AIG exec resignation letter

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Balt
Regardless of how productive his sector of the company may have been, he'd still have been out of a job without the government's bailout. While I can understand his frustration at being persecuted even though he isn't part of the dirty underbelly, you have to accept a certain amount of responsibility even for things which aren't entirely your fault when you are part of a failed organization.

He was still better off after government intervention than before it. At least he got the choice to quit his job rather than simply being laid off or fired.

This. Had the taxpayers not stepped in (unwillingly), he would not even have a job and AIG would be history. When a company fails you dont get bonuses, simple as that. Just because they got bailed out does not mean they are entitled to their bonuses. They should be happy they even have a freaking job still.

Actually no, he'd probably have a job with UBS. If you read the article, UBS bought the division he worked for after the bailout. UBS probably would have bought without the bailout and he probably would have went with it. Instead the US took 80% control of AIG, sold that division to UBS and he stayed with AIG to help right the ship.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

You either don't know how business works, or don't care to find out some facts.

Bandwagon FTL

A.I.G. business doesn't work, so nothing applies.

fact? the fact is, these people won't have a job let along the bonuses had government not paid A.I.G.

they should be grateful still being employeed. they definately don't deserve bonuses.

Grateful to be making $1 a year??

That makes sense.

I read someplace that his bonus was $1.65 million or something like that? If they left him with 10% per the bill he'd still be making $165,000. I guess he doesn't need the money very bad? Heh, must be nice.

State taxes would wipe out the rest.

 

[SAWYER]

Why is there no outrage directed at Dodd/Frank and company?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: winnar111

Grateful for being employed for $1 a year?

$1 a year now, but when/if things turn around, they get paid their regular millions.

So given that they can

A: Work elsewhere, now, and get those millions while tax rates are still reasonable
B: Take a chance on things turning around, getting $1 in salary, and dealing with people like you and Pelosi in the meantime and the stress that goes along with it, and, if all that works, get those millions after Zero hikes their tax rate


B sounds awesome.

exactly. B is better than A

FACT is, they probably won't be able to find a job elsewhere, nor one that has the prospect of paying so much.

hahahhaha you are a fucking idiot. really.


not only will he get another job he will get a very well paying one.




no wonder the goverment does the shit it does. they get away with it because morons like jackdruid.

AIG employees got screwed. I know i sure would have sedond thoughts with dealing with the goverment after this. i just don't trust them to honor contracts.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

You either don't know how business works, or don't care to find out some facts.

Bandwagon FTL

A.I.G. business doesn't work, so nothing applies.

fact? the fact is, these people won't have a job let along the bonuses had government not paid A.I.G.

they should be grateful still being employeed. they definately don't deserve bonuses.

Grateful to be making $1 a year??

That makes sense.

I read someplace that his bonus was $1.65 million or something like that? If they left him with 10% per the bill he'd still be making $165,000. I guess he doesn't need the money very bad? Heh, must be nice.

State taxes would wipe out the rest.

So federal taxes paid aren't exempt from state income tax? I highly doubt that.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Why is there no outrage directed at Dodd/Frank and company?

I am, but they aren't the ones getting the $1.65 million bonuses.

 

[Lemon law]

As far as I am concerned, Liddy is not worth more than a dollar a year if he did not know in his gut, that everyone would be outraged over ANY AIG bonus payments. He could have stopped them and choose not to. In short, he is a business as usual idiot after AIG massively laid the biggest EGG in corporate history.

And given that old adage, success has a million father and failure is an orphan, all we see is AIG personnel self finger pointing saying don't blame me.

If we had just let AIG fail, all this bonus crap would be academic, all the AIG personnel would be in the unemployment line with no bonus at all.

As it is, I think the bulk should be fired to trim operating costs.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

So, all of the exec's should work for free then, right? That's obviously the only solution to your outrage.

Give me a break. All companies make money through customers. Most large companies have contracts with government entities. Guess who pays for that - you, me and all taxpayers.

Furthermore, it was been proven over and over that the Feds knew about these contracts and decided it was not proper to break the contracts in exchange for the TARP money. Now, all of a sudden they are pissed? that should tell you enough about who is at fault here.

This guy has a legitimate complaint. I don't care how much money he was guaranteed. A binding contract is a binding contract. The guy should get paid, withheld at normal tax rates and everyone else should put their jealousy and envy aside.

If a contract is a contract why did members of the UAW have to take concessions on their contracts with the auto companies?

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
If a contract is a contract why did members of the UAW have to take concessions on their contracts with the auto companies?

They didn't have to. UAW had a choice: make concessions and try to ride this out or not make concessions, increasing the risk of bankruptcy, everyone losing their job, and being demonized for not making concessions. They chose to make concessions.

America had a choice with AIG: bail them out and accept the contracts or don't bail them out, risk AIG going bankrupt and possibly get the contracts invalidated. The politicians chose to bail them out, so we were stuck with the contracts.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

So, all of the exec's should work for free then, right? That's obviously the only solution to your outrage.

Give me a break. All companies make money through customers. Most large companies have contracts with government entities. Guess who pays for that - you, me and all taxpayers.

Furthermore, it was been proven over and over that the Feds knew about these contracts and decided it was not proper to break the contracts in exchange for the TARP money. Now, all of a sudden they are pissed? that should tell you enough about who is at fault here.

This guy has a legitimate complaint. I don't care how much money he was guaranteed. A binding contract is a binding contract. The guy should get paid, withheld at normal tax rates and everyone else should put their jealousy and envy aside.

If a contract is a contract why did members of the UAW have to take concessions on their contracts with the auto companies?

they didn't have to. they could have voted it down and delt with whatever happened.

but you can't compare the two.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As far as I am concerned, Liddy is not worth more than a dollar a year if he did not know in his gut, that everyone would be outraged over ANY AIG bonus payments. He could have stopped them and choose not to. In short, he is a business as usual idiot after AIG massively laid the biggest EGG in corporate history.

Wrong. It is unreasonable to assume that just because the govt chooses to intervene as in AIG's case, that suddenly all binding contracts in all forms, whether for compensation, inventory mgmt, etc., should suddenly and instantaneously be invalidated. Business just doesn't work that way.

Notice how Goldman announced it will be returning its TARP share in April. I'll bet it's because a few of their top traders and producers told their business heads they won't be sticking around for a measly $250k -- so return it or else we're gone. See, that's the thing about top performers...they always have a place to go.

The govt is just plain stupid. And so is the general public about how business works.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

So, all of the exec's should work for free then, right? That's obviously the only solution to your outrage.

Give me a break. All companies make money through customers. Most large companies have contracts with government entities. Guess who pays for that - you, me and all taxpayers.

Furthermore, it was been proven over and over that the Feds knew about these contracts and decided it was not proper to break the contracts in exchange for the TARP money. Now, all of a sudden they are pissed? that should tell you enough about who is at fault here.

This guy has a legitimate complaint. I don't care how much money he was guaranteed. A binding contract is a binding contract. The guy should get paid, withheld at normal tax rates and everyone else should put their jealousy and envy aside.

If a contract is a contract why did members of the UAW have to take concessions on their contracts with the auto companies?

They didn't have to, they chose to.

 

[LTC8K6]

I am, but they aren't the ones getting the $1.65 million bonuses.

Well, you can't make that large of a campaign donation without some fuss. Dodd got more than 100K from AIG, as did Obama. McCain was in there too.

 

[LTC8K6]

they didn't have to. they could have voted it down and delt with whatever happened.

They would have to work without a contract, which they wouldn't want to do, or the company would have to shut down.

The company could try to fire them to hire new, but that's a riot in progess...

 

[LTC8K6]

Wall Street beginning to strike back. Realizing that taking the bailout money was a mistake.

http://finance.yahoo.com/techt...-to-Take-Ball,-Go-Home

 

[Martin]

:music: Cry me a river baby... :music:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: winnar111
-snip-
I'm sure he will. Of course, now that the Democrats own AIG, they just dumped hundreds of billions into a company that has employees quitting across the board.

Good luck finding new people to step into this mess for $1 a year.

Yup.

They are jepeordizing our taxpayer investment.

Stupidly self-destructive

Fern

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: winnar111
-snip-
I'm sure he will. Of course, now that the Democrats own AIG, they just dumped hundreds of billions into a company that has employees quitting across the board.

Good luck finding new people to step into this mess for $1 a year.

Yup.

They are jepeordizing our taxpayer investment.

Stupidly self-destructive

Fern

i agree. i wouldnt want to work for them. they have already shown that they will not honor contracts.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sactoking
-snip-
If he was qualified to be an Executive VP at a financial products company, he might know that by accepting the check and THEN donating it, he screwed himself. Not only will it screw up his marginal rate, but his itemized deductions will be limited. He'll probably owe AMT on it. If he was truly as giving as he wants us to believe, he'd have had AIG write the check directly to charity so that no tax would be due.
Overall, this guy has no credibility to be lecturing ANYONE.

No, you're incorrect.

Section 451 of the Internal Revenue Code would require that he include the income on his tax return even if he had his employer pay the amount directly to the charity. It's called 'constructive receipt'.

See Revenue Ruling 74-32 (google for legalbitstream a tax research site and read it if your interested. It's a very short ruling)

This rule is to prevent shenigans that would otherwise be employed to reduce taxes, particularly for high income, high tax bracket types.

E.g., taxpayer A is in a high tax bracket (used to be 50% for personal compensation, which is what a bonus is). Taxpayer A wants to give money to his sister (who is unemployed and has a very low tax bracket) so he instructs his employer to make his bonus check payable to his sister. Taxpayer does this thinking he can leave the income off his return, and he can put it on hers (where much less tax is paid).

Nope, 'constructive receipt' under section 451 says no matter who the payment was made to, it goes on taxpayer A's tax return and then he get's hit with gift tax on the amount (of his money) paid to his sister.

So, in the above person's case, if his bonus was paid directly to a charity the income would still reportable on his tax return. And he would be able to deduct the amount given to the charity.

----------------------------

This another place the ongress (the House) fvcked up badly.

Under the current 90% tax rules, if you return the payment to your employer the 90% tax won't apply. However it would still be hit by 'regular income tax' because of this rule. So, I have been warning my clients NOT to return the bonus check because section 451 says they will still pay 'regular' income tax on it. There is no charitable, or otherwise any, deduction for donating your wages back to your employer.

The 90% tax law was passed too quickly, it is defect in many ways. I.e., as it presently stands these people are royally screwed.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Wreckem
State taxes would wipe out the rest.

So federal taxes paid aren't exempt from state income tax? I highly doubt that.

Wreckem is correct. I have shown the fed/state/city/medicare tax calculation elsewhere on this forum.

For those in NYC I came up with an effective tax rate of 102% on these bonuses (before taking into account any deduction phase-outs for the increased AGI - that would make the effective rate even higher than 102 %).

No, federal taxes paid aren't generally exempt from state income tax (a better way to phrase it - states don't generally give a deduction for federal taxes paid). There are a few states that do allow a deduction for fed taxes paid, but NY is not one of them.

Fern

 

[Extelleron]

Obama/Congress clearly jumped on the bandwagon in crying out against the AIG bonuses when what they were saying made no sense. Employees deserve to be paid for the work they have done and they are getting royally screwed by Obama & Friends, who apparently can't tell the difference between low-performing executives being given millions in bonuses on top of their hefty salaries to workers receiving bonuses as their primary compensation.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

It's a payment from AIG because AIG made the binding contracts to pay this prior to receiving bailout money. There is no legal way for AIG to go back on those contracts. If we had a problem with that we should not have given AIG money. We cannot give AIG money with the condition that they do not live up to their legal contracts; that violates our own legal system in the United States.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Balt
Regardless of how productive his sector of the company may have been, he'd still have been out of a job without the government's bailout. While I can understand his frustration at being persecuted even though he isn't part of the dirty underbelly, you have to accept a certain amount of responsibility even for things which aren't entirely your fault when you are part of a failed organization.

He was still better off after government intervention than before it. At least he got the choice to quit his job rather than simply being laid off or fired.

He would not necessarily have been out of a job; if AIG had not asked him to continue he could have quit and quite possibly found another, equally profitable job. Now it looks like he's put in his time and receives no financial compensation for it (particularly since it appears he worked for a $1 base salary, as he mentions in his letter.)

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

You either don't know how business works, or don't care to find out some facts.

Bandwagon FTL

A.I.G. business doesn't work, so nothing applies.

fact? the fact is, these people won't have a job let along the bonuses had government not paid A.I.G.

they should be grateful still being employeed. they definately don't deserve bonuses.

Just because they didn't work at AIG doesn't mean they wouldn't be working. Most of them are coming off of this much worse because they stayed than if they had left.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
How many executive VPs does AIG have that this guy never met the CEO?
Usually there are not very many executive VPs.

In my company of 20k people we probably have a few hundred VPs. Most of my VPs see the CEO only when there is a crises directly impacting their work. They don't go have chatty coffee or lunches where they can candidly share their thoughts on the company direction or, particularly, the work of other divisions.