Besttechie Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm just curious as to what everyone here thinks about Obama wanting to impose a $500,000 salary for top executives of companies who took bailout money? Let me know what you think! I'll throw in my 2cents later - class is about to start! B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
blim Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 *I* think they should average out all the bank employees' salaries and get THAT for pay! Oh, and no more bonuses..........Ordinary folks don't get bonuses for poor company performance, why do they?Liz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hitest Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 If a company is in danger of going into receivership and uses taxpayer money (bailout) to remain afloat then yes I think a cap on executive salaries is in order. I think the cap on executive salaries should remain in effect until the company has paid off the loan. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bozodog Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Sorry, I still have to say: DON'T GIVE THEM A BAILOUT!!! If they fold, those guys will really have a cap on their income. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
isteve Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 It doesn't matter what their reported pay is it's all the perks. Steve Jobs makes $1 a year yet he is worth billions from stocks. If these people could "only" make half a million a year they would make it up in expense accounts and privet jets. But I don't know how I feel. If it wasn't for the bailout money I believe corporation should pay whatever they want and let the market decide. It does look like the market did decide, they lost and we give them a second chance. But on the other hand we also elected government officials to regulate the finical institutions and they failed. And we have people like Barney Franks who demanded lenders to offer very risky loans to people with little or no means to pay them back. So we failed in our choices. We now elect a new leader who promises change but so far it looks like he is appointing more of the same old insiders. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 I wish he'd mandate I get "only" half-a-million dollars a year. Is it just a loan? Then no, the government shouldn't take over business decisions (but they should finally be allowed to fail if they screw up). If it's money to be spent however they feel necessary then yes, there should be restrictions on how they get to spend that money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sultan_emerr Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I think that there should be a cap of $50,000 a year on what webmasters can earn. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shanenin Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 The government needs to stay out of it. Why do we think we know how to manage a business better then them. We have no right to tell them what to pay their employees. Salary caps are just pandering to the people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) The government needs to stay out of it. Why do we think we know how to manage a business better then them. We have no right to tell them what to pay their employees. Salary caps are just pandering to the people. True enough, but if it's been decided that the government is going to inject money into the private sector to "save" us from a "catastrophic" depression, it's too late to tell anybody to stay out of it. There's plenty of evidence it was the government that jammed it to us in the first place, so it's kinda ironic the government is pretending to be the benevolent father-figure now. Hush money, maybe? "Here's a ba-jillion dollars , now don't tell anybody we took your campaign contributions and looked the other way while you screwed over our constituents." Or, "Here's a ka-zillion dollars , now don't tell anybody we took your campaign contributions while passing laws that FORCED you to screw over our constituents."----- Shhhh! Edited February 6, 2009 by JDoors Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pete_C Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 What most people seem to have missed is that these "bailout funds" were loans secured by stock that the company kept to itself to maintain a controlling interest in votes etc. These were "purchased" by the government when stocks were near the low; in many cases the stock involved had plummeted to near worthless.Now I wonder, when they pay back the loan will they have to pay the current value of the stock? IE , if the government lent them 45 Billion secured by stock selling at 3.50 per share; and now the stock is selling at 7.00 per share , would they have to pay 90Billion to get it back? If they balk, just sell it on the open market and get double our money back or more.Now the real danger is if after pouring in money buying their stock, we quit to soon and force them into bankruptcy at which point the stock is worthless and we lose what we "lent" them.As to whether they should have to renegotiate contracts with executives; well that depends on how much of the stock we the people control. If we are the majority stockholder, well they need to consider the ramifications. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted April 4, 2009 Report Share Posted April 4, 2009 For bailout funds that are secured by stocks I can see why there's no end in sight. We CAN'T let anybody fail if getting paid back is tied to the price of that stock. I wonder if that's why the automakers aren't being treated equally? Maybe the money given to them isn't secured by stock? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pete_C Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 I saw some banker belly aching on Faux News because he had taken 15Billion in TARP secured by stock and when he went to pay it back three months later he found that due to the increase in stock value he had to pay 15.75 Billion (750 million in "interest" ) which he said amounted to unfair interest rates and loan sharking. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 A banker who doesn't understand stocks? No wonder we're doomed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pete_C Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 A banker who doesn't understand stocks? No wonder we're doomed.When Bank Of America found out how much more they would owe after their stock soared when they said they were planning on paying off their TARP loan; they soon released a report saying that things were not as rosy as first presumed and they had a bunch of mortgages and loans and credit cards they expected to default ; resulting in the stock value going down so they had less to repay. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
martymas Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 (edited) these people dont pay tax with this moneythey hide it in swiss banksand now they have agreeed with the white houseto disclose the all those banks accountsi feel if those bail outs hadent bin given to those recipients there would have bin a world wide depressionmy opinion it saved the world from global war which us the way to combatdepressionsdidnt bush and cheney do this in iraqto prop up the failing american economy at that timei know that is why tony blare did for the ukand werent they on the same sidebut like it or not wars are the fixit upper of depressionsamericans should know that,marty Edited August 26, 2009 by martymas Quote Link to post Share on other sites
irregularjoe Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 "wars are the fixit upper of depressionsamericans should know that"Sad, isn't it?Speaking of Swiss $ accounts, now that they are subject to customer identification disclosure, I wonder if they will suffer loss of business?They might have to start handing out toasters to get customers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 didnt bush and cheney do this in iraqto prop up the failing american economy at that timeThe US economy was growing at the time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.