Would you pay back your bonus?

[Mise]

Dunno if we've had a thread like this, but it's a simple question. If you worked in a bank or company that received public funds to stay afloat (i.e. the only reason you still have a job is because the government bailed out the bank or company you worked for), and you received a bonus, would you voluntarily pay it back?

Please state under what circumstances you would pay it back, and under what circumstances you wouldn't.

EDIT: Can a mod add a poll to this thread please? Just "Yes", "No", and "It depends" as options, preferably public! Thanks!!

 

[mrt144]

Not unless I was ordered to by court.

 

[amadeus]

Of course not!

 

[Adrogans]

No way unless the government forced me.

 

[Mowque]

Not unless I was ordered to by court.

Of course not!

No way unless the government forced me.

This (10 char)

 

[Defiant47]

You have to accept that this system favours the privileged trampling on the masses. So when you're the privileged, enjoy it, since you're one of the lucky few!

 

[BasketCase]

Not true, D47. The system favors the common worker.

When a company fails and you lose your job (assuming you didn't steal from the company or any of that), do you EVER pay back any percentage of your past paychecks? Nope. In fact, your liability is always zero. It's the CEO's and the other high-ups who end up having to pay back loans and who run the risk of suffering millions or billions of dollars in losses. But when you get fired, the only thing you're missing is that you don't get any new paychecks. Your job is a sure thing. Money for zero risk.

Unless you get your necktie stuck in the paper shredder, of course......

 

[Ethan Moreau]

Is this a joke?

 

[mrt144]

Not true, D47. The system favors the common worker.

When a company fails and you lose your job (assuming you didn't steal from the company or any of that), do you EVER pay back any percentage of your past paychecks? Nope. In fact, your liability is always zero. It's the CEO's and the other high-ups who end up having to pay back loans and who run the risk of suffering millions or billions of dollars in losses. But when you get fired, the only thing you're missing is that you don't get any new paychecks. Your job is a sure thing. Money for zero risk.

Unless you get your necktie stuck in the paper shredder, of course......

Except CEO's don't actually pay back loans the business takes on from their own salaries. A corporation is set up to protect any and every worker from being financially liable for the losses of the company.

 

[Ecofarm]

All of the hoopla over this .0000000000000000000001% of the bailout money is nothing more than drummed-up class warfare rhetoric.

Any of you who want to jump on the "I hate richies!!" boat better do so quickly, cause this particular ride isn't going to last long.

 

[Eukaryote]

In a word, no.

 

[Defiant47]

Not true, D47. The system favors the common worker.

When a company fails and you lose your job (assuming you didn't steal from the company or any of that), do you EVER pay back any percentage of your past paychecks? Nope. In fact, your liability is always zero. It's the CEO's and the other high-ups who end up having to pay back loans and who run the risk of suffering millions or billions of dollars in losses. But when you get fired, the only thing you're missing is that you don't get any new paychecks. Your job is a sure thing. Money for zero risk.

Unless you get your necktie stuck in the paper shredder, of course......

CEOs do not lose anything, nor any past paychecks. The owners of the companies who profit in the millions and billions do not lose anything. It is the company itself, set up as a "corporation", a separate entity, that loses it all. This corporation is no-one. It's set up to avoid personal liability.

In fact, that's the greatest problem about starting a new business, that you have to put your money on the line, money further than you would be willing to invest in the business. That is, until you incorporate it, and then you still have lenders wanting you to put your personal money on the line to make sure you get your loans.

 

[Defiant47]

All of the hoopla over this .0000000000000000000001% of the bailout money is nothing more than drummed-up class warfare rhetoric.

Any of you who want to jump on the "I hate richies!!" boat better do so quickly, cause this particular ride isn't going to last long.

It is actually 0.1% of the bailout money if I recall correctly.

 

[emzie]

Not a chance. Not half. Not a dime.

All of the hoopla over this .0000000000000000000001% of the bailout money is nothing more than drummed-up class warfare rhetoric.

Any of you who want to jump on the "I hate richies!!" boat better do so quickly, cause this particular ride isn't going to last long.

This.

 

[Ecofarm]

.1% of the bailout money given to AIG. Obviously, I over-did the 0s, but after a few what does it matter.

Defiant, why not change your avatar?

 

[Mise]

Maybe we don't need a poll...

I really thought that with all the media attention given to this, and with all the empty bluster and table thumping about how AIG bankers should give back their bonuses, there'd be at least someone on this board who would voluntarily give it up. I sure as hell wouldn't, obviously, but there's gotta be someone who would...

 

[GoodGame]

Not unless I was ordered to by court.

This is probably the wisest behavior because it may only be a matter of time before somebody other than you gets bailed out too.

 

[GenMarshall]

No way, I'd keep it.

Any of you who want to jump on the "I hate richies!!" boat better do so quickly, cause this particular ride isn't going to last long.

I hate rich people! And vans, and stairs, and hunters, and tanks... (on and on of how Francis hates everything, but vests)

 

[JollyRoger]

In fact, your liability is always zero. It's the CEO's and the other high-ups who end up having to pay back loans and who run the risk of suffering millions or billions of dollars in losses.

Actually, that would be the shareholders losing the value of their shares. Personal assets outside of shares are normally shielded unless an executive worked for a weak enough company to have to personally guarantee a loan made to the company. Not likely with a large publically traded company.

As to the thread topic, it depends. If I was high enough in the food chain top be negotiating the bailout with the government, I would probably be a big enough boy to forego such bonus nonsense. If I was at a lower level, not a chance of giving it back.

 

[JollyRoger]

.1% of the bailout money given to AIG. Obviously, I over-did the 0s, but after a few what does it matter.

If the screw-up dwarfed the bonuses by that much, why get a bonus at all? Or is bonus the wrong term to be using?