90% TARP Tax. Update - the Tax May Be "Dead".

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I find this thread hilarious.

First of all, AIG is free to give the TARP money back anytime they want.

Second, if you think they are 'experts' at running a financial institution, look at their track record. They know about as much as a fifth grader.

This goes waaaaay beyond AIG. This is about the govt seizing ex-post facto legitimately earned family income over $250k from people who's spouses / providers just happened to be unlucky enough to work for a TARP recipient. It's wrong on so many levels, and if you can't see this, then you need your head examined.

Bingo. That's the whole problem with this. It's just so wrong on so many levels. Gubment is trying really, really hard to make sure that it's very difficult to earn over the magic 250K number. Coupled with the other tax screwings and loss of deductions at the magic number soon everybody will be making the same or have their income capped.

First the reasoning starts - "well, just TARP recipients" as you can see the public rabbles over this and thinks it's a good thing (when clearly people are going to get screwed, example the spouse). Then start talking about how bonuses are a bad idea in general (already going on) and the idiot public nods their head. Then try to sell an economic package on Jay Leno and Dateline - public = "gee, go get those evil rich people!!! rabble"

It is coming and I can't believe people don't see it. If you make more than 250k you are going to get royally screwed on many fronts. Not just dictating how you can be compensated, but how much.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I find this thread hilarious.

First of all, AIG is free to give the TARP money back anytime they want.

Second, if you think they are 'experts' at running a financial institution, look at their track record. They know about as much as a fifth grader.

This goes waaaaay beyond AIG. This is about the govt seizing ex-post facto legitimately earned family income over $250k from people who's spouses / providers just happened to be unlucky enough to work for a TARP recipient. It's wrong on so many levels, and if you can't see this, then you need your head examined.

Bingo. That's the whole problem with this. It's just so wrong on so many levels. Gubment is trying really, really hard to make sure that it's very difficult to earn over the magic 250K number. Coupled with the other tax screwings and loss of deductions at the magic number soon everybody will be making the same or have their income capped.

The Gubmnet owns 80% of AIG, it can do whatever it wants to it. Like I said, a healthy institution being subject to this would be very very wrong.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I don't disagree that one contract is as valid as another, but either the bonuses are to control costs in bad years or they aren't - it's hard to imagine there's been a worse year than this one, and all these 'bonuses' are guaranteed!

Like I said, the company takes its chances signing a minimum pay clause and that's the way it is and has been for top performers.

Remember that the $250k pay cap is for FAMILY income. So what if your spouse is an attorney making $300k per year and you are a trader at JPMorgan, a firm that took TARP money. So, that means if you make $150k base + $400k bonus, the govt will confiscate 90% of your family income above $250k?? WTF.

Another example, one of my coworkers neighbors was an attorney and is retiring this year with a multi million retirement package. Her spouse works for a TARP recipient as a trader. And they are worried about 90% of her retirement package being confiscated -- how do you reconcile this??

In both cases, the govt is punishing your spouse in the process. That is communism, actually might be fascism, pure & simple. I hope Barack and the Senate come to their senses.
All I'm saying is the great benefit of bonus-based pay that you were on about in your last post doesn't really seem to apply here.

It's neither communism, nor fascism, btw, though it's probably bad legislation.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Here's another inncont person hit with eth 90% tax

By JONATHAN CLEMENTS (in part)

Like Bernie Madoff, I've got the government coming after my money. Unlike Madoff, I didn't do anything wrong.

All of this might come as a surprise to those of you who recognize my byline. Until a year ago, I was The Wall Street Journal's personal-finance columnist -- and widely considered to be a friend of the ordinary investor.

But that was then. In April 2008, I left to join a new Citi venture. (What follows are my views -- not those of Citigroup Inc.) For the past year, I thought I was involved in building a wonderful, customer-friendly business that minimizes conflicts of interest, favors index funds, and helps everyday Americans with their entire financial lives.

It seems that I was sadly mistaken. If the rebuke from Washington is any guide, I have apparently played an integral part in the collapse of the global economy and the financial markets -- and I must be punished.

Should the House bill become law, my bonus will be taxed at up to 90% once my adjusted gross income hits $250,000...As you might imagine, this is a tad perplexing, given that I've never been involved in lending to subprime mortgage borrowers and, as far as I know, nor have any of the folks I now work with.

I realize readers won't be shedding tears -- $250,000 is a decent chunk of change (though, trust me, it doesn't buy that great a lifestyle in New York). Still, the bill could cause financial headaches. Some of my colleagues have already spent their bonus or put a big chunk into their 401(k) plan, so finding the money to pay the 90% tax will be a struggle. Some have total incomes that don't come close to $250,000 -- but they breach that level once their spouse's salary and their investment income are included. The bill could also hurt the economy, encouraging banks to cut back on lending, so they can return their bailout money and protect employees from the surtax.

Not buying the hardship angle? Not persuaded that this tax is unfair? Consider this truly searing indictment: A 90% tax is downright stupid, creating bizarre disincentives. Exhibit A? That would be me. Once my total income hits $250,000 for the current calendar year, I will have no incentive to work a single day more in 2009. After all, for every extra dollar of income I earn above $250,000, I will lose 90 cents of the bonus I received earlier this year.

...by mid-October, I will hit $250,000 in total income -- and have no incentive to earn any more income in 2009.

At that point, I plan to ask Citi for an unpaid sabbatical. Forget earning more income. There's no point.

Fern
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Fern, just wanted to compliment your ability to discuss an issue without resorting to personal attacks. Its refreshing to feel like you actually care about the issue and aren't just using the board to boost your ego.

You've opened my eyes to the issue. I don't think that the solution is just to let AIG get away with what they did, but at the same time that doesn't mean we should be using it as an excuse to randomly attack other people. I also think that those who allowed AIG to do it should be help accountable, not just AIG. If the government says you can do it, then how the hell can you hold it against the business? That is not to say that I think government approval gives companies the right to maintain immoral practices, but it is ridiculous to think that we can hold a company accountable when we dont hold the government accountable.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Well the Senate will delay voting on this until April. Hopefully by then, cooler heads will have prevailed. I am cautiously optimistic this grossly unfair tax will never see the light of day. I wouldn't at all be surprised if some couples get divorced (at least temporarily) in order to protect their incomes -- especially successful spouses with big incomes unwittingly married to people working for TARP recipient firms.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: brencat
Well the Senate will delay voting on this until April. Hopefully by then, cooler heads will have prevailed. I am cautiously optimistic this grossly unfair tax will never see the light of day. I wouldn't at all be surprised if some couples get divorced (at least temporarily) in order to protect their incomes -- especially successful spouses with big incomes unwittingly married to people working for TARP recipient firms.

Anecdotally me and my girl are putting off getting married specifically because of all this tax screwage going on. If we were married we would get a divorce as that appears to be the only way around it.

This is a huge marriage penalty.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Here's another inncont person hit with eth 90% tax

By JONATHAN CLEMENTS (in part)

Like Bernie Madoff, I've got the government coming after my money. Unlike Madoff, I didn't do anything wrong.

All of this might come as a surprise to those of you who recognize my byline. Until a year ago, I was The Wall Street Journal's personal-finance columnist -- and widely considered to be a friend of the ordinary investor.

But that was then. In April 2008, I left to join a new Citi venture. (What follows are my views -- not those of Citigroup Inc.) For the past year, I thought I was involved in building a wonderful, customer-friendly business that minimizes conflicts of interest, favors index funds, and helps everyday Americans with their entire financial lives.

It seems that I was sadly mistaken. If the rebuke from Washington is any guide, I have apparently played an integral part in the collapse of the global economy and the financial markets -- and I must be punished.

Should the House bill become law, my bonus will be taxed at up to 90% once my adjusted gross income hits $250,000...As you might imagine, this is a tad perplexing, given that I've never been involved in lending to subprime mortgage borrowers and, as far as I know, nor have any of the folks I now work with.

I realize readers won't be shedding tears -- $250,000 is a decent chunk of change (though, trust me, it doesn't buy that great a lifestyle in New York). Still, the bill could cause financial headaches. Some of my colleagues have already spent their bonus or put a big chunk into their 401(k) plan, so finding the money to pay the 90% tax will be a struggle. Some have total incomes that don't come close to $250,000 -- but they breach that level once their spouse's salary and their investment income are included. The bill could also hurt the economy, encouraging banks to cut back on lending, so they can return their bailout money and protect employees from the surtax.

Not buying the hardship angle? Not persuaded that this tax is unfair? Consider this truly searing indictment: A 90% tax is downright stupid, creating bizarre disincentives. Exhibit A? That would be me. Once my total income hits $250,000 for the current calendar year, I will have no incentive to work a single day more in 2009. After all, for every extra dollar of income I earn above $250,000, I will lose 90 cents of the bonus I received earlier this year.

...by mid-October, I will hit $250,000 in total income -- and have no incentive to earn any more income in 2009.

At that point, I plan to ask Citi for an unpaid sabbatical. Forget earning more income. There's no point.

Fern

So the solution is simple get ride of the 250,000 dollar threshold.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I don't disagree that one contract is as valid as another, but either the bonuses are to control costs in bad years or they aren't - it's hard to imagine there's been a worse year than this one, and all these 'bonuses' are guaranteed!

Like I said, the company takes its chances signing a minimum pay clause and that's the way it is and has been for top performers.

Remember that the $250k pay cap is for FAMILY income. So what if your spouse is an attorney making $300k per year and you are a trader at JPMorgan, a firm that took TARP money. So, that means if you make $150k base + $400k bonus, the govt will confiscate 90% of your family income above $250k?? WTF.

Another example, one of my coworkers neighbors was an attorney and is retiring this year with a multi million retirement package. Her spouse works for a TARP recipient as a trader. And they are worried about 90% of her retirement package being confiscated -- how do you reconcile this??

In both cases, the govt is punishing your spouse in the process. That is communism, actually might be fascism, pure & simple. I hope Barack and the Senate come to their senses.

Uh because you are making up examples that the tax doesn't apply to doesn't make the tax wrong.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: smack Down
Uh because you are making up examples that the tax doesn't apply to doesn't make the tax wrong.

Umm, his examples are perfectly fine and not made up and many people are facing it. Many terms or retirement are a lump sum for service and not just a typical pension.
 

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Fern
Here's another inncont person hit with eth 90% tax

By JONATHAN CLEMENTS (in part)

Like Bernie Madoff, I've got the government coming after my money. Unlike Madoff, I didn't do anything wrong.

All of this might come as a surprise to those of you who recognize my byline. Until a year ago, I was The Wall Street Journal's personal-finance columnist -- and widely considered to be a friend of the ordinary investor.

But that was then. In April 2008, I left to join a new Citi venture. (What follows are my views -- not those of Citigroup Inc.) For the past year, I thought I was involved in building a wonderful, customer-friendly business that minimizes conflicts of interest, favors index funds, and helps everyday Americans with their entire financial lives.

It seems that I was sadly mistaken. If the rebuke from Washington is any guide, I have apparently played an integral part in the collapse of the global economy and the financial markets -- and I must be punished.

Should the House bill become law, my bonus will be taxed at up to 90% once my adjusted gross income hits $250,000...As you might imagine, this is a tad perplexing, given that I've never been involved in lending to subprime mortgage borrowers and, as far as I know, nor have any of the folks I now work with.

I realize readers won't be shedding tears -- $250,000 is a decent chunk of change (though, trust me, it doesn't buy that great a lifestyle in New York). Still, the bill could cause financial headaches. Some of my colleagues have already spent their bonus or put a big chunk into their 401(k) plan, so finding the money to pay the 90% tax will be a struggle. Some have total incomes that don't come close to $250,000 -- but they breach that level once their spouse's salary and their investment income are included. The bill could also hurt the economy, encouraging banks to cut back on lending, so they can return their bailout money and protect employees from the surtax.

Not buying the hardship angle? Not persuaded that this tax is unfair? Consider this truly searing indictment: A 90% tax is downright stupid, creating bizarre disincentives. Exhibit A? That would be me. Once my total income hits $250,000 for the current calendar year, I will have no incentive to work a single day more in 2009. After all, for every extra dollar of income I earn above $250,000, I will lose 90 cents of the bonus I received earlier this year.

...by mid-October, I will hit $250,000 in total income -- and have no incentive to earn any more income in 2009.

At that point, I plan to ask Citi for an unpaid sabbatical. Forget earning more income. There's no point.

Fern

So the solution is simple get ride of the 250,000 dollar threshold.

and replace it with what? 90% tax for anything is just stupid.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Acanthus
In closing, fuck off.

You're telling that to those who pay the bills? Good luck with that one.

You see, this is EXACTLY why government intervention is the problem. Companies are now owned by political agendas, which have nothing to do with the market. Ergo, you've introduced chaos into what was a very natural and stable environment. This political whim will remove private investment, in other words: sink the stock market, and sink the economy. SINGLE HANDEDLY.

You don?t need anything else to destroy the economy than socialism. That wealth you?re telling to fuck off was paying your bills. It was your wealth too, but you got greedy. Now you will pay the price, you will guarantee a collapse of this economy.

:confused:
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,858
4,411
136
I think the problem people have with it is why are taxpayers paying these bonuses? It doesnt matter if they were the people that caused the problem or not. Even if they were the good ones who made billions of ethical dollars for the company. My tax money should not be paying their bonuses.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,639
2,909
136
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I think the problem people have with it is why are taxpayers paying these bonuses? It doesnt matter if they were the people that caused the problem or not. Even if they were the good ones who made billions of ethical dollars for the company. My tax money should not be paying their bonuses.

Then you as a taxpayer shouldn't be going out and buying businesses. But, since your duly elected lawmakers, acting under the full authority you've granted them, have decided its in your best interest to use your tax dollars to make you a business owner, you have to suck it up and accept everything that comes with being a business owner, including paying bonuses to employees.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Acanthus
In closing, fuck off.

You're telling that to those who pay the bills? Good luck with that one.

You see, this is EXACTLY why government intervention is the problem. Companies are now owned by political agendas, which have nothing to do with the market. Ergo, you've introduced chaos into what was a very natural and stable environment. This political whim will remove private investment, in other words: sink the stock market, and sink the economy. SINGLE HANDEDLY.

You don?t need anything else to destroy the economy than socialism. That wealth you?re telling to fuck off was paying your bills. It was your wealth too, but you got greedy. Now you will pay the price, you will guarantee a collapse of this economy.

:confused:

Yeah, that's one of the stupidest things that's ever been said on the internet. A natural and stable environment? Really?

Calm down honey. I know we're at 35,000 feet and all the engines have failed. And it looks like one of the wings fell off... sorry, both of them. Here we are, at 35,000 feet in a hollow metal tube, hurtling towards the ground at 1,000 mph. But you have to appreciate this natural, stable environment we're in. What's that stewardess? No, no parachute for me; that would only introduce chaos into my world. We'll just enjoy this natural, stable... hey, hon', where are you going?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Congratulations on your work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...ion/25desantis.html?em


It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in ? or responsible for ? the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company ? during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 ? we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I?d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute?s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.?s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable ? in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.?s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity ? directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country?s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn?t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That?s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would ?live up to its commitment? to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts ?distasteful.?

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts ? until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It?s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made ? tacit or otherwise ? with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You?ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.?s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.?s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to ?name and shame,? and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats ? even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There?s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn?t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.?s or the federal government?s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less ? in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company?s diverse businesses ? especially those remaining credit default swaps. I?ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what?s happened this past week I can?t remain much longer ? there is too much bad blood. I?m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I?ll leave under my own power and will not need to be ?shoved out the door.?


 
Nov 7, 2000
16,403
3
81
off topic but reminds me of...
hmmm, lets tax tobacco, it will generate revenue while motivating people to stop smoking
<people stop smoking>
OMFG WHERE DID THE TAX REVENUE GO PANIC
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I'm hearing rumors that the 90% tax is dead,

Too many constitutional problems. Too much demonizing of the very group Geithner's new plan needs. Maybe even it's now considered old news and off the front page.

The Senate was supposed to have considered the bill this week but nothings happened.

The 90% Bonus Tax Looks Dead

All of Wall Street can give a big "Thank You" to the 15 AIG (AIG) bonus recipients that gave the money back last night. According to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, there's no urgency on the part of the Senate to impose a 90% bonus tax, now that the AIG scandal has been kinda defused.

I think his remark about the AIG people giving their bonuses back is an effort to save face. For one, it wasn't just about AIG, many other TARP companies were involved (anyone think it's odd that only few months ago Merril Lynch gave out $4 Billion in bonus and hardly a peep. AIG gives out $165Million and Obama and other pols go on the public relations 'outrage' campaign). For another, these guys could later be re-paid their bonuses apparently with no risk of confiscatory tax. Looks like Congress realized they better stop demonizing these people/companies - we have billions, if not a trillion invested and we'll lose our (taxpayer funded) investment. Looks like they also realized Geithner's plan requires their participation in conjunction with the governement, if the government's gonna 'break' contracts they may be reluctant to participate.

Calmer heads may be prevailing.

Fern
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Good riddance. Pretty much crappy public policy.

It was nice to dream about a 98% tax on these chowder heads but we need them to help unwind the mess ...
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Found a little more on this.

Looks the 90% tax is being ditched for a new proposal that came out of committee yesterday.

It's H.R. 1664

It amends the bailout package passed last year to prohit bonuses regardless of the contract date.

Howver, there are exemptions for:

1. Bonuses that are not excessive or unreasonable, or

2. Bonuses based on employee's performance.

The Secretary (that would be Treasury) is supposed to write regulations defining these terms.

I.e., 90% is replaced with a much more detailed system that will examine bonuses more closely and not just label all as 'bad' (as the 90% tax did).

I'm seeing some news reports (MSNBC for example) saying that companies who participate in the new toxic asset program will be exempt from these bonus rules in an effort to encourage participation. However, after looking quite a bit I can NOT find this exemption in the bill (or anywhere else other than some news articles).

Fern