Bank of america Ceo to pocket in 53 Million Retirment Payday


Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
September 21, 2009

"Bank of America has received a total of $45 billion from the Treasury's $700 billion financial bailout pot, which is financed by taxpayers.

The company says it wants to repay $20 billion of that money, which would remove the company from a list of firms that have received "exceptional" assistance from the government.

Such companies are subject to greater government scrutiny, including having to provide plans outlining compensation packages for their highest-paid employees. The Obama administration's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, has the power to veto them."

Government interference has allowed this CEO to get a 56 million dollar retirement. **** that ****.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
Government interference has allowed this CEO to get a 56 million dollar retirement. **** that ****.
Doesn't a CEO deserve such a high pay packet for working such a stressful job? He's obviously worked extremely hard. In general in america your pay is proportional to how hard you work and how scarce you are isn't it?

Zombie Acorn said:
In general the harder you work in school the better you do.

In general the more qualified (pre-required hard work) the better chance you have of getting a higher paying job.

So to answer the original question as to why a janitor and an accountant shouldn't get paid the same for the same "effort" its because the accountant spent 4+ years in school and paid thousands to get the education. Added to the fact that the supply pool of janitors is rather high while accountants are more scarce.
And after all the financial crisis wasn't the fault of the CEO's. Why should they have to pay with their own hard earned money because of something that the liberal government did? Desertrat has explained it all before;

But, Thomas Veil, it's liberalism which has us in this present economic kerfuffle, unless you want to try and tell me that the Community Reinvestment Act was a conservative program.
 

iBlue

macrumors Core
Mar 17, 2005
19,174
15
London, England
This admittedly dumb question is an honest one - Did the government not place strings upon the bailout money? I cannot believe this is acceptable at all.

I've got mixed feelings but I'm not really against the bailouts considering the bigger picture of what would happen without them, but to think of the money being used like this?
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
Although the bank swore off employment contracts and eliminated golden parachutes seven years ago, Lewis can thank a pension plan that dates back decades for his rich retirement rewards.
Always nice to be the last in line for the gold rolex retirement watch you were awarded 8 years ago for signing on the dotted line.

Just wondering if he will get it as the annuity or a lump sum, likely a lump sum.

---

If the government is going to sue him for recovery of his bonuses, they could likely place a hold on the money ... but since this was earned way before any of the bonus scandals ... it places them in the position of violating an employment contract.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
This admittedly dumb question is an honest one - Did the government not place strings upon the bailout money? I cannot believe this is acceptable at all.

I've got mixed feelings but I'm not really against the bailouts considering the bigger picture of what would happen without them, but to think of the money being used like this?
Unfortunately, Uncurious George did not think to place these kinds of restrictions on the banks (just like his no bid contracts to Halliburton), but I think we should demand repayment of all our money from BOA right now.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,463
OBJECTIVE reality
Doesn't a CEO deserve such a high pay packet for working such a stressful job? He's obviously worked extremely hard.
My boss works so extremely hard that he almost had a nervous breakdown in front of us yesterday. I want $53m for him too.

And after all the financial crisis wasn't the fault of the CEO's. Why should they have to pay with their own hard earned money because of something that the liberal government did?
Oh, please!! This is not Rush Limbaugh's audience you are talking to here.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Doesn't a CEO deserve such a high pay packet for working such a stressful job? He's obviously worked extremely hard. In general in america your pay is proportional to how hard you work and how scarce you are isn't it?



And after all the financial crisis wasn't the fault of the CEO's. Why should they have to pay with their own hard earned money because of something that the liberal government did? Desertrat has explained it all before;

You clearly miss the point, government backup does not belong in the private sector. If this were any other company (namely one that shouldn't be out on it's ass if not for uncle Sam) I would support this retirement fund completely. Your attempt to distort my words has crashed in failure once again
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
You clearly miss the point, government backup does not belong in the private sector.
No I realise this is your POV you've made it very clear. But you missed my point. Why should the private sector CEOs be punished financially personally for something that as desertrat points out was completely the fault of the liberal government? It doesn't seem very libertarian to punish them for something that wasn't their fault.

If this were any other company (namely one that shouldn't be out on it's ass if not for uncle Sam) I would support this retirement fund completely.
I thought you might. $53 million dollars isn't obscene is it? A good reflection of how hard the CEO worked in school and his job compared to people who are just nurses. And police. And military.

Your attempt to distort my words has crashed in failure once again
I'm confused. I thought you just said you agree with my synopsis :confused:? That your words are true that this CEO deserves $53 million?
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,463
OBJECTIVE reality
...was completely the fault of the liberal government
I think a number of us are still waiting to hear how this was so. Will everything be laid at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act, with that shining star of the conservative movement, deregulation, having nothing to do with it?
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,359
UK
Will everything be laid at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act, with that shining star of the conservative movement, deregulation, having nothing to do with it?
Is there any doubt that that is the truth of the matter? :p
 

rasmasyean

macrumors 6502a
Jul 11, 2008
810
1
First of all, a payout like that will make a high portion of it get taxed in America’s progressive tax system…which clearly “disadvantages” the higher income earners…especially THAT high!

Second, if that dude was promised that as part of a previous deal, then it’s his right to get it. I personally don’t think government should poke their businesses all that much in the private sector anyway.

When a leader has advanced to the point where they are deemed by the boards that they are worth some huge amount of money, they will sort of like “bid” for the worker that way. That’s how it works. Supply and demand. Of course it’s not always about the money, but if you were offered more money to jump jobs, would you take it? If you are really desirable maybe someone will offer you 53 million dollars in your next job…so what?

And I don’t see how this is better for the “government” if it was distributed evenly across all workers anyway. Clearly, regarding the first point I made, the government would collect less overall tax from all the peons. And what is this retired CEO gonna do with his money? Maybe he’ll have a big house or 2 and a fancy car, but that’s not 53 million dollars. He’s going to invest most of it and that actually goes back into the system and creates jobs and innovation.
 

rasmasyean

macrumors 6502a
Jul 11, 2008
810
1
Doesn't a CEO deserve such a high pay packet for working such a stressful job? He's obviously worked extremely hard. In general in america your pay is proportional to how hard you work and how scarce you are isn't it?

The “stressfulness” of the job has little to do with it. It can be…but not always. If you are passionate about a job, it is less stressful and you will likely be even better at it. And you might get paid high for it even though it’s a walk in the park for you.

In America you do NOT get paid proportional to how “hard” you work. You get paid for the “results” you output….or theoretically should output.
Your scarcity does affect your pay however, as long as your skills are in demand. If you do hard manual labor, you will likely be real tired at the end of the day and even wear your body out for your life. But you might not get paid that much compared to an educated “chair worker” because many other people can do your job. That's just an example to illustrate a point and not necessarily a rule, of course.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
He’s going to invest most of it and that actually goes back into the system and creates jobs and innovation.
Uh huh- because that's what happened the last 8 years when the top wage earners got huge tax breaks? Right. Keep hanging on to that myth. It's my favorite line of bull from the right.

What will he most likely do? Send tons of it off shore into tax shelters.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,540
7,787
CT
I don't understand why CEO's get paid so much. The, well they worked hard for it argument doesn't wash. The guy on the low end of the stick is working harder and getting paid ****, those are the people that deserve the raises not the CEO that probably hasn't done any hard work in years.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,540
7,787
CT
It's not a question of how hard they work as much as the amount of damage they can do. Each one of their strategic decisions can float or sink their company.
So why do they pay them after they sink the company? How many employees could keep their job if the CEO wasn't over paid. They lay of people saying well we don't have the money, so don't over pay the CEO.
 

Capt Crunch

macrumors 6502
Aug 26, 2001
484
11
Washington, D.C.
So why do they pay them after they sink the company? How many employees could keep their job if the CEO wasn't over paid. They lay of people saying well we don't have the money, so don't over pay the CEO.
The fact is, the board of the company feels that a CEO is worth more than the several hundred employees they could pay otherwise.

CEOs don't just work hard, they are extremely capable. Don't think for a second that you could just walk in and do their job. Sure, sometimes the company fails under their watch, but sometimes the QB throws 3 interceptions in a row. Doesn't mean you can walk on to the NFL team and do his job better than he can.
 

rhsgolfer33

macrumors 6502a
Jan 6, 2006
882
1
What will he most likely do? Send tons of it off shore into tax shelters.
Well he will still pay taxes when he earns the $53 million. Which amounts to approximately $18,520,362 in taxes using the married filing jointly 2009 tax table. Will he pay all of that on the $53 million? No, because $53 million isn't his AGI, but taking into account his other income and his deductions he'll probably end up paying more than $18 million in taxes. If I were him I'd probably purchase citizenship in some nation where there tax system defines income less broadly, renounce my U.S. citizenship, and then I'd move to the Caymans. I definitely wouldn't put up with this tax system throughout my retirement if I were worth more than $5-$10 million or so.

This doesn't really bother me. He's worked at the bank in upper level positions for over 40 years, the last one year shouldn't taint the retirement package he's been expecting (and in fact was awarded prior to the downturn and bailout). It easily could have been written into his contract as well; are you going to breach a contract with someone who has enough money to easily cost your more than his retirement compensation in legal fees? I don't think so.
 

chstr

macrumors 6502a
Mar 25, 2009
673
0
at least we peasants get to hate him unabashedly. I hope he gets cancer :p
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
I think a number of us are still waiting to hear how this was so. Will everything be laid at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act, with that shining star of the conservative movement, deregulation, having nothing to do with it?
The “stressfulness” of the job has little to do with it. It can be…but not always. If you are passionate about a job, it is less stressful and you will likely be even better at it. And you might get paid high for it even though it’s a walk in the park for you.

In America you do NOT get paid proportional to how “hard” you work. You get paid for the “results” you output….or theoretically should output.
Your scarcity does affect your pay how
Just to make things clear my posts don't reflect what I believe whatsoever. I was merely asking questions of Zombie Acorn who had made the claims about pay and hard work and qualifications on a previous occasion (see quote in my initial post in this thread). And also see my quote where Desertrat made the claim that the current financial crisis was completely at the feet of the "liberal government". I was more interested in how the libertarian grappled with these previous comments in light of the revulsion that the CEO was getting this indefensible pay out.
 

chstr

macrumors 6502a
Mar 25, 2009
673
0
I'm not defending this CEO or his payoff, simply giving the market's answer to your general question. In my opinion, no CEO is worth more than $20m, and that is in a good year.
NOBODY is "worth" more than 20 million period. those that think they are, are the most worthless. REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!