CEO's Bonus are they unfair?

Tweet

The headline today was "AIG paid $165 million in Bones". AIG received government bailout money and yet they can afford to pay out huge bonus. This is UNFAIR, or so the headlines and the political leaders would have us believe. Just what are these "bonus"? How can a person receive a bonus when the company is losing money? These questions seem to be fair game to ask. It seems that there is a long history of politicians trying to limit the amount of money a successful person can make. Our income tax structure is such that the more you make the higher percent you pay in taxes. After you make your money and use that money to make more money you will be taxed again on that money. Several years ago they decided to put a limit on what a person could make. They changed the tax code to say that a business could only deduct salaries up to $1,000,000. The thinking was a business would not pay more than they could claim on taxes. So business started to tie pay to performance. They created the bonus and the severance package, usually consisting of stock options in the company or money invested in the company to be paid when the person left the company. If the company did good the person earned more money and if the company did poorly the person received less money. One of the more famous examples of this was Lee Iacocca, who took over Chrysler when they were failing. He believed he was the right man for the job and bet everything on it. He took a salary of $1.00 per years for so many years. He also wanted stock in the company so that when he turned the company around he would make his money. Many of these companies paid a dividend on your investment which was reinvested and increased the amount in the "Golden Parachute". Many of the investment bankers and Wall Street people receive yearly bonus based upon how well they did in meeting their goals and how much money they bought into the firm. Their yearly salary was rather small, sometimes ranging for $25,000 to $75,000 (a congressman makes $145,000 + fees for speaking and some public appearances, President Clinton has made millions speaking around the world and nobody is complaining). The people who work in these fields are people who are motivated by money and can wait to receive their compensation. It is a very competitive business and how you are seen in the eyes of your fellow workers may be in the size of your bonus, so you work to see that it is a sizable bonus. Compare this to a congressman who has to vote, with the majority, NOT to increase his/her salary each year. When he/she runs for re-election he goes out and asks people to fund his campaign and can hire his family to work on the re-election. After he/she is done serving he/she will often move out of the state to Washington or some other large city where he/she gets a job lobbying the new congress for money. Who should be rewarded more the one who lives off the taxpayer or the one who creates jobs and pays taxes?