Comments on: What would you do if you’re the pay czar?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:11:17 +0000

I’d tell the $100M Man “See you later! Good luck finding a job.”

By: zeke

zeke — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:22:17 +0000

These so called Czars put in place by socialist Obama are UNCONSTITUIONAL AND MUST BE LEGALLY CHALLENGED AS SUCH!! THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING TO INTERFERE WITH PRIVATE BUSINESSES!!!!!!!!

By: zeke

zeke — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:19:20 +0000

Enter your comments here

By: Sternberg

Sternberg — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:31:31 +0000

The Constitution says that our government will not take any of our property without due process of law. That contractual bonus is his property. There is no law that allows us to just walk up and take it back.
Just because the rest of the company lost money, his division made billions.

By: Dude

Dude — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:05:09 +0000

NativeAtlantan- 30-45%? Where do you get these figures? The max income rate is 33% (much lower than in the past under presidential administrations you’d be laughed out of the room for calling “socialist”, by the way). And please don’t tell me you think this guy is paying 33%. He’s paying 15% capital gains taxes on most of what he clears in a year (going on the safe assumption he invests for himself). And he’s probably hooked in with beast accountants and tax shelters that can minimize his payments on any salary or bonus income.
Tell me how that’s fair- someone who’s already rich enough to just let money sit around collecting interest and dividends for them only pays 15%, while people who actually work for a living have to give up 25-33%.
The tax system is flawed, no doubt, but please don’t give me this insane crap about the rich being unfairly burdened while

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:07:36 +0000

He should get his bonus. He made them money and they said that if he did this he’d get a bonus check. Like the article says, if they don’t pay him then he’ll go work for a company that will. So why lose someone that can make you $2 BILLION over $100 million dollars? That’s stupid.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:20:03 +0000

I have a question. If this guy had LOST Citi $2B due to this type of risky arbitrage trading, would he be in anyway responsible for the loss? I think not. I think he would still be able to fall back on a multi-million dollar base salary, mansion in Germany, largest private modern art collection in the world, etc. Yes, there is a contract in place but the fact is that he used someone else’s money (shareholders’) and made a gamble that cost everyone in America money at the pump. His only risk was his reputation and after reading this, a damaged reputation is exactly what he deserves. Cut him off and let him go somewhere else. Citi should focus on its core values and stop the madness that got them in this mess to begin with.

By: Stance

Stance — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:27:07 +0000

Honor the contract. Ask one more thing from him. Spent the money in the USA aka Brewster’s Millions. Be a catalyst to the recovery.

By: FCM

FCM — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:27:03 +0000

I don’t think he should get $100M but at the same time I do not think that Fienberg (or any other government person) should be looking at the package with authority to reject it.

By: Gail

Gail — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:31:05 +0000

Won’t this guy owe about $40mil in federal taxes? Plus state taxes? And maybe local taxes?