LibriumArcana.Games

Link

[quote]Getting between a broker and his bonus is like getting between a schnauzer and his lunch bowl. He may not bite you, but you are going to smell his breath.

“People come here because they want to work hard and get paid a lot for working hard,â€

"Earned Income Credit" is what's given to low-income families as a tax break. It should not go to fatcats making $50k/year.

[quote]“People come here because they want to work hard and get paid a lot for working hard,â€

frigidmagi wrote:
Did I just get called a lazy bum?

...
...

By a two hour lunch taking, go home an hour early fucking investment banker?

No, you got got called a shmuck and a sucker by an investment banker.

frigidmagi wrote:Did I just get called a lazy bum?

...
...

By a two hour lunch taking, go home an hour early fucking investment banker?

He also said you don't smell very good, should probably bathe more often and that your fashion sense is appalling. Then he gave you the middle finger...

LadyTevar wrote:"Earned Income Credit" is what's given to low-income families as a tax break. It should not go to fatcats making $50k/year.

50K/year does not make one a fatcat. These guys are making high six figures.

General Havoc wrote:

LadyTevar wrote:"Earned Income Credit" is what's given to low-income families as a tax break. It should not go to fatcats making $50k/year.

50K/year does not make one a fatcat. These guys are making high six figures.

Am I the only one remembering McCain's response when asked if a few million a year was rich?

A few million is rich. $50,000 a year is absolutely not.

Tev, did you by chance mean 500k rather than 50k?

I can sort of understand the concept of bonuses, but perhaps they should be issued more sparingly? I mean, the chap at the end of the article created a $30 million dollar account but that is after all his job.

That being said, with regards to firms that receive money from the TARP or federal reserve loans, a maximum salary and bonus limit should absolutely be implemented. If these gurus of Wall Street don't receive swift and severe punishment for playing fast and loose with investor money, they will never learn.

(Of course, firms that don't receive bailout money shouldn't face this, at least not directly. Marginal tax increases at the top, however, might be prudent after the economy recovers to pay for the various stimulus programs)

LadyTevar wrote:"Earned Income Credit" is what's given to low-income families as a tax break. It should not go to fatcats making $50k/year.

Lulz unless that was a typo. $50k/year isn't even living wages in some parts of the country, unless you live in a hovel without utilities.

The Cleric wrote:

LadyTevar wrote:"Earned Income Credit" is what's given to low-income families as a tax break. It should not go to fatcats making $50k/year.

Lulz unless that was a typo. $50k/year isn't even living wages in some parts of the country, unless you live in a hovel without utilities.

Why thank you Cleric... considering that I make $20k/yr, which I guess isn't "Living Wage"


But yes, I dropped a zero.

LadyTevar wrote:Why thank you Cleric... considering that I make $20k/yr, which I guess isn't "Living Wage"


But yes, I dropped a zero.

If you were living in NYC, DC, or LA, it wouldn't be. Rent for a safe 2 bedroom apartment in Baltimore is around $2,000/month, maybe $1500 if you're lucky.

frigidmagi, Cynical Cat, B4UTRUST, I don't think he's saying that (emphasis on the think, I might be mistaken ).

I get the impression that he's claiming that he wants his huge paycheck because he feels has earned the money by creating millions of dollars worth of profits for someone or other, or for multiple someones. The "disconnect" would then be the perception on main street that bankers get paid for "free", i.e. that there is no value-creating activity behind the reward.

If so, then that's probably also the justification behind the statement that the bonuses should be looked at on a "case by case basis", implying that even if some guys get paid too much, most have earned it. I'm not going into whether these claims are justified or not.

And to be fair, imposing regulations on what wages should or should not be via minimums and maximums IS socialistic. I'm not going into whether that's good or bad, either.

I'm fine with bonuses to those who made huge amounts of money. Warren Buffet has an excellent system.

However, since the bozo-brigade in question lost huge amounts of money, they should lose money. Simple application of the same principle.

SirNitram wrote:I'm fine with bonuses to those who made huge amounts of money. Warren Buffet has an excellent system.

However, since the bozo-brigade in question lost huge amounts of money, they should lose money. Simple application of the same principle.

Absolutely, no question. Artificial pay ceilings are different though.


...

...


<- me worries she's becoming the resident conservative devil's advocate.

The Minx wrote:<- me worries she's becoming the resident conservative devil's advocate.

Hi, my name's General Havoc, have we met? :)

General Havoc wrote:

The Minx wrote:<- me worries she's becoming the resident conservative devil's advocate.

Hi, my name's General Havoc, have we met? :)

Sorry, don't mean to steal your thunder.

I don't know whether I qualify as a real conservative anyway, but I seem to be further to the right than most people here. At least on economic issues.

I can't see how returning bonuses is an artificial pay cap, but frankly, I see no reason why those with no ownership shouldn't have an artificial pay cap. Think about it: What do these big shot investors and bankers own? Jack and Shit: It's other people's money. Restricting how much of other people's money they keep strikes me as very, very simple.

SirNitram wrote:I can't see how returning bonuses is an artificial pay cap, but frankly, I see no reason why those with no ownership shouldn't have an artificial pay cap. Think about it: What do these big shot investors and bankers own? Jack and Shit: It's other people's money. Restricting how much of other people's money they keep strikes me as very, very simple.

It is an "artificial" pay cap if it is government mandated. If it is the people who hire them who make that call, that's different.

Though it is not their money, the profit is caused by their investment decisions, i.e. their "work", they can get paid for that. If you hand your house over to a laborer for him to work on and this increases its value by 500 grand, it's fair he gets a cut of that increase, even if it's not his house. Of course, if he screws up and the house goes down in value, then he should pay at least part of the damages, I'm all for that.

Bonuses aren't considered part of your standard compensation. Anyone who tries to arrange otherwise is a good definition of 'Total fucking fraud'. But why shouldn't there be a governnment regulation on how much you can skim off of other people's money?

SirNitram wrote:Bonuses aren't considered part of your standard compensation. Anyone who tries to arrange otherwise is a good definition of 'Total fucking fraud'.

Well, that depends on the kind of business arrangement you've got going with your customer; some jobs are percentage deals.

SirNitram wrote:But why shouldn't there be a governnment regulation on how much you can skim off of other people's money?

To be fair, I didn't actually say that there shouldn't be any price ceilings, I merely said that the claim that such an arrangement is "socialistic" is a correct claim.

Of course, when you put it like that, then no bonuses should be paid at all. As for whether it is actually "skimming off other people's money" or "a percentage on gross profits as agreed upon in advance", that's the real issue, right?

Because A: I don't see a reasonable standard to apply, B: No other industry has such government-imposed caps, save for government employees themselves, and C: If your company is stupid enough to pay you exorbitant bonuses for losing money, then your company deserves to fold.

I see no problem with the government setting rules for companies that take taxpayer money as part of the stimulus package. Our money, our rules. But giving the government the power to restrict people's earnings by legislative fiat just because we don't like the fact that they make a lot of money is the sort of absurd interventionist crap that gives government regulation itself a bad name. It is not illegal to make lots of money, nor should it become so. As a member of the Financial Services industry, I'd love to see your rationale for the idea that the eight hours a day I spend on the phone helping people determine where to invest should be subject to government-imposed pay caps just because what I do does not involve "owning" things.

We are a service-based economy. Eight tenths of the jobs people do involves no physical ownership of anything, but instead management of, assistance with, and services rendered upon other people's assets. Financial Services is no different than any other service job, save that it's much higher profile. It is a gross violation of basic principles of fairness to declare that because these people are in a service industry you don't like, they should be subject to mandated pay caps, unlike everyone else.

Besides, the real crooks will find ways around them, as they do the tax code. All you'd be doing is victimizing those people who choose to follow the law.

Except all banks have guarantees from the US government to bail their ass out. It's called the FDIC. Ergo, all banks fall under your example of 'Take our money, take our rules'.

FDIC insurance is an insurance policy that banks purchase, by means of an assessed premium leveled against every single bank that carries it. It is they who pay the government for that service, not vice versa. And FDIC insurance applies only to checking, savings, or certificate of deposit accounts, which are not managed by financial planners or portfolio experts. It covers neither stocks, nor bonds, nor mutual funds, nor insurance products, nor annuities, nor money market accounts, nor any of the other assets that these financial "wizards" manage and take their cut from. Nor incidentally do brokerage firms or corporations like AIG or Merrill Lynch carry FDIC insurance, as they are not banks and do not deal in private deposit checking or savings accounts.

There has been far too little regulation of the Financial Services industry in the past decade, but that is not a good reason to impose vindictive legislation against everyone who happens to work in that industry just because we don't like them. It does nobody any good to replace no regulation with stupid regulation. There is no precedent for the government legislating what people are and are not allowed to make in the private sector, nor, as I mentioned, would this have any effect on the most egregious offenders anyway. The crooks would cook the books to the point where they got away with whatever they were getting away with now, taking their bonuses in stock options or offshore assets, or other contractually-stipulated benefits, and the only people to get hurt by this would be the vast majority of financial services workers, of whom I happen to be one.

Enron and their ilk are no less evil than Countrywide bank, yet I don't hear anyone declaring that we need to cap the salaries of oil or energy executives.

The Minx wrote:
<- me worries she's becoming the resident conservative devil's advocate. Shocked

Hi, my name's General Havoc, have we met? :)

You know I was the LibArc right wing until Havoc showed up.