• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Will Congress try to tax away these bonuses?

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,206
176
106
Link

So Wally World is giving out 2 BILLION DOLLARS in profit sharing and bonuses.

How dare they right?

Since this congress is more determined than ever to throw the Constitution out the window, then they better...right?

 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,481
5
76
Originally posted by: waggy
wow. stupid comparison.
Not really. When you hear geitner, frank and others speak they always say they support such measures for companies that didn't get tarp money. Obama also stated such during his campaign. I wouldn't be surprised at all if congress tried to expand this crap. 250K is the magic number by which they're coming after you.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
22,710
4,030
136
Say it with me "It just doesn't matter! Because all of the really good looking girls, are still going to go out with the guys from Camp Mohawk, because they got all the money!"

Unreasoned rant FTL.

 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
9
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: waggy
wow. stupid comparison.
Not really. When you hear geitner, frank and others speak they always say they support such measures for companies that didn't get tarp money. Obama also stated such during his campaign. I wouldn't be surprised at all if congress tried to expand this crap. 250K is the magic number by which they're coming after you.
yes it is.

only ones getting taxed on it are a very select few and only those that got a bailout from the goverment.

Wal-mart has no way got a bailout. so yes the comparison is fricken stupid.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,481
5
76
Barney Frank - Oct 2008.

"There should be a moratorium on bonuses," Frank said yesterday, according to Bloomberg. "They have a negative incentive effect because they are the ones that say if you take a risk and it pays off you get a big bonus...and if it causes losses...you don't lose anything."

http://www.businessinsider.com...ts-to-zero-out-bonuses
--------------
When he's talking like this it is a VERY fair comparison. It only took one week to single out TARP recipients. They could just as easily pass another one for non-TARP receipients and as you can see they WANT to. Have you heard what this nutjob says/thinks?

The OP asked if congress will try to tax walmart bonuses and currently that seems very possible.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
The comparison on its surface is a terribly pointless one. I can't pretend that congress won't try and tax these bonuses, as spidey is concerned about, because really this government is completely running amok and predicting its actions is all but impossible.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
9
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The comparison on its surface is a terribly pointless one. I can't pretend that congress won't try and tax these bonuses, as spidey is concerned about, because really this government is completely running amok and predicting its actions is all but impossible.
i fully expect them to try in a year or two. it really depends on how the tax they just did goes.


but right now you can't compare the two. in a 2 years? maybe but not now.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,066
3,592
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
The OP asked if congress will try to tax walmart bonuses and currently that seems very possible.
First they will force Walmart into a Union. Then Congress will fund the Union, and thus they'll own Walmart and take away horrible "tax payer" funded bonuses.
 

mooseracing

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,712
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
How much money has the gov given walmart?
Only matters if it is above 5 billion given to a corp....another stupid number congress came up with
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
How many people at Wal-mart make over $250,000.00???? Would that even get the Store manager or only higher individuals?

I think $250,000 is too low a cutoff. I would raise the limit to $2 Million.

My reasoning is what if you are a valued resource and you deserve a bonus. If you have a PHD and they want to give you a bonus of say $100,000.00, then maybe a person like that mighe be deserving of a bonus. While on the other hand if you make 10 million as a CEO and you and the board vote you a 20 mil bonus maybe that is a little outrageous.

This could kill all the extra pay that ex-presidents make on the Speaking Circuit!
 

Lotheron

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2002
2,188
1
71
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Link

So Wally World is giving out 2 BILLION DOLLARS in profit sharing and bonuses.

How dare they right?

Since this congress is more determined than ever to throw the Constitution out the window, then they better...right?
RIGHT: Rewarding people who make a company profitable with perks and bonuses including money.

WRONG: Rewarding people in a money losing company with the money that was used to bail them out with taxpayer's money.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,066
3,592
126
Originally posted by: Lotheron
RIGHT: Rewarding people who make a company profitable with perks and bonuses including money.

WRONG: Rewarding people in a money losing company with the money that was used to bail them out with taxpayer's money.
I have heard Democrats here mention before that if you simply exist within society than you are reaping the benefits of tax payer money. Thus no one is immune to property confiscation.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
When you use terms like make a company profitable, this kind of term can be confusing. For instance a company may have different divisions and departments that all work differently. On division may be making money while another division may be losing money. So you may want to reward the department that is actually profitable. Also even if your department was not making money, you may be keeping it from losing even more money during tough economic times. Many retail stores lose money for 11 months and make all of their income during the Christmas Season.

Business decisions can be confusing and convoluted. This is why the Government needs to stay out of the business world. Elected officials do not understand business and they probably understand the world of insurance even less. The USA would be better off not propping up AIG and just leave well enough alone. I was against giving them more money. If the Government does not like the situation, then they should just ask for all of their money back. At this point I dont care if everyone at AIG Staves to death. We did not force them into business and we have no business propping them up or keeping them in business. If they dont know how to run a profitable insurance company then let they all go out of business, and the US Govt can count this venture as Sunk Cost.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY