Quote:
Originally Posted by simonsays
Daradon, they did act in bad faith with taxpayers money. And we should all be pissed about the way that bonuses are handed out to companies that are on Government IV. But that does not prevent the people who stuck the needle into the corporations arm from reading the fine print.
If the gov't had inspected the company properly before handing over the cash then this wouldn't be an issue. They would have seen the contractual bonuses and either accept with them or dealt with them. The backhanded taxation of these bonuses is garbage. When they took over AIG could they not have asked to restructure contracts/bonuses? Couldn't they play hardball a little?
IMO Azure is right (it feels dirty to admit it). And while it's a lot of fun to blow smoke into the wind, the federal gov't still seems to be missing the point. Why aren't they re-legeslating risk ratios instead of making populist accusations?
I just can't see anyone in the right on this one.
|
I don't disagree with any of this and think I have mentioned it somewhere among my many posts in this thread. I just feel AIG forced this backwards taxation to some extent (as unfair as it is) by acting in the terrible faith they did.
Both parties (AIG and the government) had the ability to make this better or at least lessen the damage considerably. Both screwed up more than once, and it's been going back and forth since then.
As you said, no one is in the right, which I wholly agree with. I just don't see how the government is MORE to blame then one of the biggest players in the mess.
As I said about halfway through the thread. It makes me want to say no companies should have been bailed out. At least it would have been simpler.