Yesterday, we brought you the insurance company that wouldn’t insure a 17-pound infant because he was too heavy. Today, we bring you the investment bank that manages to double its bonuses during the worst recession since the Great Depression.
On Thursday, Goldman Sachs will announce the firm’s bonus payments for 2009. Analysts expect the bonus pool to mushroom to $23 billion — double the bonus pool paid to employees in 2008. Earlier this year, Goldman Sachs said that it had put aside $11.4 billion for bonuses during the first half of the year.
“The absolute size of compensation payouts will rise significantly,” Keith Horowitz, an analyst at Citigroup, wrote in a note to clients two weeks ago, highlighted by Andrew Sorkin in The New York Times‘ dealbook column Tuesday.
How much is $23,000,000,000?
For one thing, it’s enough to send 460,000 full paying students to Harvard University for one year, or 115,000 for four years.
It’s enough to pay the health insurance premium for the average American family ($13,375) 1.7 million times.
It’s enough to upgrade 191 million computers to Windows 7 operating system (priced at $119.99), or to buy 115 million iPhones at $199.99 (provided the recipient was willing to sign a two-year contract).
Or, apparently, it’s enough to reward the employees of Goldman Sachs for a bonanza trading year, at a firm where average employee compensation was recently $622,000 — and likely to be greater this year.
The $23 billion figure could leave some American taxpayers woozy — the US government bailed out Goldman Sachs with a multi-billion payment last year, which the firm has since repaid.
But while Goldman is likely to pay its biggest bonuses ever to employees, the firm pays very little in taxes worldwide. In 2008, the company was said to have paid just $14 million in taxes worldwide, and paid $6 billion in 2007.
The firm’s corporate tax rate? About 1 percent. According a prominent tax lawyer, “They have taken steps to ensure that a lot of their income is earned in lower-tax jurisdictions.”
Sorkin says Goldman’s CEO is trying to hold off criticism by making a big charitable donation.
“Now there’s talk inside Goldman that it is considering making a huge charitable donation — perhaps more than $1 billion — as a way to help deflect the criticism,” Sorkin says. “Such a donation would be a welcome gesture that would no doubt benefit many needy organizations. But it would most likely be seen for what it is: a one-time move to draw attention away from where most of the money is really going. A large charitable donation also raises questions about the company’s fiduciary duty to its shareholders; it could be seen as giving away profits that ostensibly belong to them.”
‘Where’s Melania?’ The View hosts blister first lady for ignoring ‘bully-in-chief’ Trump’s attack on Greta Thunberg
A discussion on Donald Trump's bitter Twitter attack on 16-year-old environmentalist Greta Thunberg, after she aced him out of Time Magazine's Person of the Year, caught the attention of the panelists on The View, who hammered both the president and the first lady after they both protested the mention of their teen son Barron just weeks ago.
After co-host Joy Behar read the president's tweet from Thursday morning where he proclaimed, "So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!" she called the president out for being jealous of the teen for getting the Time magazine cover he so desperately wanted.
Matt Gaetz probably isn’t the best to go after someone’s drug use: Internet cautions Republican Congressman
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) probably isn't the best person to make an argument against driving under the influence given his own arrests. Even Rep Hank Johnson (D-GA) cautioned against "the pot calling the kettle black," during the Thursday House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Gaetz was arrested for a DUI in 2008 on suspicion of a DUI after he refused a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer test. Just two years later he was elected to the Florida state legislature and by 2016 he was in Congress.
Rhode Island Dem perfectly explains why Trump should be impeached — and not face re-election
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) explained why President Donald Trump should be impeached and removed, instead of voted out of office next year.
Republicans have complained that impeachment would overturn the last election, but the Rhode Island Democrat laid out the case for removing Trump before he faced re-election.
"Impeachment is an especially essential remedy for conduct that corrupts elections," Cicilline said, quoting from an open letter signed by more than 800 legal scholars.