Can you believe this????

[beefche]

Goldman Sachs is paying EACH of their 31,000+ employees almost a total of $170,000 in bonus.

Isn't this one company that borrowed money from me, a taxpayer? How is this possible? Just a year or so ago on the verge of total annihilation, got rescued by Uncle Sam, now has so much money they can donate 6% or more to charity while still paying every employee a huge bonus? I honestly don't understand this possibility.

I'm not against a company paying out large bonuses to their employees. I'm not at all. What I don't understand is how this is possible for them to afford. I know when I was in a lot of debt and finally got out of debt, I certainly wasn't able to make such a huge profit the next year to be extragavent.

[Just_A_Guy]

Goldman Sachs is paying EACH of their 31,000+ employees almost a total of $170,000 in bonus.

Isn't this one company that borrowed money from me, a taxpayer? How is this possible? Just a year or so ago on the verge of total annihilation, got rescued by Uncle Sam, now has so much money they can donate 6% or more to charity while still paying every employee a huge bonus? I honestly don't understand this possibility.

I'm not against a company paying out large bonuses to their employees. I'm not at all. What I don't understand is how this is possible for them to afford. I know when I was in a lot of debt and finally got out of debt, I certainly wasn't able to make such a huge profit the next year to be extragavent.

Our duly elected reps, acting as lenders, made a colossally bad business decision. If they'd done their homework they could have guessed that Goldman would bounce back once its short-term cash flow issues were resolved, and adjusted the payment terms accordingly. It isn't Goldman's fault that the government acted like a schmuck.

If the employees worked their tails off and got the company back from the brink--don't they deserve it?

If Wells Fargo gives me a student loan at 2%, and with that loan I attain an MBA that lets me pull down 2 or 3 million a year--well, Wells Fargo acted kind of stupidly for writing me such a low interest rate, didn't they?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

It depends on how the bonuses are structured. For example at my company, our salary is less than what you can make somewhere else. Then we target everyone getting a 10% bonus if the company makes it's profit goals. Exceed the goals, bonus goes up (as high as 20%). Miss the goals, bonus goes down to zero.

It helped us be stable through the downturn. Everyone basically got zero bonuses - the equivalent of a pay cut, and there were less layoffs.

Of course, if you take gubment money, you should expect nobody to know or care. You should just expect the taxpayer to scream when they hear bonuses, and you should expect to get it taken away.

LM

[bytor2112]

Goldman had a short term cash problem, they payed the 10 billion in Tarp funds back. Personally I get a whole lot more angry over the billions of dollars of giveaways to foreign countries and the waste in the emergency "stimulus" bill. That money is NEVER coming back. At least Goldman amd others contribute to the economic success of the country.

Edited October 17, 2009 by bytor2112

[beefche]

I'm very much not an accountant. I handle my measly less than $100,000 salary very well. I understand that some people's salary is low and that the majority of their income is derived from bonuses. I don't have a problem if a successful company awards its employees with an extravagant bonus or gift.

What I don't understand is how one year ago, this company was on the symbolic street with a cup in hand for a handout and now can afford whatever 31,000 multiplied by $170,000 plus $1 billion donated to charity. That is what I don't understand. So, they paid back the stupid loaned money--why was it given to them in the first place? I know, I know--Congress/White House should not have given anyone a handout. I agree. What I'm trying to understand is HOW did they get deemed worthy for the handout?

[bytor2112]

I'm very much not an accountant. I handle my measly less than $100,000 salary very well. I understand that some people's salary is low and that the majority of their income is derived from bonuses. I don't have a problem if a successful company awards its employees with an extravagant bonus or gift.

What I don't understand is how one year ago, this company was on the symbolic street with a cup in hand for a handout and now can afford whatever 31,000 multiplied by $170,000 plus $1 billion donated to charity. That is what I don't understand. So, they paid back the stupid loaned money--why was it given to them in the first place? I know, I know--Congress/White House should not have given anyone a handout. I agree. What I'm trying to understand is HOW did they get deemed worthy for the handout?

TARP is a bit dubious. Many firms did not want to take the funds. In the case of Goldman the US Treasury purchased 10,000,000 shares of fixed rate preferred stock.......Goldman bought it back.

[miztrniceguy]

how many people live in the U.S.? If all the bailout money was divided between all the residents of the country, who then used it to pay all their bills, where would we be? Most consumers would be out of debt, and the banks and car companies would still get the money after it passed thru consumers hands. trickle up instead of trickle down.

[Just_A_Guy]

What I'm trying to understand is HOW did they get deemed worthy for the handout?

1) Connections

2) They were willing to cede some of their autonomy, and government wanted some control over them.

Bismarck was absolutely right. Men who enjoy sausage and respect the law should watch neither being made.