Sponsored By

Sign in to follow this  
Besttechie

Obama: $500,000 Salary For Top Executives

Recommended Posts

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! :lol:

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :rolleyes:

Edited by JDoors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these people dont pay tax with this money

they hide it in swiss banks

and now they have agreeed with the white house

to disclose the all those banks accounts

i feel if those bail outs

hadent bin given to those recipients

there would have bin a world wide depression

my opinion it saved the world from global war which us the way to combat

depressions

didnt bush and cheney

do this in iraq

to prop up the failing american

economy at that time

i know that is why tony blare did for the uk

and werent they on the same side

but like it or not

wars are the fixit upper of depressions

americans should know that

,marty

Edited by martymas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"wars are the fixit upper of depressions

americans 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. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
didnt bush and cheney

do this in iraq

to prop up the failing american

economy at that time

The US economy was growing at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this