w00t, House passes bill that taxes AIG bonuses at 90%!!!

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Or maybe they should enact laws fairly and justly and make it apply to all 470 companies receiving TARP funds and not just 2.12% of them.

It does apply to all companies. It is just that 98% of them knew better and were more responsible with their TARP funds.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh no, the government doesn't want companies to reward their employees for destroying our economy, so unfair, so unfair!

*plays world's smallest violin*

*beats you with world's largest timpani mallet*

Then MAYBE the government, in their infinite wisdom, SHOULD HAVE PUT SOME GOD DAMN RESTRICTIONS ON HOW THE MONEY WAS USED!

Or maybe they should enact laws fairly and justly and make it apply to all 470 companies receiving TARP funds and not just 2.12% of them.

Or maybe AIG could've not given out bonuses in bad faith. People say these fuckers should be glad they still have a job. I disagree, these fuckers should be glad the people aren't wielding torches and pitchforks and skewering them in public.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: waggy
pity that the goverment is willing to trash the constitution.


while i am upset they are getting bonuses what the govermetn is doing is far worse. all it is going to do is lead to lawsuits and such.

How is this unconstitutional?

😕

I don't know if it is, but heard there might be some problems with Article 1, section 9, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). If this only relates to criminal law, then I guess the question would be does confiscating these peoples' property amount to punishment as if they had committed a crime?

Then there's the 5th, which reads inpart:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I think they deserve some 'due process' before the federal governemtn just takes their money/property.

Then there's the 14, in part:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If they're getting 'equal protection' we're all fvcked. The government should NOT be able to take your property because it's political popular and beneficial to some Washington jackass's re-election efforts.

Another one of my problems with this tax is that it was the company that had an agreement with the government, not the indivuals. Yet, the individuals are being punished. What exactly did they do wrong?

H3ll, for that matter I'm not sure what law the company broke?

This seems really horrible to me, the government punishing individuals because they feel like it even when no one can to point to any law or rule broken. It's even worse if the new information explaning that most of the bonuses look justified is correct.

Fern

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: sactoking
Or maybe they should enact laws fairly and justly and make it apply to all 470 companies receiving TARP funds and not just 2.12% of them.

It does apply to all companies. It is just that 98% of them knew better and were more responsible with their TARP funds.

No, it only applies to companies that received more than $5 billion in funds. Which companies were those? Only the ones REQUIRED to sell $125 billion in capital stock to the fed.

Originally posted by: Phokus
Or maybe AIG could've not given out bonuses in bad faith.

Yeah, b/c honoring a contract is bad faith. :roll:

 

[WaTaGuMp]

I am sorry but if a company is drowning and I throw them a lifeline to survive, YOU DON'T JUMP BACK IN THE FUCKING WATER. 🙂

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh no, the government doesn't want companies to reward their employees for destroying our economy, so unfair, so unfair!

*plays world's smallest violin*

*beats you with world's largest timpani mallet*

Then MAYBE the government, in their infinite wisdom, SHOULD HAVE PUT SOME GOD DAMN RESTRICTIONS ON HOW THE MONEY WAS USED!

Or maybe they should enact laws fairly and justly and make it apply to all 470 companies receiving TARP funds and not just 2.12% of them.

Or maybe AIG could've not given out bonuses in bad faith. People say these fuckers should be glad they still have a job. I disagree, these fuckers should be glad the people aren't wielding torches and pitchforks and skewering them in public.

Let's pose a little imaginary scenario here. Suppose you've been working for a company for 15 years. You are very knowledgeable about the business of the specific division you work in. Through no fault of yours the company nearly goes tits up but the government intervenes to prevent a massive impact on the economy. You personally weren't involved in any of the decisions that caused it to founder.

The decision is made to close down the division you work in. That company asks you to stay on until the end, and promises a rather large payment if you do, so they can use your years of expertise to lessen the financial severity of shutting down the division. You and the company agree on that and you work in good faith till the end and get your payment.

Suddenly the media comes out with a story about how you received a large payment (though no mention of how that work saved taxpayers money in the process, lots of it). Now there are uninformed asshats who think YOU were responsible for the failure and want to stick pitchforks in your ass or string you up in a tree because they are either too lazy or too stupid to grasp the facts of the matter. Congress decides to levy a massive tax on you to cover for their own ineptitude in the process. How would that make you feel? I bet you'd be more than a bit peeved at those uninformed asshats.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh no, the government doesn't want companies to reward their employees for destroying our economy, so unfair, so unfair!

*plays world's smallest violin*

*beats you with world's largest timpani mallet*

Then MAYBE the government, in their infinite wisdom, SHOULD HAVE PUT SOME GOD DAMN RESTRICTIONS ON HOW THE MONEY WAS USED!

Or maybe they should enact laws fairly and justly and make it apply to all 470 companies receiving TARP funds and not just 2.12% of them.

Like the govt can predict the future... Its sort of implied when you borrow money, that you will use it for the intended purpose.

What if we were good friends and I told you I was in deep trouble. I need to borrow $5000 because I am way behind and may lose my house. You loan me the money... The next week you find out I take my wife to Hawaii for 2 weeks. Are you an idiot for not specifying that the money was for my house payment, and not for Hawaii? No, I am an asshole for taking advantage of the money you lent to me. If I were you, I would be pissed and want that money back immediately.

And as far as the govt. involving itself with a private companies monetary situation, AIG gave up that right when they took the money. The Govt owns a major portion of AIG and as a part owner they have a say.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

This is a stupd bill passed to placate the rampaging masses that are ignorant of the facts of the situation, and to provide cover for some of the Democrat fuck-ups *cough*Dodd*cough* that allowed this in the first place. I guess little more could be expected of Pelosi though. Way to run cover Nancy.

We can always rely on you never to let facts get in the way of your BULLSHIT!. Dodd actually wrote language into the TARP to stop excessive bonuses for bailouts. As reported by over a month ago in your hero, Rupert's Wall Street rag:

FEBRUARY 5, 2009, 6:03 P.M. ET

Senate Approves TARP Executive-Pay Limits Amendment

By PATRICK YOEST

WASHINGTON -- The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would tighten executive-compensation limits for companies receiving funds from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

The amendment, proposed by Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), follows a Wednesday announcement by President Barack Obama that he would impose a $500,000 compensation limit on top executives at firms that receive "exceptional government" aid. Sen. Dodd's amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

"If you don't do something about this, we will never be able to build confidence and optimism people need to feel about the [TARP] program," Sen. Dodd said.

Unlike Mr. Obama's announced limits, Sen. Dodd's amendment would prohibit firms receiving TARP funds from paying bonuses to their 25 highest-paid employees. The Treasury Department could increase the number of employees prohibited from receiving bonuses at firms that receive TARP funds. It also would require a retroactive review of those firms to determine if they had given improper bonuses while receiving TARP funds.

Another provision in the amendment would allow the government to "claw back," or rescind, bonuses or incentives paid to executives if the pay was based on false earnings reports.

Note that last paragraph.

Yesterday, on Chris Matthews' "Hardball," Dodd said administration representatives made the changes, and he agreed because he was allowed to retain the lamguage he was told the alternative was that the amendment would be removed, entirely. He also said that he agreed to the changes because a provision in the amendment was retained that would allow the government to "claw back," or rescind, bonuses or incentives paid to executives if those payments were contrary to the public interest or inconsistent with the purposes of the Act or the TARP.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

These "bonuses" were actually retention payments contractually promised to employees of the Financial Products Group to entice them to remain with AIG so the FPG could be wound down. The purpose was to keep the employees who knew alot about the business to help reduce the exposure and sell off the assets of the FPG, which they have done, reducing the expsoure approximately 1 trillion dollars. These aren't the people that started the problem in the first place. Those schmucks were rousted from the company already. Yet many people are acting is if the ones who created the mess are the ones getting bonuses. Untrue. In fact, these people are doing the taxpayers a favor and saving us from having to throw significantly more wads of bail-out funds at AIG.

As you open mouth to insert yet another foot. Those "retention bonuses" didn't retain squat.

AIG 'Retention' Bonus Paid To Execs Who Already Left

Eleven of the AIG employees who were received so-called retention bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer with the company, according to a letter from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that was sent to Rep. Barney Frank.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Oh well, whatever. Let the ignorant masses and Pelosi have their way. It surely isn't the first time and undoubtedly won't be the last.

So says one of the most ignorant masses on these forums. :roll:

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh no, the government doesn't want companies to reward their employees for destroying our economy, so unfair, so unfair!

*plays world's smallest violin*

*beats you with world's largest timpani mallet*

Then MAYBE the government, in their infinite wisdom, SHOULD HAVE PUT SOME GOD DAMN RESTRICTIONS ON HOW THE MONEY WAS USED!

Or maybe they should enact laws fairly and justly and make it apply to all 470 companies receiving TARP funds and not just 2.12% of them.

Or maybe AIG could've not given out bonuses in bad faith. People say these fuckers should be glad they still have a job. I disagree, these fuckers should be glad the people aren't wielding torches and pitchforks and skewering them in public.

Let's pose a little imaginary scenario here. Suppose you've been working for a company for 15 years. You are very knowledgeable about the business of the specific division you work in. Through no fault of yours the company nearly goes tits up but the government intervenes to prevent a massive impact on the economy. You personally weren't involved in any of the decisions that caused it to founder.

The decision is made to close down the division you work in. That company asks you to stay on until the end, and promises a rather large payment if you do, so they can use your years of expertise to lessen the financial severity of shutting down the division. You and the company agree on that and you work in good faith till the end and get your payment.

Suddenly the media comes out with a story about how you received a large payment (though no mention of how that work saved taxpayers money in the process, lots of it). Now there are uninformed asshats who think YOU were responsible for the failure and want to stick pitchforks in your ass or string you up in a tree because they are either too lazy or too stupid to grasp the facts of the matter. Congress decides to levy a massive tax on you to cover for their own ineptitude in the process. How would that make you feel? I bet you'd be more than a bit peeved at those uninformed asshats.

Thank you.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Fern
I don't know if it is, but heard there might be some problems with Article 1, section 9, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). If this only relates to criminal law, then I guess the question would be does confiscating these peoples' property amount to punishment as if they had committed a crime?

Then there's the 5th, which reads inpart:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I think they deserve some 'due process' before the federal governemtn just takes their money/property.

Then there's the 14, in part:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If they're getting 'equal protection' we're all fvcked. The government should NOT be able to take your property because it's political popular and beneficial to some Washington jackass's re-election efforts.

Another one of my problems with this tax is that it was the company that had an agreement with the government, not the indivuals. Yet, the individuals are being punished. What exactly did they do wrong?

H3ll, for that matter I'm not sure what law the company broke?

This seems really horrible to me, the government punishing individuals because they feel like it even when no one can to point to any law or rule broken. It's even worse if the new information explaning that most of the bonuses look justified is correct.

Fern

OK. Well, first of all, let's look at this as what it is; a revision of the tax code specifically designed to target TARP funded companies. It's a tax. If you're going to try to claim it's unConstitutional under the 5th amendment, you're essentially arguing that all taxes are unConstitutional, which isn't true because taxes are specifically addressed in Article 1, Section 8, as well as the 16th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment is an interesting point to raise, as much in conjunction with your post as with the posts arguing the slippery slope argument that Congress could use this as precedent to tax specific groups of people. In short, you (and they) are wrong. Taxes are based around money, whether it is an income tax, a sales tax, a use tax, etc. As long as the qualifications placed on the tax are Constitutional (taxing money sources as opposed to taxing someone based on an arbitrary factor like race, for example), the tax should be considered legal. In this case, the government is writing the tax code to cover income taxes on bonus money paid out by corporations who received government TARP funding; it's a specific group of people, but as long as the tax is uniformly administered among that group, it is not unConstitutional. Would you make the claim that capital gains taxes are unConstitutional because not everyone is an investor? Of course not.

As for the 14th Amendment in relation to this claim about the government taxing a specific group like Jews or blacks or Republicans, that would never pass Constitutional muster. When you tax a specific source of revenue, you can tax everyone who earns that revenue in the same manner. Taxing a specific race or religion would not meet the basic requirement of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause because although blacks and whites could have identical revenue streams, the blacks would be taxed differently (for example). Since the tax code is based around money, that would not be an equally applied tax, and thus would be unConstitutional. It's completely different than saying that anyone who earns a specific amount of money in a specific way will be taxed at a specific rate.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh no, the government doesn't want companies to reward their employees for destroying our economy, so unfair, so unfair!

*plays world's smallest violin*

*beats you with world's largest timpani mallet*

Then MAYBE the government, in their infinite wisdom, SHOULD HAVE PUT SOME GOD DAMN RESTRICTIONS ON HOW THE MONEY WAS USED!

Or maybe they should enact laws fairly and justly and make it apply to all 470 companies receiving TARP funds and not just 2.12% of them.

Or maybe AIG could've not given out bonuses in bad faith. People say these fuckers should be glad they still have a job. I disagree, these fuckers should be glad the people aren't wielding torches and pitchforks and skewering them in public.

Let's pose a little imaginary scenario here. Suppose you've been working for a company for 15 years. You are very knowledgeable about the business of the specific division you work in. Through no fault of yours the company nearly goes tits up but the government intervenes to prevent a massive impact on the economy. You personally weren't involved in any of the decisions that caused it to founder.

The decision is made to close down the division you work in. That company asks you to stay on until the end, and promises a rather large payment if you do, so they can use your years of expertise to lessen the financial severity of shutting down the division. You and the company agree on that and you work in good faith till the end and get your payment.

Suddenly the media comes out with a story about how you received a large payment (though no mention of how that work saved taxpayers money in the process, lots of it). Now there are uninformed asshats who think YOU were responsible for the failure and want to stick pitchforks in your ass or string you up in a tree because they are either too lazy or too stupid to grasp the facts of the matter. Congress decides to levy a massive tax on you to cover for their own ineptitude in the process. How would that make you feel? I bet you'd be more than a bit peeved at those uninformed asshats.

Speaking of uninformed asshats, here's Charlie Rangel talking about the bill.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY defends rumors of his own tax evasion and sheds light on a 90% tax on bonuses paid by companies getting more than $5B in TARP funds.

The whole 10 min is worth it.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Like the govt can predict the future... Its sort of implied when you borrow money, that you will use it for the intended purpose.

The intended purchase was to buoy the balance sheets and keep the companies from declaring bankruptcy. The bonus payments were a contingent liability. Paying off contingent liabilities is part of buoying a balance sheet and maintaining operations.

What if we were good friends and I told you I was in deep trouble. I need to borrow $5000 because I am way behind and may lose my house. You loan me the money... The next week you find out I take my wife to Hawaii for 2 weeks. Are you an idiot for not specifying that the money was for my house payment, and not for Hawaii? No, I am an asshole for taking advantage of the money you lent to me. If I were you, I would be pissed and want that money back immediately.

If you want to use that analogy to discuss corporate retreats, that's fine. It doesn't apply here though. A better one would be:

"What if we were good friends and I told you I was in deep trouble. I need to borrow $5000 because I am way behind and may lose my house. You loan me the money... The next week you find out I made my car payment instead. Are you an idiot for not specifying that the money was for my house payment, and not for the car? Yes, but since missing either the house OR the car payment could have sent me into bankruptcy, it doesn't really matter which one I paid or didn't, I needed to pay them both."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

This is a stupd bill passed to placate the rampaging masses that are ignorant of the facts of the situation, and to provide cover for some of the Democrat fuck-ups *cough*Dodd*cough* that allowed this in the first place. I guess little more could be expected of Pelosi though. Way to run cover Nancy.

We can always rely on you never to let facts get in the way of your BULLSHIT!. Dodd actually wrote language into the TARP to stop excessive bonuses for bailouts. As reported by over a month ago in your hero, Rupert's Wall Street rag:

FEBRUARY 5, 2009, 6:03 P.M. ET

Senate Approves TARP Executive-Pay Limits Amendment

By PATRICK YOEST

WASHINGTON -- The Senate approved an amendment Thursday that would tighten executive-compensation limits for companies receiving funds from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

The amendment, proposed by Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), follows a Wednesday announcement by President Barack Obama that he would impose a $500,000 compensation limit on top executives at firms that receive "exceptional government" aid. Sen. Dodd's amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

"If you don't do something about this, we will never be able to build confidence and optimism people need to feel about the [TARP] program," Sen. Dodd said.

Unlike Mr. Obama's announced limits, Sen. Dodd's amendment would prohibit firms receiving TARP funds from paying bonuses to their 25 highest-paid employees. The Treasury Department could increase the number of employees prohibited from receiving bonuses at firms that receive TARP funds. It also would require a retroactive review of those firms to determine if they had given improper bonuses while receiving TARP funds.

Another provision in the amendment would allow the government to "claw back," or rescind, bonuses or incentives paid to executives if the pay was based on false earnings reports.

Note that last paragraph.

Yesterday, on Chris Matthews' "Hardball," Dodd said administration representatives made the changes, and he agreed because he was allowed to retain the lamguage he was told the alternative was that the amendment would be removed, entirely. He also said that he agreed to the changes because a provision in the amendment was retained that would allow the government to "claw back," or rescind, bonuses or incentives paid to executives if those payments were contrary to the public interest or inconsistent with the purposes of the Act or the TARP.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

These "bonuses" were actually retention payments contractually promised to employees of the Financial Products Group to entice them to remain with AIG so the FPG could be wound down. The purpose was to keep the employees who knew alot about the business to help reduce the exposure and sell off the assets of the FPG, which they have done, reducing the expsoure approximately 1 trillion dollars. These aren't the people that started the problem in the first place. Those schmucks were rousted from the company already. Yet many people are acting is if the ones who created the mess are the ones getting bonuses. Untrue. In fact, these people are doing the taxpayers a favor and saving us from having to throw significantly more wads of bail-out funds at AIG.

As you open mouth to insert yet another foot. Those "retention bonuses" didn't retain squat.

AIG 'Retention' Bonus Paid To Execs Who Already Left

Eleven of the AIG employees who were received so-called retention bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer with the company, according to a letter from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that was sent to Rep. Barney Frank.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Oh well, whatever. Let the ignorant masses and Pelosi have their way. It surely isn't the first time and undoubtedly won't be the last.

So says one of the most ignorant masses on these forums. :roll:

Keep up with the news and stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...es.congress/index.html

(CNN) -- Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

...

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with adding the language, which has been used by officials at bailed-out insurance giant AIG to justify paying millions of dollars in bonuses to executives after receiving federal money.

It's clear your hero is a lying sack of shit.

Now on to the bonuses. It's already been discussed that some of those receiving the bonuses have let the company. They finished closing down their division with the FPG. However, they weren't involved in creating the mess in the first place. They were paid for doing what they were asked to do.

Now go away you personal information disclosing sack of shit. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you've just been owned.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
OK. Well, first of all, let's look at this as what it is; a revision of the tax code specifically designed to target TARP funded companies. It's a tax. If you're going to try to claim it's unConstitutional under the 5th amendment, you're essentially arguing that all taxes are unConstitutional, which isn't true because taxes are specifically addressed in Article 1, Section 8, as well as the 16th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment is an interesting point to raise, as much in conjunction with your post as with the posts arguing the slippery slope argument that Congress could use this as precedent to tax specific groups of people. In short, you (and they) are wrong. Taxes are based around money, whether it is an income tax, a sales tax, a use tax, etc. As long as the qualifications placed on the tax are Constitutional (taxing money sources as opposed to taxing someone based on an arbitrary factor like race, for example), the tax should be considered legal. In this case, the government is writing the tax code to cover income taxes on bonus money paid out by corporations who received government TARP funding; it's a specific group of people, but as long as the tax is uniformly administered among that group, it is not unConstitutional. Would you make the claim that capital gains taxes are unConstitutional because not everyone is an investor? Of course not.

As for the 14th Amendment in relation to this claim about the government taxing a specific group like Jews or blacks or Republicans, that would never pass Constitutional muster. When you tax a specific source of revenue, you can tax everyone who earns that revenue in the same manner. Taxing a specific race or religion would not meet the basic requirement of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause because although blacks and whites could have identical revenue streams, the blacks would be taxed differently (for example). Since the tax code is based around money, that would not be an equally applied tax, and thus would be unConstitutional. It's completely different than saying that anyone who earns a specific amount of money in a specific way will be taxed at a specific rate.

:thumbsup:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Let's pose a little imaginary scenario here. Suppose you've been working for a company for 15 years. You are very knowledgeable about the business of the specific division you work in. Through no fault of yours the company nearly goes tits up but the government intervenes to prevent a massive impact on the economy. You personally weren't involved in any of the decisions that caused it to founder.

The decision is made to close down the division you work in. That company asks you to stay on until the end, and promises a rather large payment if you do, so they can use your years of expertise to lessen the financial severity of shutting down the division. You and the company agree on that and you work in good faith till the end and get your payment.

Suddenly the media comes out with a story about how you received a large payment (though no mention of how that work saved taxpayers money in the process, lots of it). Now there are uninformed asshats who think YOU were responsible for the failure and want to stick pitchforks in your ass or string you up in a tree because they are either too lazy or too stupid to grasp the facts of the matter. Congress decides to levy a massive tax on you to cover for their own ineptitude in the process. How would that make you feel? I bet you'd be more than a bit peeved at those uninformed asshats.

Let's examine the holes in this little scenario, shall we?

1. I've been working for a company for 15 years, I'm incredibly knowledgeable about the workings of my division, but I'm not involved in any of the decisions made? Personally, if I knew about all the under the table dealings and shady practices employed by the AIG financial wing, including their role in the subprime mortgage crisis, I would have, at the very least, told my boss about it. And if he said, "that's the way we do business, keep your mouth shut," I'd either leave, because my conscience demanded it, or stay on knowing that I could get burned when these practices were exposed. Only a complete moron would know all the inner workings of a company without being in a position to influence any of the decisions and assume that they would reap the benefits and none of the consequences.

2. The tax is for bonuses over $250,000.00. If I got $250,000.00 for staying on in a position where I had absolutely no say in anything that happened, I'd feel like a God. How many employees in non-managerial positions do you think are receiving these giant bonuses?

So in your little scenario, I seem to be an overpaid idiot, sitting around twiddling my thumbs while bad decisions are made all around me, aware that they are being made but too lazy to do anything about them, and rewarded for my breathtaking ambivalence with copious amounts of money. In your scenario, I would be kissing Nancy Pelosi's feet while I took an undeserved 3 year vacation in Hawaii.

So to answer your question, no, I would not be peeved.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh no, the government doesn't want companies to reward their employees for destroying our economy, so unfair, so unfair!

*plays world's smallest violin*

*beats you with world's largest timpani mallet*

Then MAYBE the government, in their infinite wisdom, SHOULD HAVE PUT SOME GOD DAMN RESTRICTIONS ON HOW THE MONEY WAS USED!

Or maybe they should enact laws fairly and justly and make it apply to all 470 companies receiving TARP funds and not just 2.12% of them.

Or maybe AIG could've not given out bonuses in bad faith. People say these fuckers should be glad they still have a job. I disagree, these fuckers should be glad the people aren't wielding torches and pitchforks and skewering them in public.

Let's pose a little imaginary scenario here. Suppose you've been working for a company for 15 years. You are very knowledgeable about the business of the specific division you work in. Through no fault of yours the company nearly goes tits up but the government intervenes to prevent a massive impact on the economy. You personally weren't involved in any of the decisions that caused it to founder.

The decision is made to close down the division you work in. That company asks you to stay on until the end, and promises a rather large payment if you do, so they can use your years of expertise to lessen the financial severity of shutting down the division. You and the company agree on that and you work in good faith till the end and get your payment.

Suddenly the media comes out with a story about how you received a large payment (though no mention of how that work saved taxpayers money in the process, lots of it). Now there are uninformed asshats who think YOU were responsible for the failure and want to stick pitchforks in your ass or string you up in a tree because they are either too lazy or too stupid to grasp the facts of the matter. Congress decides to levy a massive tax on you to cover for their own ineptitude in the process. How would that make you feel? I bet you'd be more than a bit peeved at those uninformed asshats.

The same situation applies to those who are responsible with their financial housing decisions while asshats who took out sub-prime mortgages and drove the price of housing through the roof get to refinance at a lower rate so they can stay in their homes.

America rewards bad behavior and punishes the good and that's ASS BACKWARDS.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Let's examine the holes in this little scenario, shall we?
2. The tax is for bonuses over $250,000.00. If I got $250,000.00 for staying on in a position where I had absolutely no say in anything that happened, I'd feel like a God. How many employees in non-managerial positions do you think are receiving these giant bonuses?

Actually, per the bill quoted above, if your household AGI > $250,000 ANY bonus you receive from AIG is subject to this tax. The bonus itself does not have to be >$250,000.

 

[frostedflakes]

Meh, I don't really know how I feel about this. I think it's good that Congress is sending a strong message to these companies that they will not allow them to do whatever they please with federal money, but it sounds like the legality and Constitutionality of this bill is debatable.

FWIW, though, a 90%+ tax rate isn't unprecedented. The top income tax bracket actually peaked at 94% during WW2, and stayed above 90% for a number of years after the war. It wasn't until the Reagan years that income tax was really slashed.

 

[sciwizam]

For more clarity on who's receiving the bonuses and if they are responsible for the mess and how are they receiving a retaining bonus if they have left the company, here is a clip form the hearing yesterday.

Text

Drag the slider to around 4hrs 22mins and wait till the questions were answered which ends around 4hrs 29min.

 

[jpeyton]

This scenario works out perfectly. Without a crisis, the Democrats would not have been able to ride in and play the hero.

Expect the approval rating of Congress/Obama to shoot up once this gets signed into law.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This scenario works out perfectly. Without a crisis, the Democrats would not have been able to ride in and play the hero.

Expect the approval rating of Congress/Obama to shoot up once this gets signed into law.

Starting the fire and then putting it out does not make you a "hero" 😉

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Starting the fire and then putting it out does not make you a "hero" 😉

It worked for that guy in Backdraft. Oh, wait....

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh no, the government doesn't want companies to reward their employees for destroying our economy, so unfair, so unfair!

*plays world's smallest violin*

*beats you with world's largest timpani mallet*

Then MAYBE the government, in their infinite wisdom, SHOULD HAVE PUT SOME GOD DAMN RESTRICTIONS ON HOW THE MONEY WAS USED!

Or maybe they should enact laws fairly and justly and make it apply to all 470 companies receiving TARP funds and not just 2.12% of them.

Or maybe AIG could've not given out bonuses in bad faith. People say these fuckers should be glad they still have a job. I disagree, these fuckers should be glad the people aren't wielding torches and pitchforks and skewering them in public.

Let's pose a little imaginary scenario here. Suppose you've been working for a company for 15 years. You are very knowledgeable about the business of the specific division you work in. Through no fault of yours the company nearly goes tits up but the government intervenes to prevent a massive impact on the economy. You personally weren't involved in any of the decisions that caused it to founder.

The decision is made to close down the division you work in. That company asks you to stay on until the end, and promises a rather large payment if you do, so they can use your years of expertise to lessen the financial severity of shutting down the division. You and the company agree on that and you work in good faith till the end and get your payment.

Suddenly the media comes out with a story about how you received a large payment (though no mention of how that work saved taxpayers money in the process, lots of it). Now there are uninformed asshats who think YOU were responsible for the failure and want to stick pitchforks in your ass or string you up in a tree because they are either too lazy or too stupid to grasp the facts of the matter. Congress decides to levy a massive tax on you to cover for their own ineptitude in the process. How would that make you feel? I bet you'd be more than a bit peeved at those uninformed asshats.

Lets pose another scenario for you: You work for a company that goes belly up, has no cash, and gets no government bailout. You worked for a profitable unit of the company, but you get laid off anyway and now you don't have a job and the economy is in tatters and you can't find work anywhere else.

So in other words, these fuckers should be counting their blessings that the government isn't letting their company implode and they still have a job.

THE FUCKING END.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

OK. Well, first of all, let's look at this as what it is; a revision of the tax code specifically designed to target TARP funded companies. It's a tax. If you're going to try to claim it's unConstitutional under the 5th amendment, you're essentially arguing that all taxes are unConstitutional, which isn't true because taxes are specifically addressed in Article 1, Section 8, as well as the 16th Amendment.
First, I'm not definitively saying it's unconstitutional, I'm raising possibilities. Nor do I believe claiming this is unconstitutional essentially means all taxes are therefor unconstitutional by extention. This 90% is vastly different form other taxes in many ways.

This new tax amounts to approximatley 100% (after SS and state tax). That's confiscatory. The question, I think, is can the government legitimately use 'income tax' as a mechanism to confiscate peoples' property? The Constitution, like much in law, is not so 'mechanical' as some may believe. There is the 'spirit of the law', otherwise large parts of the Constitution could be easily circumvented by suppling an (otherwise unconstitutional) action with a 'legal' label. The Constitution says in TWO places that the government can't take your property without 'due process', can that be circumvented merely by labeling it a 'tax'? I hope not.

This is tax is highly focused on an exceedingly small target - these employees. Their contracts were 'legal' and in plce even before TARP came into picture IIRC. They were legal after TARP, they're legal now. Why are they being targeted? Why is their property being confiscated?

Were they paid with TARP money? I haven't seen that question raised, it's another assumption taken for granted (as is the assumption that these people don't 'deserve' bonuses). I think it should be questioned. For one thing, money is fungible, for another I suspect that this company has revenues which far exceed the TARP money. Who's to say that they weren't paid out of that money, and not TARP money? If that's not proven to be TARP money, how can the government get 'their' money back from these employees?


The 14th Amendment is an interesting point to raise, as much in conjunction with your post as with the posts arguing the slippery slope argument that Congress could use this as precedent to tax specific groups of people. In short, you (and they) are wrong. Taxes are based around money, whether it is an income tax, a sales tax, a use tax, etc. As long as the qualifications placed on the tax are Constitutional (taxing money sources as opposed to taxing someone based on an arbitrary factor like race, for example), the tax should be considered legal. In this case, the government is writing the tax code to cover income taxes on bonus money paid out by corporations who received government TARP funding; it's a specific group of people, but as long as the tax is uniformly administered among that group, it is not unConstitutional. Would you make the claim that capital gains taxes are unConstitutional because not everyone is an investor? Of course not.
Everyone who sells a capital asset gets taxed, no matter who, where or what. These people are in the financial services industry, are all others in the finacial services indusrty getting similarly taxed? Of course not. Why are they not treated equally?

(They personally made no agreement with the governemtn as regards TARP. In fact, the company did but the bonus they paid were in accordance with the law.)

AIG is said to have paid most of the TARP funds out to other banks etc. Did their execs recieve TARP money? Are they getting taxed?

As for the 14th Amendment in relation to this claim about the government taxing a specific group like Jews or blacks or Republicans, that would never pass Constitutional muster. When you tax a specific source of revenue, you can tax everyone who earns that revenue in the same manner. Taxing a specific race or religion would not meet the basic requirement of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause because although blacks and whites could have identical revenue streams, the blacks would be taxed differently (for example). Since the tax code is based around money, that would not be an equally applied tax, and thus would be unConstitutional. It's completely different than saying that anyone who earns a specific amount of money in a specific way will be taxed at a specific rate.
But again, other people earning similar amounts, in similar ways are not being taxed.

And, is this being targeted, not for racial reasons, but for political reasons? I.e., can Congress confiscate your property because you're in a politically unpopular class of people? Obviously, that is what's going on here. Can we tax the hell out of member of the US communist party? Can we tax convicted pedophiles at a 90% rate because they are unpopular?

See bolded above.

One other things. Congress in the unusual position of contradicting itself. The legislation they passed very specifically 'OK's' pre-Feb 11 contracted bonuses. Now they have turned around and contradicted themselves by confiscating those very bonuses that they authorized.

I feel that there is something highly irrational about that, perhaps even causing the law to be declared defect in some way.

And if this dos get before the courts, I suspect the 'motive' for this tax may be discussed. If so, that's gonna be ugly.

Fern

 

[KK]

Democraps are just trying to get the focus off their raping of the country by giving these worthless corporations our money. Way to go stupid ass liberals. Let's focus on 165 million, instead of the billions they pissed away. It's only been 60 days, can't wait to see how bad they fuck this country up by this time next year.

Oh and I hope the legality of this piss poor, unconstitutional bill gets struck down.