Wall Street’s uber-rich CEOs may have to prepare for a future of mere ordinary richness: The Obama administration plans to cap executive compensation at $500,000 for companies receiving federal bailout dollars.
Executives will also be prohibited from receiving a bonus more than their base pay. The New York Times reports, “Executives at companies that have already received money from the Treasury Department would not have to make any changes.
But analysts and administration officials are bracing for a huge wave of new losses, largely because of the deepening recession, and many companies that have already received federal money may well be coming back.” President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner will announce the plan this morning.
Good
Bad, or
Ugly?
44 comments:
This is tough, nobody likes handing out free money, and it is quite obvious that if there are companies returning that maybe the first round of money wasn't enough. But I'm definately for the idea of limiting the executive compensation to $500,000. The U.S. is obviously not in the business of extreme riches right now. We're all struggling and it is bound to spill over to the high payed salary eventually. Conclusively however this situation in my opinion is going to spell out to be U-G-L-Y.
I think this a bad thing. I do not think that it is the place of the government to tell people how much money they can make. This is wrong and clearly BIG GOVERNMENT. I also think that these companies got themselves in this mess and they can get themselves out.. definitely think this BAILOUT is a joke.
Im not usually for government stepping into business, but think of it like this, the big companies want the government to step in and help them in a bailout, but they dont want the government to put a cap on their pay? This makes no sense, with government it's either all or nothing so I think it's a good idea that these big guys can't make over $500,000,... shoot if it were up to me they wouldn't have half of that!
I really dont think this is good, because i dont believe that the government should handle money or say how much money people should make. Everybody stuggles with money also and i just don't think its a good idea.
You know, maybe the government wouldn’t have to put paycheck limits on big businesses if the executives in control didn’t blow all the money given to them on 400,000$ spa retreats. I think if the government was just handing out money with no strings attached, (as they have already tried to do in 2008) companies would only abuse all of the credit they received before actually using it for a decent purpose. If Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally is willing to work for 1$ a year to get the chance for a bailout, then I wouldn’t be complaining about receiving half a million. Maybe this year won’t include buying a brand new Bugatti Veyron, but I’m pretty sure all the executives taking part in the bailout will be able to take a hit for the team, and somehow manage to scrape by.
these guys are finally getting what they've got coming. If they are going to try and get money from the government to save their companies, they don't need to be making million. Instead of paying them a ridiculous amount of money to get them to basically save their own jobs they could be using that money to help the company. But no, the greedy executives want to keep making what they make while they lay off thousands of people, people who have worked hard and don't have fortunes to fall back on when they get laid off. These executives should have to make do on the same pay as their employees. I think this cap is good, if anything it's too lenient with these scumbags.
I think it's a good idea to cap the executive compensation pay. Alot of business are going to be asking for money and the goverment can't give out and endless amount of money. As for the bonusses that sounds good to me too.
I am proud of President Obama for saying that 'enough is enough' in terms of federal bailout. It has bothered me that these banks and car companies with Republican tendencies have been pleading with the government to give them money-which is far more socialist than anything Obama has proposed. I find their requests to be very hypocritical. These companies that are having troubles in this struggling economy need to accept the policy of laissez-faire in our open market economy; those companies that succeed should stay in business.
The role of the federal government should not extend so far as to regulate the payrolls of large, influencial companies, but in rare instances it is necessary ( for the sake of the general populace and for overall consumer confidence ) for the government to step in and slap the bosses on the wrist (metaphorically, of course). If companies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had used some common sense and not made bad loans in the first place, then the government would not have had to step in in the first place.
And by the way the whole "Buy America" bill can only be a temporary fix - Americans don't want to spend big right now - people will pocket the money for a rainy day...and the national deficit will only grow larger.
i
I don't think the government should be able to step in and say how much money someone can make. It's obvious that some jobs earn more than others, but it's also obvious that some people make WAY more money than they should. I think the pay that people working for the huge companies get should be put back into a reasonable bracket, but I don't think it's the presidents job to do it.
Why does it say that "Executives at companies that have already received money from the Treasury Department would not have to make any changes"? This just means that executives facing the decision of receiving federal aid from the Treasury Department are more inclined to refuse the opportunity to keep their business from reaching bankruptcy because they will be able to make more money by simply cashing out.
According to the LA Times, the average salary of a top CEO was $10.5 million in 2007. This cap would be just the same as making the salary of a Texas teacher with ten years of teaching experience about $1800 a year.
Reasonable? I think not.
Companies that receive Federal money should, however, have restrictions placed on them to prevent the money from going too overpaid employees instead of to salvaging the companies from bankruptcy. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a vacation just after receiving Federal aid save the company is not how the bailout plan should be used.
Those poor CEOs, having to live on only HALF a million dollars a year!
If people even complain about this it's disgusting. They're not taking the CEO's life's savings away from them-only limiting their pay (and not indefinitely) to half a million a year. If it helps the economy, then they can make a little less money, pay a little more taxes-they have more than they know what to do with as it is.
I think that it's better that these CEO's are getting somewhat of a pay cut. With the way things are now, these people don't need to be paid as much, since they're borrowing money from the government. I think this will end up being a good thing.
"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste -- it's a bad strategy -- and I will not tolerate it. We're going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for federal aid -- so that when firms seek new federal dollars, we won't find them up to the same old tricks," the president said. He couldn't have said it better. It's not fair that a majority of the country is struggling with the economic situation yet people still seem to think it's appropriate to award themselves at such a expensive and high cost. Were a country that's united, so we suffer together or we triumph together. Hard working people are being effected by this, and I'm not willing to allow my tax dollars to go to people who don't seem to acknowledge that were in a CRISIS.
I think that this is going to cause problems mostly because the people who already got money dont have to pay it back. People feel that when they have been getting a certain things that they should have them forever if they are doing their job whne in reality they most likely shouldnt have been getting paid that much in the first place. I think this will turn out ugly.
This is a very complicated situation.
On the one hand, I don't mind people who were stupid enough to get in a position where they NEED a bailout getting their hands slapped a little. But on the other hand, I really don't approve of the government deciding to play Mommy here.
In this country, we're supposed to have the freedom to do all of these great things--including making as much money as we want. It's great that we want to impress on these overgrown children the fact that there's retribution when we do something wrong, but it's not the place of Mommygov to be giving harsh lessons in morals through the removal of the overgrown child's overgrown allowance.
I know that Mommygov is bailing her sorry ward's rear out of the fire, but the group of people who make up Mommygov need to remember their place in this country. And that place shouldn't be having a power trip docking other people's paychecks.
Those people who are getting their monetary waists slimmed down could be anybody. What about me? If I borrow money from Mommygov, is she going to say that I have no right to make over a certain amount because I had to borrow from her? If all citizens in this country are truly equal, provided with the equal opportunity to make money like these guys did, then we're all completely equal enough to have our hands slapped by Mommygov. And I don't want my mother deciding how much I can make doing my job. That's too much like Mother Russia. I'm not Russian. I'm American. And I snobbishly want to continue to be able to rub that fact and all those "freedoms" it implies in the faces of every Communist leader in the world.
Baha. People were worried about Bush reading their emails. This, to me, is something we should be much more wary of: laws that are actually curbing our "freedom" to profit.
This is a good thing. You would think that a company that is "struggling" would have thought of capping salaries themselves instead of leaving the idea to the government. It just goes to show that these people got themselves in this mess and they really don't possess the management skills to get themselves out--you cannot cry over not having million-dollar executive retreats when your company is failing and taking America down with it. If these companies are asking for a bail-out they need to be prepared to get one that has some serious limitations and specifications.
And people who cry over having their compensations capped at MEAGER $500,000 should be slapped.
I'm going to have to disagree with Cheyenne here. :) I think that the term "big government" is thrown about loosely by conservatives. Our politicians aren't capping pay on millions of families' incomes. Just the corrupt individuals from bailout companies that have spent relief money wrongly. Simply put, the current administration saw a problem, and they fixed it.
I think that if the government is going to help a struggling company out in the hopes of improving the economy, they have every right to put a cap on that help. Obviously, these companies cannot go about their business responsibly. The government totally should tell these suits how much they can make off of all this because it's government money. The company didn't earn it, and they can't get out of this mess alone. They apparently need someone there to keep them in line, so that these self-indulgent million dollar vacations in California never happen again for these corporate jerks. The government has delivered much needed restrictions on these incompetent companies and the rats that run them, and I believe it is a win for those that love justice.
This also ugly i'm expecting Clint Eastwood to start capping so guys any moment now. The companies they were supposed to run lost money and they just gave themselves pay raises. The finacial companies started all of this with faulty bussiness practices. All of theses ceos deserve to be shot like dogs in a street for what they have done to the millions that lost their jobs.
This also ugly i'm expecting Clint Eastwood to start capping so guys any moment now. The companies they were supposed to run lost money and they just gave themselves pay raises. The finacial companies started all of this with faulty bussiness practices. All of theses ceos deserve to be shot like dogs in a street for what they have done to the millions that lost their jobs.
If you are going to accept free money you have to accept the terms. I think putting a cap on executives' salaries is very appropriate. $500,000 is certainly enough to live off of. And live very well. These executives are largely to blame for the problem their companies are in. They don't deserve even more free money from the government. That money should go toward building their businesses up and paying lower income holders salaries.
If you are going to accept free money you have to accept the terms. I think putting a cap on executives' salaries is very appropriate. $500,000 is certainly enough to live off of. And live very well. These executives are largely to blame for the problem their companies are in. They don't deserve even more free money from the government. That money should go toward building their businesses up and paying lower income holders salaries.
If you are going to accept free money you have to accept the terms. I think putting a cap on executives' salaries is very appropriate. $500,000 is certainly enough to live off of. And live very well. These executives are largely to blame for the problem their companies are in. They don't deserve even more free money from the government. That money should go toward building their businesses up and paying lower income holders salaries.
I think that it's good that Obama is doing something like this. We deffinetly need to have more things like this to happen. I only pray that Obama does the right things.GOOD!!!
In my opinion the CEOs of these companies should get paid what their employees make. Give them a culture shock, I bet they couldn’t live on what an average American lives on. They are the ones that got themselves into this mess; they need to get themselves out. Maybe if they made more things that the average American could afford then we wouldn’t be in this mess. But don't worry, the government is going to spoon feed them and make it all better. I think the whole idea of a bailout is ridiculous, its the government saying "oh I’m sorry you went bankrupt, here have free money, we can make this better," and the companies that are getting bailed out are going, "wow free money, we should have done this a long time ago." Maybe i am being a little harsh, but when you have a good thing going why would you want to get back up on your own two feet.
Well we all know that right now the U.S. is not in good standings, at least not money wise. I think its a good thing that the big guys are stepping in and limiting the compensation of the executives to $500,000. I don't think that its fair for them to be living in wealth and riches when everyone else is sitting in poverty. The BAILOUT is a good thing and so is the limiting the compensation.
I think this is a good decision considering the fact that the government is bailing out these companies. This shows that the government is not going to make the mistake of giving money were money is not needed, like paying for a CEO's vacation in Hawaii. Also not giving any bonus is great because it means that these CEO's have to get back to the basics of making money the old fashion way, WORKING FOR IT!!!!!!
I think that lowering their pay down to only $500,000 a year will be a big break for the companies and they will be able to use the extra money that they saved towards bettering the company.
I think this is bad, because the big CEO's who are getting pay cuts are going to find a way around them.
This is so ridiculous! I can't believe that those poor executives are only going to recieve $500,000 yearly...that makes me feel so bad for them and their families. Moving out of the mansion? What a horrible thing to think about! This is an amazing law! For those of us who make under $100,000 yearly it is ridiculous that these people who just sit in an office chair made of gold makes 10X more than those of us who actually have to work, and have bills to pay. The only thing I would change is the amount, I would cap it off at $200,000, that's still a lot to make yearly...but maybe that'll make those "homemakers" go get a real job and get them out of the spas all day
Whatever happens to these multi- milliionares in the recession for the worst, they got what's coming to em.
Finally they will know how the thousands of people they laid of to fatten their pockets. It's nothing new, the jewish religious leaders in Israel did the same, If the people didn't fatten their pockets, to the Jail they went. My mother makes abot 12000 a year for family of 5! So I think they deserve to know how it the injustice feels they caused feels.
If the companies receiving bail out money are expecting the government to help them during the economic crisis, I believe the government should be able to regulate how much money they make. It only seems fair that they put a cap on how much money executives make in order for them to do what needs to be done instead of going on a shopping spree or taking an expensive vacation like we've seen earlier companies do when handed money in order to fix what they probably messed up.
I believe that the Obama admin. is doing the right thing. Although it may be hard, this will encourage them to right their wrongs as well as give them a taste of what the rest of the U.S. is experiencing, a money income cut.
Either way, someone's not going to be happy. I guess it'll be ugly in the long run. However, $500 G is a lot of money, more than most people make in their lives. I don't think anyone should really be complaining. The bailout seems to be staying the same, and everyone is throwing money at it. Maybe we should chill for a little while and see where the economy goes.
Think about all the stuff that could be done with the money instead, after all.
Hmm, so theyre going to get into some money while our economy is still trying to get back on track, somethins up so im gonna have to go with the ugly
Poor kids, they have to surive on only half a million a year? How difficult...
500,000 dollars is a lot of money, especially in times of a recession. It will on the other hand be a hard adjustment for those men and women that are used to the wealthier life styles. I think i would be apposed to this but 500,000 is a lot of money.
I think this is a very good idea by the new president. Company leaders that are getting bailed out should not make excessive amounts of money. This is a good way to keep them in check and sets a foot down. Now these companies better start doing better in order to regain their original salaries. And 500 k is more than enough to live. That is borderline ridiculous that people would complain about making that much money every year
i think its good for the executives and not so great for middle class citizens like you and I, because yeah the executives are getting free money and people these days are really struggling so yeah this is BAD>>>>>
I'll say good we need to save as much money as we can. I just obama knows what he's doing and that this works.
I think that it's good that Obama is doing something like this. Hopefully he will make some more changes like this.
I think this a badthing. Either way, someone's not going to be happy. However, $500 grand is alot
of money, more than alot of people make in their lives. I don't think anyone should be complaining. Everyone just keeps handing over their money, the bailout seems to be fine. Maybe we should chill for a bit, and see where the economy goes with this. Think what we could do with all that money, instead of giving more to them.
I think this will turn out ugly because the people who have money have to give it back.
Yes they may have worked for it, but they shouldn't be given wades of money in the first place.
Post a Comment