Ridiculous statement.

 

The CEO bonus are not (targeted) tax payer dollars. This sort of rationalization fails as an equivalent theory.

 

Realy? Ridiculous? Say I'm a stock holder of one of those companies and I lost my shirt...and the CEO gets a multimillion dollar bonus. How is that any different that Joe Blow taxpayer not having a say on a government employee's bonus.

 

I think you're way too pro-business, if you think it's not at all equivalent.

Realy? Ridiculous? Say I'm a stock holder of one of those companies and I lost my shirt...and the CEO gets a multimillion dollar bonus. How is that any different that Joe Blow taxpayer not having a say on a government employee's bonus.

 

I think you're way too pro-business, if you think it's not at all equivalent.

 

As a stockholder you have voting rights. Though for most individual investors the votes rarely amount to a large enough bloc to make a difference. And if you 'lost your shirt' you should have sold before that happened. So you do have a say and the ability to uninvest in badly managed company. But its the business's money to spend.

 

Many executives may be overpaid or over bonused by various standards but it is the companies board who controls that. But they set strategies and policies that may or may not work. They take risks. They evaluate investments in new areas. Government administrators do none of these.

 

Government administrators need to administrate according to the law. 'Administrating' processes according to the law is rarely reason for bonuses. Bonuses in the private world can be drive by financial metrics or critical non-financial metrics - like customer satisfaction rates. When was the last time you got a 'customer satisfaction survey' from any government agency?

In private business you are usually provided bonuses for hitting certain 'targets'. May its the same at the IRS....just that the definition of 'target' is not a financial one!

:lol2:

Oh how uninformed many of you are. What are the great benefits that Government Employees get, please tell me because I would like to know about them. Bonuses are earned based upon how you do your job, just like they are in the private sector. Those that exceed expectations may get an award and those that do not will not get one.

 

Many many haters out there. Perhaps if everyone paid their fair share of taxes at all levels of government we would not have all of the problems in the world that we have.

 

I agree. Let's have the 47% that pay no Federal taxes start chipping in.

Mitt lives!

I can't comment without knowing the terms of the bonuses . I like the idea of government employees being incentive based unlike some other government positions. Incentive based pay normally means more production.

I guess my question is, why are they getting a bonus? Regardless of how poorly they are getting paid, government workers usually have very good retirement and benefits. They are considered "public servants". If they wanted to get paid more money, enjoy bonuses, company retreats, etc., they should work in the private sector.

 

Using the IRS as an example, my thought is that the IRS does not sell a product and earn a profit. They collect taxes from tax payers. What is being accomplished in order to receive a bonus? Are they collecting more taxes from more people and getting a bonus for it? Private sector companies normally give bonuses for meeting goals, which means they are making more profit than normal. The IRS does not make any profit and is funded by tax payers. It just doesn't make much sense to me that IRS employees are collecting bonuses and costing taxpayers more money.

Sorry, but being a gov't employee I couldn't disagree more with your statement.

First off if they do what you said they should do and get a job in the private sector, you wouldn't have anyone working in the gov't at all.

Secondly, they do tend to make far less than they would in the private sector yet still choose to work for the company they work for which is a good thing. So why punish them more for making less than they should in the first place.

 

I can tell you one thing, if people chose not to work for the gov't in my profession then their would be anarchy and no one would be safe.

 

 

We had our pay frozen 6 years ago with nothing including cost of living increase over that time. We also had in place step increases (which are basically a bonus) set in place for time of service that was also taken away. So basically we got no pay increase for more than half a decade.

 

Now we don't get bonuses like the IRS got, we are simply looking for a pay increase even if it is just COLA. But for you to say Gov't employees shouldn't get a bonus is simply wrong. I look at a bonus as any pay increase and I have nothing against getting one.

 

The IRS for example can improve profits by collecting more tax money than they have in the past etc. I see nothing wrong with it.

They are not "Bonuses." Merely a way for all of the politicians to make an issue out of nothing. All of those idiots in Washington need to worry about crafting a budget and less on all of the other BS IMO.