Bonus Tax

Krieg

dutyje

I don't believe that this tax is saying that the money was obtained illegally, so I don't really see where that applies. And no, there is no contract verbiage stating that the individual is entitled to those bonuses.

laker1963

PuroFreak

phobicsquirrel

pretty much got that one on the head laker.

Krieg

dutyje

PuroFreak

I hate to dispute you here because we do agree in principle on this issue, but some of the bonuses were in the contracts for SOME of the execs with AIG. Not all of them were but some were part and their employment agreement.

blazer

Let’s see if I have this straight… Congress hands out bail-out money to save the world. Included are companies like AIG. Treasury Department negotiates with companies and influences how Congress should write the bill and influences the language of the bill that hands out free money… to save the world. Senator Dodd has an amendment stating “Contractual obligations before Feb. 11 are NOT affected by the bill’s restrictions” on what the money, … tax payer’s money, our money, is used for. Bill is voted on and passed. That is the BILL IS VOTED ON AND PASSED! That is the CLOWNS on the hill VOTED on it… and said that “this is a good bill” as is evidenced by virtue of “our vote for it” and that AIG could honor pre Feb 11 contracts. AIG honors pre Feb. 11 contracts. Public goes NUTS because … that’s our MONEY! CLOWNs on the hill make it look and sound like AIG swindled them and stole the money that Congress said, in the bill, that AIG could use … for what they used it for. AIG did not write the bill. No one at AIG can vote for the bill only the idiots in Congress had the power to do that. Is it not obvious to everyone that Congress and the Treasury and the current Administration have all acted incompetently! That ALL, who voted for this, are irresponsible, negligent, and reckless in their obligations. That Congress and the Administration are nothing less then down right foolish in their duties. Is it not more obvious that at this point, under their leadership, doing nothing and letting the free market run its course is far less dangerous, and far more productive then any remedy that this circus can possibly produce? Folks it’s amateur hour in Washington! Do I want AIG to use my tax dollars on retention bonuses? NO! Preventing this, however; was Congresses’ job, the treasury’s job, PRIOR to handing out US Tax payer’s money. This WAS NOT DONE! Now; the only thing worse then a reckless, incompetent government, which we now have, is one that can not be counted on to deal in good faith. A government that makes agreements, contracts and bargains and then reneges on them is a dangerous thing. A government wherein officials change the rules in mid course and retroactively go back and change regulations that they themselves set in place and threaten and intimidate citizens who get caught in between changes is outrageous! I have not heard one member of our government acknowledge that this entire mess was the fault of the law makers. Instead what I have heard is an endless rant from Washington attacking citizens who did just exactly what congress authorized them to do. Folks we are transitioning well beyond amateur hour and rapidly moving toward some type of regime that operates unchecked, unanswerable and drunk with notions of power while lacking at the same time in every measure of duty. These clowns MUST go. Any and all who voted for this MUST go! Any and all who voted for a retroactive Tax must go. They are a gaggle, of liars and thieves and bullies that if left in power will evolve into destroyers and tyrants. Scott V. Evans Jacksonville, NC

dutyje

That is true, Puro.. there are some execs with wording regarding the minimum payable bonus. I put verbiage into an offer I was tendered with Wachovia a few years ago, as part of our negotiation. When I went to B of A, I eliminated the "bonus" concept altogether from my compensation and rolled it into my base salary... I still get bonuses, but now they're actual bonuses -- money beyond what I would normally expect. Most of the other bank associates plan on getting their bonus, because it is expected. There are exceptions to many contracts, but as a general rule, a "bonus" is just that, regardless of the employee's expectations. Laker's point about "retention" is really on the money (pun intended) here.

gmill880

Am I understanding the 90% bonus tax that just passed the House...anyone making over 250k any bonus they get is taxed at 90%? Is this talking about anyone any industry or just companys taking Govt. money/bailout ?

urbino

Just the companies getting $5bn or more in gov't bailout money, I think. Not that it matters. Sounds like it's probably both unconstitutional and unpassable in the senate.

Luko

dutyje

urbino:

Just the companies getting $5bn or more in gov't bailout money, I think. Not that it matters. Sounds like it's probably both unconstitutional and unpassable in the senate.

In what way is this unconstitutional? Another great thing about our system is that the checks and balances (specifically, in this case, the judicial system) are designed to prevent something such as this from happening. If it is unconstitutional, and does pass, seems like almost a slam dunk for the Supreme Court.

urbino

From what I'm hearing, it's likely to fall in the category of an ex post facto law. Personally, I don't quite get that, since they aren't making anything retroactively illegal; they're just adjusting the rates at which taxes will be levied on this year's income. But, then, I know nothing about the case law on the ex post facto clause, so I'm taking the supposed experts' word.

dutyje

I believe that only applies in the case of criminal law, not tax law. If that is not the case, wouldn't Bush's retroactive tax cuts have been technically illegal then as well? Also, since these changes apply to the current tax year, could either of those even be considered a retroactive tax change?

gmill880

PuroFreak

dutyje:

I believe that only applies in the case of criminal law, not tax law. If that is not the case, wouldn't Bush's retroactive tax cuts have been technically illegal then as well? Also, since these changes apply to the current tax year, could either of those even be considered a retroactive tax increase?

No that wouldn't apply because it only applies when you are "depriving" someone of their property. A retroactive tax cut doesn't deprive citizens of their money, it gives it back.

dutyje

But then you're depriving the welfare bums, sooo.....

PuroFreak

Haha, not exactly the same... But I'm for depriving them so sounds good to me! That shouldn't be illegal, it should be mandatory!!! ~

zoom6zoom

Look, the .gov pukes knew about the upcoming bonuses BEFORE any bailout money was awarded. Now everyone is making a big deal about it. Why? Because it's getting peoples attention, and distracting them from other stuff that's going on - just like Clinton bombing an aspirin factory. Keep your eyes open!

laker1963

laker1963

urbino

dutyje:

I believe that only applies in the case of criminal law, not tax law. If that is not the case, wouldn't Bush's retroactive tax cuts have been technically illegal then as well? Also, since these changes apply to the current tax year, could either of those even be considered a retroactive tax change?

Yeah, like I said, it doesn't make any sense to me, but I don't know anything about the case law on the subject, so I'm not in a position to intelligently critique the argument.

urbino