Banning Big Wall Street Bonus Favored By 70 Percent of Americans In National Poll

Bloomberg:

More than 70 percent of Americans say big bonuses should be banned this year at Wall Street firms that took taxpayer bailouts, a Bloomberg National Poll shows.

An additional one in six favors slapping a 50 percent tax on bonuses exceeding $400,000. Just 7 percent of U.S. adults say bonuses are an appropriate incentive reflecting Wall Street's return to financial health.

Read the whole story: Bloomberg

Comments

[builderman55]

09:14 PM on 12/13/2010

Good--now demand that Congress do something about this. Don't people realize that the people that they just sent to Congress are immune to this kind of thinking???

[leeskyblue]

06:19 PM on 12/13/2010

This poll just doesn't count.
A poll that favors an increase in bonuses in exchange for a further cut in taxes might interest Obama.

[wrightthewrong]

04:40 PM on 12/13/2010

If 70% of Americans favor banning the big bonuses, then we can be absoLUTEly sure that our new repignican congress will favor NOT banning the bonuses. Get used to the new America...

[beckola]

02:29 PM on 12/13/2010

Well of course Americans would want them banned, but the time for that to happen was when we gave them the big fat checks. That would have been the time to get a lot of concessions, and we didn't get a one.

[leeskyblue]

06:23 PM on 12/13/2010

Forget about concessions. Only Obama gives those out, and only unilaterally.

[MSaxe]

01:08 PM on 12/13/2010

Don't ban them.

Tax them at 90%.

[MontereyDean]

01:40 PM on 12/13/2010

Exactly.

[RogerMurtaugh]

11:38 AM on 12/14/2010

They are already taxed near 50%.

[MyFatCat]

03:13 PM on 12/14/2010

And this is a magic number that can't be exceeded, even though bonuses apparently have no limit?

[duffmt6]

12:48 PM on 12/13/2010

The problem isn't the bonuses themselves, it's the incentives these bonuses are tied to- often short term performance based incentives, with little regard to risk or long term balance sheet health. In reality, astronomical compensation is the only way for financial firms to retain employees. If they don't pony up either their employee will go independent or move on to another firm. Each employee is an investment- thousands are spend on training and development, and losing employees has an implicit economic cost.

[Fiscalprudence]

06:41 PM on 12/13/2010

Well stated. Fanned.

[MyFatCat]

03:29 PM on 12/14/2010

I like your reasoning, except that other studies show that beyond a certain point, money is not an incentive, that its presence actually tilts people away from other people.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061117133047.htm

The use of compensation also encourages playing it safe and not taking risks, which is why so many CEOs won't take the risks that enabled their corporations to reach the size they are today.

http://www.businessweek.com/2001/01_03/b3715083.htm

Nor is training evenly spent. Although training investments are rising, it's hard to say that business is really interested in "investing" in an "expense"--which is how employees are accounted for. And if it's on-the-job training, it helps a lot more than if it's external training. The first step onto the career ladder is the last, unless you can afford to take it yourself.

http://www.mott.org/news/news/2010/sectoralsidebar.aspx

[duffmt6]

09:44 PM on 12/14/2010

I do agree with some of your points, but I don't think they really apply to the larger financial firms, where making bets (taking risks) are a core business practice. If an investment firm wants to grow faster, it relies on leverage to multiply its gains. This obviously increases risk.

Also, I think companies view employees as an asset, and thus, provide training (including entry and lower level on-the-job training which are simply an employee's wages) in the hopes of retaining these employees and develop management internally.

[it is me]

12:43 PM on 12/13/2010

I find it interesting that 70% of people want these bonuses banned, but when it comes time to vote, obviously the majority of these people vote for people who are against putting practices into place to raise the taxes on these high earners.

And let's be real, these bankers are doing their jobs: making their shareholders money.

[MyFatCat]

03:31 PM on 12/14/2010

I doubt any of the elected campaigned on a message to make the rich richer. You can't say people voted them in to do that. You can say that NOW these people have been voted in, they can do that.

Bankers are supposed to provide liquidity to the markets, expanding business growth and facilitating change. Making money for shareholders is not their job. Keeping capital in gear--money is information in motion--is their job. And they aren't doing that.

[RogerMurtaugh]

04:49 PM on 12/14/2010

Uh, wrong. I don't know where you got the idea that bankers have some social responsibility to provide market liquidity and expanded business growth. Bankers work for a bank, a corporation that has shareholders. Their responsibility is to protect the interest of those shareholders and provide a reasonable rate of return, not be the sheperds of liquidity.

[Lakesideboy]

12:30 PM on 12/13/2010

and why shouldn't these big bonuses be banned???? the bonuses/money should be given to the federal government since they are who bailed out the banks, etc. anyway.
Why in the world are these executives having their very bad behavior rewarded????
Is this country going insane?
the little people (as we are often called by the Republican elite) really need to step up to the plate and say enough is enough before things get much, much worse.

[littleblackcat]

04:06 PM on 12/13/2010

Yes, this country IS going insane. This nation has voted the rethugs back into power, paying absolutely NO ATTENTION to the fact that the rethugs had power for the eight most devastating years this country has ever known, which left a mess that CAN NOT be cleaned up in the next twenty-five years.
This nation is too stupid to realize that there is NO CO-OPERATION with either the President or the Democratic Party by the 'thugs and they have managed to ignore the people (except for their rich contributors) and destroy anything that would have given strength and encouragement to the working class. They are now out to destroy Social Security, and I was a strong supporter of Obama, but now I think he SHOULD be a one-term president.
We should get a strong grass-roots movement to elect Senator Bernard Sanders as our next President.

[Fiscalprudence]

06:46 PM on 12/13/2010

So, if I understand correctly, you believe that those who took TARP money should not get bonuses?
Even the firms that took, or were forced to take, TARP funds and paid the gov't back with a profit?
I respect your opinion, but that just doesn't make much sense to me.

[6465billy]

11:54 AM on 12/13/2010

Remember that being in the majority does not always mean you are smart. Just look the MAJORITY elected OBUMA (THAT is spelled CORRECTLY the way i see it)

[Lakesideboy]

12:32 PM on 12/13/2010

I continue to be amazed at those who blame all of this on Obama. Are you awake???? Are you continually being brainwashed by Fox News????
Bush started the ball rolling big time on this and it's the fault of the Bush administration. Obama didn't cause this world destruction in one year - Bush did.

[leeskyblue]

06:27 PM on 12/13/2010

And you, friend, are missing the point that we see no change at all.

Any inference that Obama would do miracles was created and promoted by Obama.

[lwallis]

12:39 PM on 12/13/2010

CHANGE THE STATION PLEASE!!!

[janejoad]

11:54 AM on 12/13/2010

Why don't we all get together and fund an ad (although I daresay any TV station would run it) just like they do at election time, exposing these people for what they are?

AND, a LAW HAD TO BE put in place to give the shareholders more say? Hasn't ANYONE seen "The SOLID GOLD CADILLAC" lately? Hello. This has happened before, it was just on a scale small enough to get UNDER the RADAR. They got rich......but not too rich.

Now, these guys are FLAUNTING IT and we STILL treat them like they DESERVE IT.
Remember how many people thought OJ KILLED HIS WIFE and STILL played golf with him and welcomed him into the best restaurants and stores? It's the same thing. Until people start LEAVING THE ROOM WHEN THEY WALK IN, they will continue to think they have POWER.

Let them have the money. We should just NOT GIVE THEM A PLACE TO SPEND IT IN AMERICA, except at the IRS.

CREATE A TAX FOR THEM ALONE.

But, it will never happen, because we're a NO GOOD COUNTRY FULL OF CROOKS who PANDER to the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR and SALIVATE at the idea of making a buck off the back of someone they consider themselves to be "BETTER THAN"........

[Olderandwiser55]

11:14 PM on 12/13/2010

I love the idea of taxing bonuses.

And the part of Financial Reform bill that allowed stockholders to vote on executive pay may seem crazy and small but really very good. The institutional stockholders have some power-the days of a company losing money and paying for golden parachutes will be less-over time at least.

These companies are hated, I hope people don't forget too soon.

[janejoad]

12:33 PM on 12/14/2010

Every bonus I've EVER received was taxed. Vacation pay, taxed. Remember the saying
"the more you make the more they take" ? That's only for CHUMPS LIKE US. Rich people are LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK while we CRY OUR WAY DOWN TO THE POORHOUSE and I'm sick of it.
The idea these people walk around with ARMED PROTECTION and call that "JOB CREATION" is ludicrous. They may hire an English speaking personal assistant, make -up artist or hairdresser,or bodyguard (that maybe questionable) but all the rest of whom they employ, are foreigners. Just think of Meg Whitman or Liz Taylor with the Isreali bodyguard.

[marknez21]

11:51 AM on 12/13/2010

What they have done?!!!!!!!!!

[chronic republican]

11:46 AM on 12/13/2010

This is just a dumb poll. the truth is paulson and bush set it up without any limitations on bonuses - so there is no basis to complain about this now. finance attracts people who want these bonuses and to think that normal folk who don't chose that career path could have any claim over the compensation of others is silly.

does it disgust me that my friend at BOA will take home a $600k bonus this year - yes. but it has more to do with the fact that he works less than I do - it's about social justice.

America's focus on materialism, overcompensation of the few for producing no constructive output or product, CEO compensation and inequitable tax laws will be the downfall of our empire.

[Fiscalprudence]

06:51 PM on 12/13/2010

"does it disgust me that my friend at BOA will take home a $600k bonus this year - yes. but it has more to do with the fact that he works less than I do - it's about social justice. "

Social justice? You are saying he works less but gets paid more. Is it possible that he is delivering a valuable asset to his business (regardless of whether you agree with the business)?
Would it be socially just for you to make more or him less?

I'm not trying to stir the pot but it sounds more like sour grapes.

[RogerMurtaugh]

11:47 AM on 12/14/2010

The whole movement is sour grapes, nothing more and nothing less. No one here actually understands what bankers do, has no understanding of how their compensation is structured, and has no understanding of just how much money they earn for their company. They simply hear about their compensation and get all hot and bothered because it is way more than theirs.

If people are so outraged that these people make so much money, why not go to school and get a job in banking?

[chronic republican]

01:36 PM on 12/15/2010

Not sour grapes - I did his job for 10 years and felt it contributed nothing to society. most stock brokers and finance jobs that don't involve a spreadsheet but instead the trading of securities - has little to do with American productivity. this is the sickness at the heart of our country - when I worked as an institutional broker guys would make 300k in commission on mortgage back securities. the compensation does not match the effort or the benefit for society. I have no sour grapes, sour feet maybe.

[G R]

11:41 AM on 12/13/2010

Funny. The article states "Wall Street's return to financial health'. Mr. President, slide a million or so my way and I will return to financial health as well. The bailout wasn't an 'incentive', just a give away. The cozy relationship between the financial industry and government reflects clearly how little the 'free market' comes into play. The market was, at one time, America's financial strength and health. No more. Those who complain about America becoming a socialist nation must understand that in the absence of a free market something will take its place. Nature abhors a vacuum.

[RogerMurtaugh]

11:47 AM on 12/14/2010

A give away?

TARP was paid back you know, with interest. I wouldn't call an interest-bearing loan a "giveaway", I would call it a loan.

[Olderandwiser55]

01:14 PM on 12/14/2010

True-but "bailout" and "giveaway" sound much more exciting!

[G R]

02:06 PM on 12/14/2010

My understanding is that TARP has not been paid back. Several banking industries and corporate lenders, including CHASE have been approved to repay the loans but are still in the planning process. If the loans are repaid it will have no impact on economic stimulus and none of that pay back will trickle down to the American citizens who financed it.

[robert7 james7]

11:41 AM on 12/13/2010

We don't have to ban anything. We need to make it 90 percent tax for anyone making over a Million dollars, and any corporate cash over 5 percent of its revenue be counted as income and subject to the same tax.

[Paul Sta]

11:30 AM on 12/13/2010

Thats absurd, and then who gets the money???

[littleblackcat]

04:10 PM on 12/13/2010

That money should be put toward education and repairs to the nation's infrastructure, before we have another disaster like the bridge collapse in Minnesota.
With the U.S. coming 19th in the world's developed nations in terms of education, there is an excellent place to put it!

[Paul Sta]

07:56 PM on 12/13/2010

Ok thats all well and good, i'd like to see Wall Street pay to undo some of the damage, since Obama cut HAMP to the bone, use a few hundred billion for loan mods and for principle reductions, and stop the foreclosure machine, its destroying the housing market and the economy.

[RogerMurtaugh]

11:48 AM on 12/14/2010

Yet the US still spends more per student than any other nation, by a wide margin. What on earth makes you think that throwing more money at education is going to fix the problem?