Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Jan '10 21:07
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34840056/ns/business-us_business

    Maybe I'm crazy, but to me the outrage directed at the payment of bonuses seems misplaced. The firms made huge profits last year; why shouldn't the employees who contributed to those profits be compensated accordingly? Do people understand that if they are not it's not like the money is going to Main Street USA; it will be put back into retained earnings and probably used to increase stock dividends.

    You can argue that the firms shouldn't have gotten the bailouts in the first place (I'd agree); you can argue that they or higher income people like those who receive these bonuses should be taxed at higher rates (I'd agree with that too) but what rational reason is there to complain about employees who contributed to a firm's profits getting a large share of the same?
  2. 13 Jan '10 21:18
    I don't have any problem with bonuses. It's up to corporations to determine what kind of money they want to pay their employees, and up to government watchdogs to ensure competition is fair. Bonuses should be taxed at a fair rate.
  3. 13 Jan '10 22:01
    I agree. All the gnashing of teeth about bonuses is mainly a lot of empty populism. The economy is bad. Blame it all on those really mean and greedy people on Wall St.

    The reality is that if you're running a business and you want to attract the best talent, you have to be willing to pay them a lot of money - or that talent will find someone else who is. I'm not sure why these businesses can't just give everyone a plain old salary without having "bonuses" thrown into the mix, but for whatever reason, that seems to be what the best talent wants.

    Clearly, 2008 was a very bad year. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense to fire all of your best people. And it doesn't make any sense to risk losing these people by cutting their pay. The Lakers aren't going to dump Kobe Bryant just because the team didn't make the playoffs in a given year, even if part of the problem was Bryant himself having a bad season.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Jan '10 22:18
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34840056/ns/business-us_business

    Maybe I'm crazy, but to me the outrage directed at the payment of bonuses seems misplaced. The firms made huge profits last year; why shouldn't the employees who contributed to those profits be compensated accordingly? Do people understand that if they are not it's not like th ...[text shortened]... in about employees who contributed to a firm's profits getting a large share of the same?
    Who are you and what have you done with no1marauder?

    Seriously, though, I agree. Except that I think the bailouts have proven, in retrospect, to have been a good idea.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Jan '10 22:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Who are you and what have you done with no1marauder?

    Seriously, though, I agree. Except that I think the bailouts have proven, in retrospect, to have been a good idea.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html
    The last two paragraphs of that article hardly support your conclusion.

    In any event, the bailouts were corporate welfare at its worst rewarding incompetence and risk taking. I predicted then that the banks themselves would not increase lending in a weak economy which we were told was the very purpose of the bailouts. This was proven correct. So all that was done is to let corporations and banks escape the consequences of their own bad business practices by shifting the risk to the taxpayers. What kind of conservative supports that?

    EDIT: The "new" bill is even worse than the old one; it's chock full of unnecessary items that further benefit the wealthy (how many people have the types of accounts normally eligible for FDIC insurance with OVER $100,000?) and has virtually no restrictions on what the imbeciles who invested in worthless securities can do with this windfall. Those who think it's going to pump a ton of cash into the credit market and suddenly loosen up available credit to the average schmuck are deluded. The economy is still bad and these firms are going to have to take big balance sheet losses (unless the securities are brought at listed value which would be voluntary highway robbery). Under those circumstances, there isn't going to be the stimulus the pols are promising. But their will be, oh, a trillion dollar deficit next year; I wonder what that will do to the value of the dollar?

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=101092&page=3

    I'm THE MAN.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    14 Jan '10 00:48 / 1 edit
    I think the problem is the immense wealth disparity between these people getting bonuses and those people struggling to find 40 hours of minimum wage work without bonuses or benefits.

    Extreme wealth disparity means the poor are denied the Right to Own Property.
  7. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    14 Jan '10 01:25
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34840056/ns/business-us_business

    Maybe I'm crazy, but to me the outrage directed at the payment of bonuses seems misplaced. The firms made huge profits last year; why shouldn't the employees who contributed to those profits be compensated accordingly? Do people understand that if they are not it's not like th ...[text shortened]... in about employees who contributed to a firm's profits getting a large share of the same?
    Aren't you one of these 'safety net' welfare guys? If someone in guvamint decides bail out x business and that will save y number of people going on welfare and that will save z number of dollars and the number z is less than what it would cost in welfare should the business fall over. Not only should you stop whining about corporate welfare you should be endorsing it, singing it's praises.

    I do not support welfare of any type unless voluntary.

    You D, just have to suck it up, can't have it both ways.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    14 Jan '10 01:36
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Aren't you one of these 'safety net' welfare guys? If someone in guvamint decides bail out x business and that will save y number of people going on welfare and that will save z number of dollars and the number z is less than what it would cost in welfare should the business fall over. Not only should you stop whining about corporate welfare you should be e ...[text shortened]... e of any type unless voluntary.

    You D, just have to suck it up, can't have it both ways.
    Not that no1 needs me to help him take you apart but...

    either/or fallacy
  9. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    14 Jan '10 01:53
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Not that no1 needs me to help him take you apart but...

    either/or fallacy
    I don't see the fallacy, either you're a moron, or you are a moron.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    14 Jan '10 02:55
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    I don't see the fallacy, either you're a moron, or you are a moron.
    Don't you realize that your complete lack of reasoning and logic and your arrogant insults are just going to drive people away from your position?

    Are you just here to troll?
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Jan '10 03:06
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Aren't you one of these 'safety net' welfare guys? If someone in guvamint decides bail out x business and that will save y number of people going on welfare and that will save z number of dollars and the number z is less than what it would cost in welfare should the business fall over. Not only should you stop whining about corporate welfare you should be e ...[text shortened]... e of any type unless voluntary.

    You D, just have to suck it up, can't have it both ways.
    I find it rather hard to believe that many of the people working on Wall Street would have wound up on the streets. Does that help?
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    14 Jan '10 03:09
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    I don't see the fallacy, either you're a moron, or you are a moron.
    Ah yes. Go directly to insult. Do not pass go.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Jan '10 03:18
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Don't you realize that your complete lack of reasoning and logic and your arrogant insults are just going to drive people away from your position?

    Are you just here to troll?
    You fired the first salvo with "Not that no1 needs me to help him take you apart but..." I'm not saying I agree with Wajoma on this point, but I don't think it's fair to criticize him for retaliating.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    14 Jan '10 03:31 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    You fired the first salvo with "Not that no1 needs me to help him take you apart but..." I'm not saying I agree with Wajoma on this point, but I don't think it's fair to criticize him for retaliating.
    This is a long lived pattern with wajoma. Anyway, I targetted my aggression at his argument, showing why it was flawed. That's not quite the same as simply calling someone a moron.

    Read my post and you might see my point of view. Read wajoma's and you might find him entertaining, but not convincing.

    I'm not so upset that he "retaliated" as honestly trying to understand what the point of his posts are.

    I've been a Libertarian most of my life. I only changed recently and lack of respect for wajoma influenced my decision a bit. I mean...is that all that Libertarians can offer? Insults?
  15. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    14 Jan '10 03:37
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I find it rather hard to believe that many of the people working on Wall Street would have wound up on the streets. Does that help?
    The people on Wall St and the some thousands employed by the corporation.