The Top 1% Took All The Risks, So They Deserve The Reward. Right?

IndependntLogic

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2011
2,997
399
48
WHAT THE GOP SUPPORTS - Risk = Reward? Guess Again:
Partners in private-equity firms like Romney’s Bain Capital don’t risk their own money. They invest other people’s money and take 2 percent of it as their annual fee for managing the money regardless of how successful they are. Private-equity firms get around two-thirds of their total revenues from these fees. They then pocket 20 percent of any upside gains and pay taxes on only 15 percent of what they make— a lower rate than that paid by many middle-class Americans— because of a LOOPHOLE that treats that income as capital gains instead of commissions like regular people get. Rather than taking any real risks, they get government to subsidize them. Having piled the companies they purchase with debt, private-equity managers then typically pay
themselves gigantic “special dividends” that recoup their original investments. Interest payments on the mountain of debt they create are tax deductible. In effect, government subsidizes them for using debt instead of incurring any real risk with equity. If the companies are subsequently forced into bankruptcy because they can’t manage payments on all this debt, they dump their pension obligations on taxpayers when the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a federal agency, picks up the tab. It’s another variation on Wall Street’s playbook of maximizing personal gains and minimizing personal risks. If you screw up royally, you can still walk away like royalty. Taxpayers will bail you out. Personal responsibility is completely foreign to the highest echelons of the Street. Citigroup’s stock fell 44 percent last year, but its CEO, Vikram Pandit, got at least $ 5.45 million on top of a retention bonus of $ 16.7 million. The stock of JPMorgan Chase fell almost 22 percent, but its CEO, Jamie Dimon, was awarded a package worth $ 17 million. The higher you go in corporate America as a whole, the less relationship there is between risk and reward.

Reich, Robert B. "Beyond Outrage: What has gone wrong with our economy and our democracy, and how to fix them"
 
Pandit's $6.65M golden parachute...
:eusa_eh:
Citigroup pays fired executives millions
Nov. 10,`12 (UPI) -- U.S. banking giant Citigroup said it would pay its recently fired Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit $6.65 million as a bonus for his work in 2012.
The bank said it would pay Pandit the bonus as part of his "incentive" pay, The New York Times reported Saturday. The bank's board of directors announced Pandit resigned in October, but his sudden departure was orchestrated by Chairman Michael O'Neill, the Times said. His resignation was announced in conjunction with the ouster of Chief Operating Officer John Havens.

Pandit is scheduled to receive a stock and cash package worth $8.8 million, but he will lose out on retention pay, that a source said was worth $24 million.

Havens is expected to be given $6.8 million in incentive pay on top of a deferred stock and cash package worth $8.725 million. But he will also lose his retention pay, the Times said. The bank named Michael Corbat as Pandit's replacement.

Source
 
Ever notice how all this Libtard threads are just new ways of them trying to convince people on why they deserve to get their hands on the other guy's moneyf?
 
There is a reason business people in the US take so many more risks than in many other places.

We have a social safety net. Yep. In many places, if you take a big risk, and fail, your life will be homelessness, hunger, despair...maybe even jail.

In the US, failure means file bankruptcy, drive a Hyundai and live in a 1 bedroom apt for 5 years.

People here can take risks with relative ease because failure doesn't mean total failure, it just means...well, you didn't strike it rich. But you wont die of starvation or go homeless.

The rich arrogant people have the social safety net to bitch about, be it's mere existence also contributes to America's wildly successful capitlaist system.
 
Ever notice how all this Libtard threads are just new ways of them trying to convince people on why they deserve to get their hands on the other guy's moneyf?

That's all liberalism is: a grab bag of justifications for organized plunder and enslavement.
 
You're shooting blanks if you think entrepreneurs take risks because of welfare. All those European welfare states have welfare, so why haven't they invented the iPhone? go back to the drawing board, knucklehead. Your theory is obviously flawed.



There is a reason business people in the US take so many more risks than in many other places.

We have a social safety net. Yep. In many places, if you take a big risk, and fail, your life will be homelessness, hunger, despair...maybe even jail.

In the US, failure means file bankruptcy, drive a Hyundai and live in a 1 bedroom apt for 5 years.

People here can take risks with relative ease because failure doesn't mean total failure, it just means...well, you didn't strike it rich. But you wont die of starvation or go homeless.

The rich arrogant people have the social safety net to bitch about, be it's mere existence also contributes to America's wildly successful capitlaist system.
 

Forum List

Back
Top