AIG Rec'd $170 billion in Bailout /Giving$165 million in bonuses
- Thread starter Twila
- Start date
They should use the money they EARN doing their business, though. They aren't in the business of taking bailout money from gov't. As I said before, if a company can't make it on its own merits, it shouldn't get handouts from anyone else.
Their salaries was what was due. It matter not what the other money is called- that's strictly irrelevent- the fact is the money isn't there. Tax payers when they bailed them out didn't mean for the money to go to the dead cat C.E.O.s.
Apparently that wording was added by Treasury. The CEO claims they are risk management bonuses. Too bad they did NOT work...
I agree but there are two issues here and they are getting confused. I don't believe AIG should have been bailed out but they were. No use crying over spilled milk. Now that they have been, the company should respect it's obligations whether we like those obligations or not.
Now in defense of Cannuck,
There is a clear distinction between AIG and the people who work there. AIG is a legal person, its a stupid system to offload responsibility, but its the norm in the world.
These people aren't taking bailout money. AIG is taking bailout money and they are taking the money AIG owes them. Its no different than if a Janitor is owed backpay, using the bailout money to give the Janitor his paychecks.
That being said, the problem is these people also make the decisions about how much AIG owes them, because AIG is just a legal fiction.
Its a stupid system and you'll see this in every company.
There is a clear distinction between AIG and the people who work there. AIG is a legal person, its a stupid system to offload responsibility, but its the norm in the world.
These people aren't taking bailout money. AIG is taking bailout money and they are taking the money AIG owes them. Its no different than if a Janitor is owed backpay, using the bailout money to give the Janitor his paychecks.
That being said, the problem is these people also make the decisions about how much AIG owes them, because AIG is just a legal fiction.
Its a stupid system and you'll see this in every company.
No, there isn't, but there is a possibly good outcome if people make enough fuss over this issue. And that is that th4e gov't should specify what public money can and can't be used for or else not give out bailouts in the first place.
Then let the company get a freakin loan from a bank to keep itself afloat.
Salaries, commisions, signing bonuses, expense account...it really doesn't matter what you call them or how they got them, the company promised to pay them, they can't legally change it retroactively.
It may be irrelevant in your world but for the rest of us, laws governing employment are anything but irrelevant...and at the risk of beating a dead horse, they've got lots of money.
It doesn't matter what people wanted. The company needs to honour its obligations.
You've hit the nail on the head. The US federal government should have done a little more homework. They should have more anger directed at them then AIG.
I disagree. I don't think it is particularly ethical. Hence, I think AIG is just as culpable as the gov't.
AIG reported a $60 billion loss. That means they have don't have tons of money.
These bonuses are actually retention bonuses. A Retention bonus is an incentive paid to a key employee to retain them through a critical business cycle. This could be a transitional period (such as mergers and acquisitions) to ensure productivity or to meet a critical milestone.
The gov't in the past has given AIG money and is now it is AIG's majority stakeholder. This means it can demand the money be used as it sees fit. It does not believe the company should have to pay it's employees to stay.
These bonuses are actually retention bonuses. A Retention bonus is an incentive paid to a key employee to retain them through a critical business cycle. This could be a transitional period (such as mergers and acquisitions) to ensure productivity or to meet a critical milestone.
The gov't in the past has given AIG money and is now it is AIG's majority stakeholder. This means it can demand the money be used as it sees fit. It does not believe the company should have to pay it's employees to stay.
Depends on what you call obligations, if you hire a guy to paint your fence for $20 an hour and he spills the paint and walks away, do you still have an obligation?
The problem is, the company can't get out of debts just because it accepted bailout money.
If you are a parts supplier, and GM is bailed out, can the government stipulate that the money they give GM can't be used to pay you the money they owe you?
Your parts may have been overpriced and subpar, but never the less GM bought them and owes you the money still.
What is really interesting also is that AIG IN PAST HAS PAID HUGE FINES FOR BEING ON RECORD F PEOPLE. I am so surprised that bush gave them any money to continue doing business, when in fact AIG are on record being sum bugs.
But on the other hand ONE SCUM BUG IN THIS CASE HELPED THE OTHER AS WE ALL KNOW WHO THE OTHER SCUM BUG IS.
But on the other hand ONE SCUM BUG IN THIS CASE HELPED THE OTHER AS WE ALL KNOW WHO THE OTHER SCUM BUG IS.
I have an American dollar bill in my pocket. With recent Fed and Administration announcements, the bailout is 4 trillion dollars.
Now a dollar bill is slightly over 15.5 cm in length. If placed end to end, the bailout is just over 6.2 billion kilometres or about the mean distance Pluto is from the Sun.
Now a dollar bill is slightly over 15.5 cm in length. If placed end to end, the bailout is just over 6.2 billion kilometres or about the mean distance Pluto is from the Sun.
It's gov't money, right? If gov't can't stipulate what it's money is used for then why have a gov't in the first place? We could just have a big puddle of money and when we need some we could just dip in. Oh wait! Isn't that what banks are?
I am just wondering what AIG did with the billions in profits they've squeezed from people. As I said before if they can't keep a bit in case of raint days, then they shouldn't be able to rely on others to keep handing them money they haven't earned.