$500,000??! Who can live off that!?

Exactly my point, so why even bother giving them billions? SO they could lose even more tax payers money?

It's pretty much BS as far as Im concerned, unless he can MAKE those CEO's stick it out and work under their new salary cap, it's a crock and only being done to please his supporters. No offense ST.

 

What really needs to happen is for government to leave everything the hell alone. The free market will correct itself if you dont do anything wierd. Bad companys/bad exec's will fail on their own. If the government wants to really help, ease up on the corporate taxes (already the highest in the world) instead of raising them, maybe a tax break for the little guy for those of us who have found themselves unemployed (like me). I dont pull for Republicans any more than Dems, but their idea yesterday of a $15000 tax break for home owners is a great idea. It gives direct relief to people home owners.

FDR really did drag out the Great Depression with shit like this, and he didnt go anywhere near as far as Obama is trying to do. And dont get me started on LBJ's Great Society. Obama/Pelosi/Reid et al are only doing things that make good sound bites, whether they are good for the economy or not.

 

As far as Wells Fargo sending top employees to Las Vegas, that's something they've been doing for 12 years. It may have been politically dense, but it's a motivational tool that the company has been using for a long time.

The evolution of current executive compensation schemes in the United States is a long and convoluted tale, and it's convoluted mainly because of government intervention in the market.

For example: During President Clinton's tenure, he signed a bill into law that would not allow a company to deduct for tax purposes more than $1 million of executive compensation. This arbitrary law is what created the rise in executive compensation through stock options. In 1984 the government said it would slap a 20% excise tax on any executive payment more than 3 times the normal annual salary. Typical severance packages at the time were only worth about a year's salary, after passage of the law companies thought it was okay to give 3 years salary worth of severance, and severance packages promptly tripled.

The point is that government intervention into the market has unintended consequences, often contrary to the intent of the government. Let's dump this stimulus package, cut off the banks from further government funds, and let the market fix itself. If government intervention is required, the government should NOT guarantee debt. This is the easy way out for both the politicians and the banks. Capital should be directly injected so as to dilute current shareholder value as it will decrease future moral hazard.

 

We don't have a free market. Our government is a tool manipulated by the corporations that manage the "free market." The "free market" is as much of a myth as communism. How long ago was it that President Coolidge said, flat-out, "The business of government IS business ..." When government officials talk about the "free market," they usually mean giving contracts and tax breaks to those who contributed to their election campaigns. One of these days, I'm going to write a translation guide for political rhetoric.

btw; that homeowner tax break is great if you're one of the few Americans who have the money and credit available to be almost able to afford a new home and that $15,000 credit is going to make or break the deal. The rest of us pick up the tab. Sounds like socialism to me :up:

 

I don't think anyone said we have a free market. But we have had the most free market. And it's becoming less free. So, the corrections are not going to happen through natural Darwinism, but based on what you call a tool. A tool that is a Ponzi scheme. A tool that pays people that don't produce.

That's immoral.

 

How to get by on a meager $500,000

http://www.smartmoney.com/Spending/Budgeting/How-to-Get-By-on-500-000-a-Year/?afl=myyahoo

 

What is a corporation? Its not some living breathing evil organism. Its just a form of business ownership. Just like a partnership or a mom and pop sole proprietorship.

If you want corporations out of government, then get rid of the corporate tax and most regulations. If the government isn't interfering then they wont have any reason to bother the government.

 

You guys do realize that out of the 140B given to the big banks, 80B of it was paid out in bonuses.

If you pay taxes, you will likely have to pay 100k in increased taxes over the next 20 years to pay for the bailout. This is due to the interest the US will be paying on this debt.

If you make over 6 figures, you will likely pay more for this bailout than for your house in your lifetime.

 

Uhm. No. If the government was strictly run by business, there would be no strings attached on this bailout money. Corporations looking at taking this money are in a damned if we do/damned if we dont spot. We really do have a free market (relatively speaking). If a car is not popular it fails, if a perfume doesnt smell good it goes away. If a business if not making a profit it dies or restructures. That's a free market system.

And the $15k tax credit wouldnt be something tax payers would pay for, it would mean you owe the government $15k LESS. The government might have to due with less income. It has nothing to do with purchasing a new home, it has to do with people who already own one, and isnt the cause of a lot of this pain mortgage foreclosures??? The housing industry is going to have to stabilize before any economy recover can really work.

 

You seem to keep hammering on this $500K issue but dont want to touch on the few valid questions that have been thrown out there....ie. what's keeping the CEO's who fvcked up from staying? If nothing, what's the point?

What incentive does a successful CEO from another outfit making atleast 3x that proposed amount have to come to one of the bailed out companies for $500K, it's not like they're gonna be offering him stock options too....right?

$500K is a lot of money no doubt, but to someone who's either been making or has been prepared through higher education and/or business that they'll be making 7+figures for their services will not think so.

 

According to the news story I listened to an hour ago the typical investment banker at a successful firm could make around $400,000 3 to 4 yrs after graduation. So far as attracting new blood the cap would have zero effect in that regard.

I'm sorry but I haven't figured out how to attach a radio link yet.

 

Is an investment banker with 3 to 4 years experience have the knowledge and skills to run the company or bring it back from bankruptcy?

 

I guess CEO guy will have adjust and downsize. That's unless he's been wise and saved enough to liquidate that house payment. If he hasn't, then he was living beyond his means like most seem to do these days. And he will have to suffer just like anyone else would who doesn't plan well. Bye bye house, bye bye Ivy League schools, etc, etc.

Stupid is stupid. If you don't plan well your title should not save or exempt you.

 

If the government suddenly capped your pay at some arbitrary amount, say $25,000, would you then be living beyond your means? In your planning, have you figured that your compensation would stay in-line with your industry trends for the past 20 years? Yes, savings are necessary...etc., but who saw government salary controls coming?

Why is there so much hate for successful people in this country? I think we are in deep trouble when successful people are demonized and the ghetto fabulous lifestyle is something to achieve.

 

Who's hating on successful people? Not me. I'm hating on stupid people who don't plan. Successful people don't suffer much when times get tough because they've planned for them. My personal hits will be 25-30% less money than I made last year. Nothing will change in my household. Bills will get paid just like before. I planned and live under my means everyday.

Those execs will have to adjust, and learn needs vs wants. Then they can truly be successful at any level.

 

Seriously? There is a K-E-Y difference?!

Come on, you can do it. It starts with an "L".

 

Ask yourself, are there really strings attached, or just enough window-dressing to make it palatable to the taxpayer who can barely grasp what's happening? How much money will the cap save the taxpayer? Or is it there to make them feel a little better about giving a shitload of money to Wall Street? How many strings were attached to the first (I can barely even type this) $350 billion? Strings? Shit, we don't even know where that money went!

No company succeeds in this country without the assistance, direct or indirect, of the government. Want to see how the free market really would work? Cut off all farm subsidies. Try eliminating the mortgage interest tax write-off (a subsidy to the housing industry). Or maybe try eliminating the guarantee for bank deposits (a subsidy to the financial sector). You want to talk about an UGLY economy ...

This is what I'm talking about, from the NY Times:

The Senate added to the $900 billion stimulus bill on Wednesday a home purchase tax credit of $15,000 or 10% of the purchase price.

 

So are you anti LLC, LLP and S corp too?

 

Actually, I think the economy would be MUCH better. Yes, there would be a period of adjustment as plays on the tax and regulations structure would no longer make sense, but in the long run we would all be much better off.

 

I think he was talking about Lobbying , you know legalized bribery.