Hugo's ghost - not all finacial institutions are based in NYC, not all finacial jobs are based in NYC. This means not all of the 16.4B cut in bonuses as anything to do with NYC. So the theory that 275M is a really small percentage of 16.4B and suggesting the gov should increase taxes is a based on false pretenses.

As for the general drop in bonuses, bonuses paid on performance, lets think about their performance in 2008 compared to 2009. These people in the securities industry measure performance in large part based on stock market performance. The market lost ~30% of its value in 2008. These people lost ~44% of their performance based pay. I work on commission. If my sales dropped 30%, but my comp check shrunk by 44%, I would shop around for a new company to sell for.

Don't cry to me NY, cut your expenses!

1. Neal Boortz is against income and capital gains taxes,

2. Neal Boortz is complaining tax revenue from bonuses were down in NY in defense of those bonuses.

That does not compute.

How about we stay true to libertarian principles and continue to starve the city of tax revenue, forcing them to cut spending?

@Diane: Ayn Rand didn't see into the future. The arguments posited by those across the political spectrum are as old as Government itself.

If your performance was responsible for helping your company lose billions of dollars of investor capitol,how would a bonus be justified?

I imagine when people think of the "evil" rich, they are referring to the Ken Lays of the world telling their employees to buy stock, don't worry, your pension is fine, while unloading their stock and acting like they had no clue what was going on when caught. Remember Adelphia, Worldcom.
Maybe a better label is the "unethical, law-breaking" rich rather than the "evil" rich. I think it's delusional to believe millions of Americans hate those that worked hard with admirable values and ethics at achieving financial success.
Neal, you have to admit that there are dishonest people who have made a pile of money by making bad or unethical decisions that cause people to be laid-off or are given financial incentive to find ways to cut (lay-off) labor expense. The "evil" label comes in the way they go about it. If you can't see the difference, then God Bless You.
No one is "owed" a living but we don't like being lied to by an employer or mislead. If you want to treat us as expendable labor, spare us the "one big happy family BS, here's your $25 holiday grocery gift certificate for your loyalty". It's an insult to our intelligence.
I think it has become expected in the last 20 years there has been a shift in corporate values. Maximum profit over people is Job One. I didn't say profit, I said maximum profit.
Loyalty and hard work are not valued qualities anymore by big corporate America. They value their shareholders as they should but do so over their employees. Only those corporate leaders that can balance the value of both shareholder AND employee deserve a big bonus. It is possible to do both versus one at the expense of the other while raking in a bonus.

Sheesh
The point of this story was not that the companies should have given out the bonuses or whether they rec'd bailout money.
The point is that income tax revenues are down because bonuses have not been paid out.
So now the state and local gov'ts are stating tax revenue is decreasing.

ie: If the "rich" are not bringing home huge incomes to tax, tax revenues go down.
Sheesh.

Oh and by the way heres your definition: greed
Pronunciation: \ˈgrçd\
Function: noun
Etymology: back-formation from greedy
Date: 1609
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Someone that worked hard and made all the right decisions to be successful was considered a person to be admired by most. The majority of comments I hear is how the "evil rich" are either lucky, dishonest or somehow must have cheated to get what they have. I have concluded that the wealth envy crowd is only trying to convince themselves "rich" people are "evil" because it makes them feel better about themselves being underachieving, lazy or just complete failures. One more note ... for the "evil rich" to keep making their money, they must be very smart because this country's progressive tax laws make it harder every day to make a profit.

How long until we have some stupid asinine people saying that we should tax these rich executives based on the bonuses they would have received. This is liberals we're talking about here, remember.

If I had to choose, the so-called DEM leadership is far more corrupt and way more greedy than Corporate CEO's could ever dream to be. And they are way too eager to cover for each other - and help assess blame on others first. Senator Dodd covered for Fannie & Freddie while pocketing their $$$'s.

The sad part is that city, state and federal governments base their spending plans on the enhanced tax revenue generated by the Evil Rich ... and when that well starts drying up our so-called leaders demand more in taxes rather than look for ways to spend less. The poor, poor punished taxpayers are forced to cut back spending to pay the taxes. Please, somebody explain why THAT is so much better? I dare you!

Neal is a big whiner himself. The problem is corruption in government and business, and the average American is forced to cover the costs either way. Neal would have called the men who tossed the tea into Boston Harbor losers in life!

Boy, talk about Pinheads! What Neal is saying (and has said for years) is that it is up to Wall Street (or rather, the individual companies) and their stockholders, whether they pay bonuses or not. Many of you should try actually listening to what he says before you spout off from the mouth. We are heading for the abyss, and like lemmings, we're all going to follow the democrats and their annointed leader right off the edge. Grow some brains, people, before its too late!

Neal, I have no problem with what a corporation deems appropriate to give to execs as bonuses, mainly because I have no say in it. Neither should government. But if I were a shareholder I'd be down at headquarters with torches and pitchforks. That's where to outrage should come from.

You missed this easy one Neal. What has not been factored into your thoughts on this matter is first the bonuses are usually paid based on performance. Were the performances of these firms so stellar that the executives deserved bonuses? Second, if the bonuses were not paid, both New York City and New York state would have collected taxes via the corporate income tax. Finally, if TARP or other Federal funds were used to pay bonuses, the executives received their cut despite poor job performance and the city and state received revenue via an indirect transfer from federal to state/local governments.

I am really crying cause rich NYers arent getting bonuses because Bush put the economy in the toilet.

We are experiencing much the same dilemma here in Connecticut. Many of the those Evil, Greedy Capitalists live along our Gold Coast, and with the possible exception of the Entertainment Elites like David Letterman, most of their earnings have fallen causing our tax revenues to fall. Our RINO governor is looking to bond $500M to fund the state budget shortfalls.

Me? I'm implementing my Escape Plan and moving to Ft. Myers ... then possibly on to Belize. They are not going to stick me with the cost of their incompetence.

God, you are such a pinhead. So, you're saying that Wall Street should go ahead and pay out bonuses this year so New York can recover lost tax revenue? I'm all for paying out bonuses based on performance-seems to me, nobody earned one this year. And Neal, what if Merrill Lynch had decided to give ALL their employees (from janitors to pilots) big bonuses in past years? New York would still get the tax revenue. And if NYC is only getting $275m from a $14.6B gap, they need to be looking at their tax rates. Or you need to check your math.