Comments on: Should the Fed determine pay at 5,000 banks?

By: Drewbie

Drewbie — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:59:55 +0000

Ritesh -
I assume by a 90% tax on bonuses over $1 million, you meant a 90% tax only on the portion over $1 million (ie, the 90% rate would apply to $200,000 of a 1.2 million bonus). Other wise you’re effectively capping pay at $999,999.99. Making a dollar over that would decrease your income by 90%.

By: RFI

RFI — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:45:06 +0000

This article failed to mention this is only the banks the fed helped not all banks .

By: Ritesh

Ritesh — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:41:04 +0000

This is probably wrong way to go about handling the problems (Wastes lot of time and leaves doors open for corruption). The simplest solution is 90% taxes on any bonuses in excess of 1 million (or X Million). Why do we have to make everything complicated hiring people to negotiate the amounts year after year.

By: David Z

David Z — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:38:19 +0000

Yes, absolutely. Shareholders will increasingly loose confidence when a large notable part of the profits go to management in the billions. Accountability for ‘talént retention’ should be in the results of stable economic growth where practices do not endanger the global or nationals economies.

… if each top professional wants top bonuses, these should be fairly tied to results, not simple short-term gains or potential gains. And those rewards should not terribly overshadow shareholder benefit by more than 1% of total tanglible profits.