those contractual bonuses on their own, but needed massive bailouts (from taxpayers such as you and I) to do so. In addition, AIG was part of the conglomerate that led us to the financial mess we're in, so the public outrage is valid and understandable.

My brother in law, an engineer, was due a $50,000 bonus when his company folded last November. Of course he didn't get any of his bonus money and was lucky to get his accrued sick and annual leave. The difference? His company was a small business and didn't ask for any bailout money.

In my opinion, it becomes an ethical issue when bonuses are paid by companies using public bailout funds. I just wish Congress had done their job right and had EXCLUDED bonuses from the bailout monies AIG received. I'm not going to forgive or forget this easily!

[justbroke]

this youtube is sort of the way i feel about it, but thats merely my opinion.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

I actually like that!

[justbroke]

In my opinion, it becomes an ethical issue when bonuses are paid by companies using public bailout funds. I just wish Congress had done their job right and had EXCLUDED bonuses from the bailout monies AIG received. I'm not going to forgive or forget this easily!

I agree totally with how bonuses are done, but what I don't agree with is Congress and everyone jumping on AIG, when CONGRESS itself, put in the clause that allowed them to be paid. It was very specific and very targeted at actually allowing AIG to pay the bonuses. Then, to top it all off, AIG actually told the congressional banking committee 4 or 5 days before paying it, that they were going to pay it. And Congress did nothing. AIG did nothing wrong, and what they did was totally documented within the parameters (explicitly documented) of the government cash infusion.

No one should be at all outraged with what AIG did with the bonuses. The company and what it represents is outrageous enough. They did nothing more than they asked for, Congress said okay, they then reminded Congress, and Congress did nothing.

Put the blame where it belongs. Congress. It has always been Congress. yet no one wants to blame Congress.

Congress has it's scapegoat, and likewise, has 65% of Americans believing that AIG made a criminal act when it paid the bonuses. And, even if the 65% doesn't believe that it was criminal, the majority of them believe it was unethical. I don't see it. It was in the parameters of the bill, allowing them to pay it. They told Congress they were going to pay it. NOW, it's unethical.

[FLBK7]

IPut the blame where it belongs. Congress. It has always been Congress. yet no one wants to blame Congress.

I did put the blame on Congress. Didn't you read the last paragraph of my post?

[justbroke]

I did put the blame on Congress. Didn't you read the last paragraph of my post?

Can someone help me vote out the lot of them. I loved that We The People YouTube post that floridian posted.

There is way too much "don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain" going on. I am outraged at the whole thing... from predatory lending... to greedy congressional members.

[JRScott]

You might want to look at the912project.com by Glenn Beck.

You may not agree with all of it but you might like some of it

[Mi Bankruptcy]

Here's the point. Congress didn't do their job.. excuses set aside.. by placing provisions for salary caps or bonuses for taking bail out money.

HERE is the worse thing.. CONGRESS got together and TAXED these bonuses at 90% meaning our government targeted a group of individuals because they did not like what was going on... NOW that's scary!! Yet more freedom taken away.

[PoorGrammyinBK7]

All this furor is a distraction for what is really going on and as immoral as it may be to have allowed the bonuses, its nothing in comparison to that. Billions (not millions) of bailout money is going to foreign countries and corporations. Our government is borrowing money from itself that does not exist. I am not sure who exactly is trying to take over the country, but someone is. How could any leadership be this irresponsible and stupid? They aren't. Its part of the "plan".

[floridian]

it didnt just "happen", thats forsure... but as long as the average american has a "six-pack" and a ball game, you can do anything to him you want and its ok... maybe throw in an expensive home too..

[FLBK7]

it didnt just "happen", thats forsure... but as long as the average american has a "six-pack" and a ball game, you can do anything to him you want and its ok... maybe throw in an expensive home too..

True, and very, very sad.

[justbroke]

True, and very, very sad.

I think members of this board, and those contemplating Bankruptcy, know more about what a budget is, and how to mess it up.

Unfortunately, we know more than the average citizen when it comes to these things and have, I would say, a good acumen when it comes to managing or not managing debt.

Now Geitner is on TV telling folks that the bonuses were contractually due the employees. That makes sense with what I said... it is actually part of their salary and is contractually due to the employees. Why doesn't someone from the administration stop all this bickering over the AIG bonuses... stop the witch hunt and pitchfork rants, and actually address the core issue.

I need real solutions today. I don't need someone to blame. I want competent action!!! And, I've heard this all before. Gietner will not be fired. Geitner is doing a fine job. Didn't I hear something similar a few years back, only it was "Brownie, you're doing a fine job"? The problem is that if the Administration gets rid of Geitner... there will be no confidence at all in the Treasury.

That is the reason why the anger is purposefully directed at AIG. Please... for the economy's sake... don't mind the 535 greedy geezers behind the curtain.

[floridian]

the timing is wrong, not a good time to pull this off... too many people are hurting and they see others in luxury...gietner not paying his taxes for five years doesnt help either, remember what happened to marie antoinette....