You Try to Live on 500K in New York.

[Bindare_Dundat]

PRIVATE school: $32,000 a year per student.

Mortgage: $96,000 a year.

Co-op maintenance fee: $96,000 a year.

Nanny: $45,000 a year.

We are already at $269,000, and we haven’t even gotten to taxes yet.

Five hundred thousand dollars — the amount President Obama wants to set as the top pay for banking executives whose firms accept government bailout money — seems like a lot, and it is a lot. To many people in many places, it is a princely sum to live on. But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast.

“As hard as it is to believe, bankers who are living on the Upper East Side making $2 or $3 million a year have set up a life for themselves in which they are also at zero at the end of the year with credit cards and mortgage bills that are inescapable,” said Holly Peterson, the author of an Upper East Side novel of manners, “The Manny,” and the daughter of Peter G. Peterson, a founder of the equity firm the Blackstone Group. “Five hundred thousand dollars means taking their kids out of private school and selling their home in a fire sale.”

Sure, the solution may seem simple: move to Brooklyn or Hoboken, put the children in public schools and buy a MetroCard. But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue: a life of private schools, summer houses and charity galas that only a seven-figure income can stretch to cover.

Few are playing sad cellos over the fate of such folk, especially since the collapse of the institutions they run has yielded untold financial pain. But in New York, where a new study from the Center for an Urban Future, a nonprofit research group in Manhattan, estimates it takes $123,322 to enjoy the same middle-class life as someone earning $50,000 in Houston, extricating oneself from steep bills can be difficult.

Therefore, even if it is not for sympathy but for sport, consider the numbers.

The cold hard math can be cruel.

[Straw Man]

wow - so I guess the conclusion is that everyone who lives in NYC must currently make more than $500k.
I mean the only way to live there is to own a multi-million dollar co-op and put your kid in private school, etc..

[Soul Crusher]

wow - so I guess the conclusion is that everyone who lives in NYC must currently make more than $500k.
I mean the only way to live there is to own a multi-million dollar co-op and put your kid in private school, etc..

No.  Most of us live in the bouroughs or the immediate suburbs and work like dogs for a lot less.

[SAMSON123]

PRIVATE school: $32,000 a year per student.

Mortgage: $96,000 a year.

Co-op maintenance fee: $96,000 a year.

Nanny: $45,000 a year.

We are already at $269,000, and we haven’t even gotten to taxes yet.

Five hundred thousand dollars — the amount President Obama wants to set as the top pay for banking executives whose firms accept government bailout money — seems like a lot, and it is a lot. To many people in many places, it is a princely sum to live on. But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast.

“As hard as it is to believe, bankers who are living on the Upper East Side making $2 or $3 million a year have set up a life for themselves in which they are also at zero at the end of the year with credit cards and mortgage bills that are inescapable,” said Holly Peterson, the author of an Upper East Side novel of manners, “The Manny,” and the daughter of Peter G. Peterson, a founder of the equity firm the Blackstone Group. “Five hundred thousand dollars means taking their kids out of private school and selling their home in a fire sale.”

Sure, the solution may seem simple: move to Brooklyn or Hoboken, put the children in public schools and buy a MetroCard. But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue: a life of private schools, summer houses and charity galas that only a seven-figure income can stretch to cover.

Few are playing sad cellos over the fate of such folk, especially since the collapse of the institutions they run has yielded untold financial pain. But in New York, where a new study from the Center for an Urban Future, a nonprofit research group in Manhattan, estimates it takes $123,322 to enjoy the same middle-class life as someone earning $50,000 in Houston, extricating oneself from steep bills can be difficult.

Therefore, even if it is not for sympathy but for sport, consider the numbers.

The cold hard math can be cruel.

GEE I am sure the public feels absolute sympathy for this scum that is making a  case that these THIEVES should be compensated a bonus of more than 500,000 dollars. Oh how sad!!!

I say HANG 'EM from every high tree, light pole, and sky scraper for stealing as they have and destroying the economy like they have....

[headhuntersix]

These are extreme if not ridiculous examples...Uncle Sam needs to butt out all together.

[Straw Man]

No.  Most of us live in the bouroughs or the immediate suburbs and work like dogs for a lot less.

Would you be able to scrape by on 500k?

[Soul Crusher]

Would you be able to scrape by on 500k?

I can live a great life on half of that.  Its just that I keep my spending at reasonable levels.

This article is insane.  No one needs all that garbage.

[Straw Man]

These are extreme if not ridiculous examples...Uncle Sam needs to butt out all together.

I have no problem with compensation caps for any company that was bailed out by the taxpayer.  If nothing else it incentivizes these companies to pay back the tax payer (which I thinkn some have already talked about doing) and hopefully they'll be more prudent going forward to avoid the temptation to line up for more handouts from the US taxpayer.

[Soul Crusher]

TARP was a bad idea in the first place and is setting the stage for even worse "fixes" to come.

[grab an umbrella]

I have no problem with compensation caps for any company that was bailed out by the taxpayer.  If nothing else it incentivizes these companies to pay back the tax payer (which I thinkn some have already talked about doing) and hopefully they'll be more prudent going forward to avoid the temptation to line up for more handouts from the US taxpayer.

Think about the concept of what you are saying here.  This is just another step for the government to take more control of the private sector.  Its funny because of how slickly it's disguised.  It sounds like such a great idea, I mean really, who doesn't want to "stick it to the fat cats". 

[Straw Man]

TARP was a bad idea in the first place and is setting the stage for even worse "fixes" to come.

Get ready because they might going back to the original plan which was to take trouble/toxic assets off the balance sheets of these banks to put into a "bad bank" repository or even follow the Swedish model which I believed wiped out the shareholders value athough in the end I think the govt actually made a slight profit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em   

[Soul Crusher]

Get ready because they might going back to the original plan which was to take trouble/toxic assets off the balance sheets of these banks to put into a "bad bank" repository or even follow the Swedish model which I believed wiped out the shareholders value athough in the end I think the govt actually made a slight profit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em   

And what about the first 350 billion???

Theft!!!!

[Straw Man]

Think about the concept of what you are saying here.  This is just another step for the government to take more control of the private sector.  Its funny because of how slickly it's disguised.  It sounds like such a great idea, I mean really, who doesn't want to "stick it to the fat cats". 

so you think it's ok for the govt to hand out your tax dollars to bail out a bank and then put absolutely no restrictions on how the company compensates it's executives.....the very people who drove the company into the ground and wouldn't even have a job if it weren't for our tax $$$'s.

I think they should just refuse the tax payer funded bailout and go bankrupt instead.  That would actually be my preference.

[grab an umbrella]

so you think it's ok for the govt to hand out your tax dollars to bail out a bank and then put absolutely no restrictions on how the company compensates it's executives.....the very people who drove the company into the ground and wouldn't even have a job if it weren't for our tax $$$'s.

I think they should just refuse the tax payer funded bailout and go bankrupt instead.  That would actually be my preference.

I completely agree with the fact that the bailouts were stupid.

[Soul Crusher]

I completely agree with the fact that the bailouts were stupid.

They set a TERRIBLE precedent. 

[IFBBwannaB]

Unless I missed it we are only talking about the BONUS,don't forget....BONUS...500K.. BONUS...no one said they can't have a 1M salary.

I might have missed the part about the whole salary.

[240 is Back]

Unless I missed it we are only talking about the BONUS,don't forget....BONUS...500K.. BONUS...no one said they can't have a 1M salary.

I might have missed the part about the whole salary.

the 500k limit includes all bonuses and divvies.

[Straw Man]

the 500k limit includes all bonuses and divvies.

I think they can still get stock options but can't exercise them until the govt is paid back.

I imagine they will find loopholes for deferred comp, etc..

[Straw Man]

Unless I missed it we are only talking about the BONUS,don't forget....BONUS...500K.. BONUS...no one said they can't have a 1M salary.

I might have missed the part about the whole salary.

I thought it was total compensation with stock options only capable of being exercised after tax $$'s are paid in full.

[Dos Equis]

Socialist garbage.  Maybe the government should regulate the salaries of every business that gets tax credits.     Very dangerous precedent. 

[Straw Man]

Socialist garbage.  Maybe the government should regulate the salaries of every business that gets tax credits.     Very dangerous precedent. 

there's just a slight difference btw giving a company a tax credit and pumping in cash to keep the company from going BK.

[Soul Crusher]

there's just a slight difference btw giving a company a tax credit and pumping in cash to keep the company from going BK.

Both are delaying the inevitable.

Taxpayers should not have to prop up failed and fraudulent businesses.

We are paying enough now.  GWB and Obama should both F themselves for trying to put more of this garbage on our backs.   

[240 is Back]

there's just a slight difference btw giving a company a tax credit and pumping in cash to keep the company from going BK.

yes.  those CEOs are saying "I need to borrow your grandchildren's money, or my business will fail."

IMO they should be wearing tattoos on their foreheads that say "I suck".  If they don't want the tat, don't ask for free money.

[IFBBwannaB]

I think they can still get stock options but can't exercise them until the govt is paid back.

I imagine they will find loopholes for deferred comp, etc..

Well...there is still plain old salary each month....they can still pump it up and in reality keep the situation like it always was, not to mention the other loopholes they can find quite easily.

[grab an umbrella]

Well...there is still plain old salary each month....they can still pump it up and in reality keep the situation like it always was, not to mention the other loopholes they can find quite easily.

Okay here is the problem.  It sounds great in theory to limit these jackasses salaries, afterall they are afloat because we the taxpayer kept them there.  Now the problem is we as Americans become comfortable with the notion that limiting salaries is okay.  It's a very slippery slope and a tool that the government uses to gain new power.