BOa's Ken Lewis and $hiti's Vikram Pandit don't like being the taxpayers' bee-yotches

[marmar]

Wall Street chiefs grumble about bonus-tax bill
Citi's Pandit says it will scare away talent; B of A's Lewis cites 'grave concern'

By John Letzing, MarketWatch


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Top Wall Street executives reacted harshly on Friday to proposed legislation that would punitively tax bonuses awarded to employees at firms receiving federal assistance.

Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Ken Lewis issued strongly worded internal memos about the proposed tax legislation, according to the online edition of The Wall Street Journal, while J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon sought to reassure his top executives that the firm is engaging with lawmakers on the matter.

The legislation, passed by the House on Thursday, would impose a 90% tax on bonuses for employees making over $250,000 a year at companies receiving at least $5 billion in federal aid under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

Citi's Pandit criticized the proposed legislation in a memo to employees on Friday, arguing that it could result in the firm losing top talent.

"The work we have all done to try to stabilize the financial system and to get this economy moving again would be significantly set back if we lose our talented people because Congress imposes a special tax on financial-services employees," he wrote.

"It would affect countless number of people who will find it difficult, if not impossible, to pay back the bonuses that they earned," Pandit said. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Wall-Street-CEOs-gripe-about/story.aspx?guid=%7B4A5C3F20%2D935C%2D4386%2D9D07%2DBA2EA533812E%7D

[Hugin]

1. Welcome to the Club.

"It would affect countless number of people who will find it difficult, if not impossible, to pay back the bonuses that they earned," Pandit said.

I'm guessing this is the new 'Talking Point'... After the failure of the 'contractual obligations' gambit.

[elleng]

2. "GRAVE" concern?

See ya there, bud.

[BeFree]

3. Can you blame them?

Its like the coast guard sending you a bill after they rescue you from your own stupidity out in the Pacific Ocean.

Or a lawyer sending you a bill after he saved your sorry ass in court.

Or the hospital bill when you are brought in from a bad wreck you caused.

That's anti-social!

These guys aren't socialists, they are capitalists. They don't do the socialism thing. Capitalism succeeds best when it doesn't pay the bill and these guys are at the top of the heap!

[Triana]

4. Cry me a f*cking river...

...these little hissy-fits, breath-holding, threats, and extortionist statements are getting old.

Pass the legislation. Let 'em whine.

[Canuckistanian]

5. In bygone days, these people would have resigned in shame

But these idiots see this as a mere bump in the road of their careers.

And in the middle of a financial crisis where NOBODY'S job is safe any more, this obsession with "retaining talent" is absurd.

The disconnect is astounding.

[L0oniX]

6. "scare away talent" yea ok ..well who needs the kind of crime talent that got us into this mess?

[gratuitous]

7. Oh, boo hoo hoo!

Who's going to want to work for these hugely inflated salaries if they have to actually produce something of value? Oh boo hoo hoo! It's just soooo unfair! We need billions of dollars with no strings attached. How can you heartless taxpayers be so, so . . . heartless??? Haven't we always been good to you? We let you look at our fancy yachts and ginormous homes and this is how you pay us back when we need a few billions to tide us over?

This is about the overdraft charges, isn't it? You ungrateful little shitpokes.

[MindPilot]

8. I've heard that Bangalore is absolutely brimming with 'talent" - cheap too!

So get your "talent" with H1B visas like you did for your IT department.

[City Lights]

9. Poor things.

[notadmblnd]

10. Oh, the poor little rich bastards...

My heart bleeds for them. What will they do without their big expensive cars, vacations and bank accounts. Who will clean their shitty toilets, who will do their gardening, who will cook their meals and raise their children? My god, we're dooming them to a life of toil and doing for themselves.. oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth, oh the travesty:sarcasm:

[boobooday]

11. They've got a weird definition of "talent"

I thought it meant people who were actually good at something.

[Supersedeas]

12. but the major television Media Outlets sure to like those Advertising $$$$

Wonder if the Major Networks would consider returning tax payer dollars that they have received to run them Big Bank commercials?

[MindPilot]

13. Don't see why they should.

Unlike the bankers, the TV networks actually delivered the service they were paid for.

[Supersedeas]

15. you mean the TV commercials about AIG knowing money were a 'service' to us??

Heck, we should give TV executes tax dollars directly instead of cyphoning $$$ through the Madison Avenue marketeers -- their service to the country doing the nation so much good and all.

[MindPilot]

17. No, TV commercials are the price we pay for TV content.

The ad agencies buy air-time from the networks and the networks run the ads. Advertising is a legitimate expense for any business. It is not the same as funneling enormous bundles of taxpayer cash to the individuals who screwed things up in the first place.

Are you saying that a company receiving bailout money should stop advertising? What other services should they stop buying? Housekeeping? Facilities maintenance? Just how much micro management should a bailout entail?

[Supersedeas]

18. Advertising is a legitimate expense for any business that is solvent.

Most probably, you missed the initial point that the network punditry is all up in arms about questioning and legitimate oversight of the Corporate expenditures of business entities that are being bailed out by taxpayers.

My rhetorical question (inartfully articulated) is why would the networks be so one-sided in their coverage of the Corporate expenditure issue? Ad $$$ maybe?

Between the segments when Corporate spokes-dweebs posing as self-righteously indignant pundits who feign being incredulous about the government interfering in legitimate business expenditures, we are force fed commercials about "AIG knowing money."

Almost as if there ought to be a full disclosure about this or that political segment being "brought to you by" the banking industry that received your bailout money. So the Banking Elites take our money with one hand and use part of that money to sponsor segments that bash the idea that government ought to question how the money GIVEN TO THEM is used.

Sweet, how the commercial media works that way for business elites.
But, who in their right mind would have an issue with how that system works.

[MindPilot]

19. Well there ya go inartfully articulating rhetorical questions!

Now I get where you're coming from and I agree with you. :D

[WeDidIt]

14. So if all the banks have limited bonuses and executive pay....

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THESE LOSERS GOING TO FIND A JOB THAT PAYS MORE???????

Suck it up, assholes. Your greed forced millions of Americans to take lower pay. Time for the assholes that started this shit to pay the piper.

[PufPuf23]

16. Perhaps if the "talent" scrams then an at least marginally

more moral cadre of equal technical talent can have a turn.

Cycle rinse and repeat alas.