Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: Robor
This guy was an Executive VP at AIG, worked there 11 years, and he considers himself blameless? Sorry, but I find it hard to believe someone in his position knew nothing about what was going on. He can resign and think he's doing something noble but the right/difficult move would have been leaving back while this was happening.
Yep. Before that he worked for Union Bank of Switzerland which is under investigation as a tax shelter bank in Germany and France and is facing fraud charges in the US.
Jake DeSantis
The United States last month successfully obtained data of about 300 wealthy Americans with Swiss bank accounts who were suspected of tax fraud at home. The U.S. investigation into the UBS, the largest bank in Switzerland, has been closely watched by other countries, particularly Switzerland's powerful European Union (EU) neighbors. Following the steps of Germany and France, British finance minister Alistair Darling also joined in the criticism against Swiss banking secrecy laws, saying the country needs a more transparent system.
What an honorable guy.
Swiss bank UBS AG knowingly let brokers present its auction-rate securities as virtually risk-free so it could reduce its own stake in the failing program.
In January 1997, Christoph Meili, a night watchman at the Union Bank of Switzerland (a predecessor bank of today's UBS), found employees destroying archives compiled by a subsidiary that had extensive dealings with Nazi Germany, in direct violation of a recent Swiss law (adopted on 13 December 1996) protecting such material. UBS acknowledged that it had "made a deplorable mistake", but maintained that the destroyed archives were unrelated to the Holocaust. Meili was suspended from his job at the security company that served UBS, following a criminal investigation into whether his whistleblowing had violated bank secrecy laws.[
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: joshsquall
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.
Did you read the letter? He's working 50-60 hours a week for $1 a year. How is he better off not being fired? 60 hours a week for health insurance isn't exactly worth it.
Clearly he was not under the impression that he was working for $1/year.
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: joshsquall
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.
Did you read the letter? He's working 50-60 hours a week for $1 a year. How is he better off not being fired? 60 hours a week for health insurance isn't exactly worth it.
He has a choice, doesn't he? He can either choose to stick it out with the company and hope things work out or he can seek his employment elsewhere. Since he said he intends to donate a $700k+ check to charity, I think he can afford either of those two options.
People expect everyone at GM to make sacrifices, regardless of whether they were employed in a profitable sector of the company. Why? Because if they don't make sacrifices, everyone is going to be out of a job.
I'm sorry that the AIG exec feels like he's not going to be getting what he is owed, but if he is unwilling to make sacrifices when average citizens who earn far less are making them then that's on him.
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
It's a good read but i feel like the last couple of paragraphs are self serving and directed at us not libby. Saying that "he doesn't know how much he can donate if we tax him". I mean I feel like here is someone who busted their ass and deserves something but at the same time he can't expect in this climate to be sure of anything, including those payments. But he said 2 things in his letter
1. That he wont disagree that financial sector has been overpaid
2. That his family will be fine
So i don't feel bad for him.
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think banks and financial companies are fill with people with these types of titles.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.
Clark Howard talked about this on his radio show. Everyone at a bank has the title Vice President because it makes them sound important and their customers want to feel they are dealing with someone important.
I understand that there are usually lots of VPs, but executive VPs are typically the pool for corporate officers.
Usually:
Second VP
VP
Senior VP
Executive VP
President
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.
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
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.
This guy was getting millions when AIG was being proped up with all its junk investments. he may have not been the one to pull the trigger but I bet he was more then happy to take the bonus money and profits from the stock price of their junk and not complain then.
He and all the others at AIG made more then they should have.
Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
Originally posted by: CPA 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.
the contract no longer binds when one side (A.I.G.) fail.
A.I.G. failed, so contract no longer binds.
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I don't feel sorry for him any more than I feel sorry for any other person in this country who was a good employee and was still let go because of the economic downturn. He made a choice to stay with AIG, and he made a good profit while he was there. His company went under, through no fault of his own, and he gambled on getting paid by staying. It didn't work out for him. It didn't work out for my friend who took a new job in September only to be fired in November in one of the "last in, first out," rounds of firings. It didn't work out for my friend who quit his job on a promise of new employment only to have the company that promised him new employment go under. It didn't work out for tens of thousands of Americans across the country who thought their employment was secure because they were a good worker. At least this guy has some savings he can fall back on.
I wish him and his family the best of luck. But I'm not going to cry for him while millions of Americans are worse off than he is.
Originally posted by: CPA
Folks, this has nothing to do with "feeling sorry" for anyone. This comes down to contract law, a basis of our whole economic structure. AIG had a binding contract, plain and simple. You can't just change the terms of a legal contract because of political pressure. Furthermore, why isn't there more outrage about the unconstitutionality of taxing these bonuses at 90%? Talk about taking away rights.
Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
If you think Ed Liddy couldn't find a job elsewhere, then you are dumb as a fuckin rock. There was a reason he was ASKED to become AIG's CEO....
in this economy, the only dumb fucking rock would be the one who believes there is a job guarenteed available for him...
oh its you...
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: joshsquall
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.
Did you read the letter? He's working 50-60 hours a week for $1 a year. How is he better off not being fired? 60 hours a week for health insurance isn't exactly worth it.
Clearly he was not under the impression that he was working for $1/year.
That's how it wound up though, didn't it? Is our attitude that all AIG execs should now be obligated to volunteer their time because the government gave them money?
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
DeSantis is grandstanding. This is an attempt to clear his name and separate himself from AIG. DeSantis was well paid for his work at AIG until the company failed. He received good benefits. It appears that he is in the top 1% of American households in terms of income. At least he goes home to a nice house and family and a personal fortune which he can use to ponder his next move.
This guy is one of the privileged class who can afford to resign, who can get his voice/agenda printed in a major newspaper. Who probably has a truckload of money saved. Hey if you did such a great job at your company how come its dead?
By working for AIG he contributed to his own downfall whether he knew it or not. Maybe people should look a little more closely at who they work for and what their parent corporations are doing?
I guess some didn't read the part that he agreed to work for a huge dollar amount bonus - not a dollar. Just like many of us, he gambled and lost. He should take comfort in knowing that there have to be Losers in order for there to be Winners. Life is unfair that way and freedom is, of course, untidy.
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: joshsquall
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.
Did you read the letter? He's working 50-60 hours a week for $1 a year. How is he better off not being fired? 60 hours a week for health insurance isn't exactly worth it.
Clearly he was not under the impression that he was working for $1/year.
That's how it wound up though, didn't it? Is our attitude that all AIG execs should now be obligated to volunteer their time because the government gave them money?
My attitude is that these people shouldn't be making any more then any other government employee. The fact the so many think these jobs can't be done except by people who are worthy of million dollar bonuses is rather telling to me.
Originally posted by: Fern
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.
Fern
Originally posted by: sactoking
I stand corrected. I thought for sure that I had been told charitable contributions were exempt from constructive receipt when the contribution was made direct to the charity; the income was treated as a fringe benefit and not constructively received.Originally posted by: Fern
Either my source was wrong or I just pulled a Roger Clemens and "misremembered" what I heard.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a number of employers have adopted or are considering adopting leave-based donation programs, under which employees forgo vacation, sick, or personal leave in exchange for employer contributions of amounts to organizations described in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Originally posted by: Fern
The only exception I'm aware is one that the IRS permitted following 9-11.
Employees were allowed to donate their leave, vacation etc to certain charities:
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a number of employers have adopted or are considering adopting leave-based donation programs, under which employees forgo vacation, sick, or personal leave in exchange for employer contributions of amounts to organizations described in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code.
IRS Notice 2001-69
But that only applied to such payments made before 2003.
Fern
Originally posted by: smack Down
Congress should have used its power to invalidate the contracts before or shortly after giving AIG the money. But hey better late then never.