The government giveth, the government taketh away.
Taxcashblog.com
|
Denouncing a “squandering of the people’s money,” lawmakers voted decisively Thursday to impose a 90 percent tax on millions of dollars in employee bonuses paid by troubled insurance giant AIG and other bailed-out companies.
The House vote was 328-93. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate and President Barack Obama quickly signaled general support for the concept.
Republicans took Democrats to task for rushing to tax AIG bonuses worth an estimated $165 million after the majority party stripped from last month’s economic stimulus bill a provision that could have banned such payouts.
AIG has received $182.5 billion in federal bailout money and is now 80 percent government-owned.
Obama administration special envoy Richard Holbooke was on AIG’s board of directors in early 2008, when the insurance company committed to the bonuses, and during the previous years of aggressive investment strategies that brought the firm to brink of collapse. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday: “Mr. Holbrooke had nothing to do with and knew nothing about the bonuses.”
Will this make things better, or is it just a “look good now” tactic for Congress and the White House?
I wonder why we don’t have the usual blame Bush people writing in this thread……..
Maybe they have their heads planted firmly in the ass of someone like Frank or Dodd or Rangle or Pelosi.
# 32 Mr Diesel said, “I wonder why we don’t have the usual blame Bush people writing in this thread……..”
Post Bush derangement syndrome? Plus, it looks REALLY lame to defend the lib idiots in congress and the new PotUS…
There’s no joy in Libville today.
As I read the excerpt (I admit I did not read the linked material), I was at first indignant. These people are our lawmakers! Haven’t they even looked at the Constitution? You can not pass a law that is applicable only to a certain group of people. What if they pass a punitive tax against blog commenters who call themselves Mr Fusion? Thank you, Mike in Newark for researching the exact wording.
Then I thought, how can a law be retroactive? Ex Post Facto, indeed. I knew that high school Latin would come in handy one day. If I drive past a certain spot at 60 mph and a month later they build a school there, should I get ticketed for speeding in a school zone?
What idiot would propose a law they should know is unconstitutional, would be challenged in court immediately with a few thousand Amici Curiae briefs filed IF it ever passed muster in the Senate and IF it were ever signed into law. Then I figured it out. What idiot? ALL the idiots who are standing for election in 2010 and preparing their “platforms.”
They know it will never get through the Senate so this way they go to their constituencies and say, “I tried, folks!” Then they can blame it all on the damned senators.
End of rant. Just out of curiosity, anyone know how those bonuses will be taxed under the current regulations? Is it ordinary income or is there a special category for “mandatory” bonuses?
It allows them to say “see we took back $180 million from those greedy executives” as a cover for giving $180 billion to the banksters.
If you recall there was the same wearing-of-sackcloth when it was revealed that nearly 10% of the TARP money ($70B) went to funding last year’s Wall Street bonuses. However Wall Street lobbyists are more powerful than AIG’s, so that went nowhere.
# 34 Nimby said, “Just out of curiosity, anyone know how those bonuses will be taxed under the current regulations? Is it ordinary income or is there a special category for “mandatory” bonuses?”
It’s just income.
And people here mocked the idea that business investment is down for fear of Obama’s tax plan.
This just sounds wrong, to tax at will people whom we are mad at.
I’m generally in favor of the Obama administrations efforts but this turkey? I don’t think he should sign it, sounds like mob rule and going after law biding “despicable in some cases” but law biding citizens.
damn it! I’m on the same side as cursur or paddy on some thing
I need a drinking problem
>Third, I don’t understand how a company losing money can reward its people with bonuses. That defies all logic that failure is rewarded.
Easy. These aren’t performance bonuses, they are retention bonuses. As posted before in another thread, a year ago is about when Bear Stearns went under. The employees knew things were getting worse at AIG, and they were headed out the door. AIG needs qualified people to wind down the business, and help keep the company afloat, even if it was the same people that got them in trouble. So they hand out agreements for people to stay one year. DUring that year AIG goes from 2.7 trillion in liabilities to 1.6 trillion.
I think 165 million dollars is worth a 1.1 trillion dollars return.
# 38 ghost in the machine said, “This just sounds wrong, to tax at will people whom we are mad at.”
It is actually unconstitutional and thus HIGHLY illegal. Anyone in either branch who supports it should be thrown out of office for willfully violating the constitution. Not that I expect any lib on this board to support the constitution…
That conservative guy you voted for had a big problem with the constitution
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_vs._the_U.S._Constitution
Lets see if this is just grand standing for the cameras or if they actually get a bill singed.
# 41 ghost in the machine said, “That conservative guy you voted for had a big problem with the constitution…”
Hmm, I didn’t vote for him but I did support the Dems getting back congress so they’d impeach. Do YOU support impeaching a Pres for violating the Constitution?
Waiting…
#30 – Paddy-O
No, but I’m sure O’mama, being a Harvard Law dude will NEVER sign a bill into law that is unconstitutional. I mean that would intentionally be violating his oath of office and be treason, which is currently punishable by death…
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Didn’t they teach you that in Radio Shack? If this is treason and punishable by death, then there are going to be a lot of deaths going around in government.
# 43 Misanthropic Scott said, “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.”
I am glad you agree that there is no excuse for Obama.
Good man.
#31 – JimR,
As one of 300 million chickens, well said, but why insult headless chickens?
Not having any confidence in your interpretation of the US Constitution and knowing you like to make quick inane responses I’ll skip answering you on that one.
But if you are wondering lying about a BJ under oath, not a State issue.
yes its lying under oath I hate to admit it but I think some questions are more equal than others
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys for political ideals Yes! State issue. I could go on but you can just google crimes of the provisos administration. Better leave a day or two to read them all.
Glad you did not vote for Bush knowing you are so civic minded and would not shirk your voting responsibility:::assuming you were old enough in 2000 the Nader and Gore supporters here plus the 2004 Nader and Kerry supporters here will be glad to know you are on there side Paddy who did not vote for Bush
#37 – MikeN,
And people here mocked the idea that business investment is down for fear of Obama’s tax plan.
??!!?
How exactly does discouraging using bailout money as boni discourage anyone who actually has money and didn’t ask for a bailout from investing their money?
#44 – Paddy-trOll,
Do you actually know how to read?
# 46 ghost in the machine said, “Not having any confidence in your interpretation of the US Constitution”
No interpretation is necessary, just read the section. I pasted it on post #27. I can understand how you wouldn’t want to call Obama on the carpet for violating his oath of office and the Constitution. LOL
#49
that all you got Paddy you Gore Nader Kerry voter.
If you are referring to US Congress bravado about enacting a law to tax bonus recipients at companies that receive bailout funding. Lets wait and see if such a bill ever gets signed.
My bet is nope, just a show for the outraged masses
I think Obama knows to stay away from that one and just let the Congress have there fun with the cameras.
#50 – http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003062407
I’ll let you know if Obama signs it…
Thanks #25 I was trying to find that Article myself, however it still bothers me that they’re trying to do this. It’s a scary precedent to set to let the government reach back into time to take money you earned from you. All the while saying they won’t completely refund money that you paid in taxes but never got (i.e. the Madoff ponzi scheme).
Personally, I don’t care about the bonuses, but would like to see AIG investigated for other offenses. For example, dealing out bailout money to foreign banks (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/16rescue.html?hp), but that’s just me.
LOL. A.I.G. Sues U.S. for Return of $306 Million in Tax Payments: http://tinyurl.com/dfsnbw
On “The Economist” their interviewed Barney Frank about this. He had a better solution. He said the government should have sued AIG as an owner to block or recover these funds. First smart things I’ve ever heard him say.
Why isn’t anyone bringing up the fact that there is a cost of transferring this money back and forth?
# 54 Ron Larson said, “First smart things I’ve ever heard him say.”
As majority stock holder the Gov could just direct the company to write a check to the Gov for the amount.
Done.
#54–Ron Larsen==sue AIG for what? There is no “I don’t like what you did” cause of action. Violation of law–none. Violation of Contract?–Just the opposite.
#56–Paddy -O- Nonsense==the same. “In General” the rights of stockholders is only to elect the Board Members. After that you look to the By Laws for any special vote issues. I doubt AIG has empowered its stockholders to do much of anything.
I like the AIG mess. It is half the camel under the tent for the Gov to regulated ALL THE OVERPAID CEO’S that have gotten away with this crap given the limited power of the stockholders.
It won’t be a silver lining until the rule gets moderated down to a 95% tax on all income above 20 times the average hourly wage.
A rocket launch to existential recognition that indeed all jobs/work have equal dignity and are paid the same within that limited range.
Hah, hah. Probably just a dream.
# 57 bobbo said, “#56–Paddy -O- Nonsense==the same. “In General” the rights of stockholders is only to elect the Board Members.”
Extrapolate a little Booboo. The “Gov” tells the Board Members to do it or lose their position. Use that little thing between your ears…
#58–Paddy -O- FlipFlop==oh, when you said xyz, you were actually thinking of abc?
Well, thats different.
#47, a 90% tax.
Imagine the impact if Congress passed a 90% tax on business income. Now with this bill, business owners think there is a chance it will happen to them, and act accordingly. Take a look at bobbo’s post above calling for a 95% tax. Before it was just words coming from various liberals. Now it is seen in action, raising the likelihood that taxes will go up. So why take a risk in a business when if you fail you lose, and if you do well, you may still lose 90%?
# 59 bobbo said, “oh, when you said xyz, you were actually thinking of abc?”
Nope. Exactly as I said. If you think the Board wouldn’t do it, you are clueless about public companies.