100% Tax?
 

AIG is in the news again with the bonuses they dolled out, Democratic lawmakers in the hill are proposing a legislation to explicitly [URL="http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2009/03/17/aig-bonus-checks-may-be-taxed-at-up-to-100-says-sen-chuck-schumer.html"]tax their bonuses at 100%.[/URL] Is that even possible? Has that ever been done before?

Re: 100% Tax?
 

I thought I heard that it was up to 91% in some cases.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

These congressmen will do anything even they knew about these bonuses months ago and their stimulas package stated that all due bonus money before the stimulas could still be paid. Now that the news is out they are acting like this is the first time they have heard about this and are outraged. What a joke. Like they don't waist a ton of our money as it is.

From what I read Chuck Schumer was the one who put the provision into the bail out money to allow for these bonuses.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;537678]I thought I heard that it was up to 91% in some cases.[/quote]

During 1944 and 1945 the the [URL="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf"]highest tax bracket[/URL] was 94% and from 1951 to 1963 it was around 91% to 92%.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=saden1;537684]During 1944 and 1945 the the [URL="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf"]highest tax bracket[/URL] was 94% and from 1951 to 1963 it was around 91% to 92%.[/quote]


On a side note, the top rate in Britain was 95% for many years. Hence the line from [I]Taxman[/I] - "There's one for you, nineteen for me..."

What I want to know is how much of this bailout money is winding up overseas? Obviously, all this bailout money goes to AIG and then goes right back out again to cover claims by entities that got swamped by the Securities meltdown. If it's the Chinese (or the English or Libyans or Whoever), I say "Tough Shit. Next time dig some wells or something. Build a school or a road with your trade-imbalance lucre. In fact the same goes for hedge funds, union pension funds, grandmas life savings - screw you. You gambled, you lost. Next time give the money to the poor like you're supossed to.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=70Chip;537690][B]On a side note, the top rate in Britain was 95% for many years. Hence the line from [I]Taxman[/I] - "There's one for you, nineteen for me..."
[/B]
What I want to know is how much of this bailout money is winding up overseas? Obviously, all this bailout money goes to AIG and then goes right back out again to cover claims by entities that got swamped by the Securities meltdown. If it's the Chinese (or the English or Libyans or Whoever), I say "Tough Shit. Next time dig some wells or something. Build a school or a road with your trade-imbalance lucre. In fact the same goes for hedge funds, union pension funds, grandmas life savings - screw you. You gambled, you lost. Next time give the money to the poor like you're supossed to.[/quote]

LOL...you learn something new every day.

I don't mind the money going overseas because our economic strength is partly predicated on the confidence of foreign investors to invest here. Plus those foreign guys bought legitimate insurance service and are entitled to receive compensation. What I do mind is letting AIG leverage [URL="http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/17/aigs-failure-is-so-much-bigger-than-enron.aspx"]11 to 1[/URL]. That's 9.5 trillion to 860 billion.


p.s. Forgive me Lord SS for providing links without pre-aproval.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=saden1;537691]LOL...you learn something new every day.

I don't mind the money going overseas because our economic strength is partly predicated on the confidence of foreign investors to invest here. Plus those foreign guys bought legitimate insurance service and are entitled to receive compensation. What I do mind is letting AIG leverage [URL="http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/17/aigs-failure-is-so-much-bigger-than-enron.aspx"]11 to 1[/URL]. That's 9.5 trillion to 860 billion.


p.s. Forgive me Lord SS for providing links without pre-aproval.[/quote]

I think the preasure put on the CEO's to drive up stock prices is a big problem today and they take risk that either make them great or flop. I'm sure at some point that leveraging was paying off big but when things start to go bad then things just fall apart.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

these bozos had no problem telling the hourly at general motors they had to re open their contract, and trim the fat. i guess there are different sets of rules for the millionaires club

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=firstdown;537693]I think the preasure put on the CEO's to drive up stock prices is a big problem today and they take risk that either make them great or flop. I'm sure at some point that leveraging was paying off big but when things start to go bad then things just fall apart.[/quote]

That's no excuse, look at Berkshire Hathaway, they leveraged 2 to 1 and they always perform.


This brings up a good question, should we [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5256SB20090307"]limit how big companies[/URL] can get so that the failure of a single company can not be detrimental to the economy?

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=saden1;537699]That's no excuse, look at Berkshire Hathaway, they leveraged 2 to 1 and they always perform.


This brings up a good question, should we [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5256SB20090307"]limit how big companies[/URL] can get so that the failure of a single company can not be detrimental to the economy?[/quote]
I was not making an excuse just maybe a cause of why people do what they do. A big NO to your other question and if thats a good idea why not limit goverment so they only screw up in small ways. I love how congress just passed a bill full of earmarks but now are jumping all over AIG for this and if I'm correct both are in dept.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

the bonuses are specifically for the very people that helped tank the economy with derivatives business.

I'm all for justice :P.

that said, there does seem to be a bit too much of the torch mob mentality towards anyone making ANY kind of money lately just for having money... i'm not so up on that.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=That Guy;537755]the bonuses are specifically for the very people that helped tank the economy with derivatives business.

I'm all for justice :P.

that said, there does seem to be a bit too much of the torch mob mentality towards anyone making ANY kind of money lately just for having money... i'm not so up on that.[/quote]

I got no problem with people making money - even making lots of money. I do have a problem with people bearing absolutely no risk in doing so due to a manipulation of the market system [B][I]or[/I][/B] for making tons of money as a reward for makng bad market decisions.

At this point, and as others have pointed out, Congress' indignation is somewhat hollow given that the money was given with basically no strings attached.

Ah well, we'll just keep printing money until we get out of this mess. Of course, at that point the money supply will be so flooded that we'll have hyperinflation. I guess we'll just deal with one economic crisis at a time.

Did someone mention that half our debt trillion dollar debt is owed to Chinese. Better start learning Mandarin.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

I found this instructive:

[url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html]Political Punch: Obama Administration: We Didn't Find Out About AIG Bonuses Until This Month[/url]


"Three days later, on March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As [B][URL="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/03/how-congress-pr.html"][COLOR=#0000ff]ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported[/COLOR][/URL][/B], in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, [B]but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure [I]by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009."[/I][/B]

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=70Chip;537805]I found this instructive:

[URL="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html"]Political Punch: Obama Administration: We Didn't Find Out About AIG Bonuses Until This Month[/URL]


"Three days later, on March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As [B][URL="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/03/how-congress-pr.html"][COLOR=#0000ff]ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported[/COLOR][/URL][/B], in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, [B]but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure [I]by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009."[/I][/B][/quote]
Funny that Dood is the one making the most nois about AIG so I guess he is trying to cover his a$$. Didn't I ask the question in another thread about what goverment actually work and performed well. No one listed the bail outs or this stimulas bill. This is what happens when you have to have a 800 billion bill passed in a week. Ok, maybe to weeks and Obams inexperience is showing more and more every day. He is not fixing anything just making it worse.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=firstdown;537869]Funny that Dood is the one making the most nois about AIG so I guess he is trying to cover his a$$. Didn't I ask the question in another thread about what goverment actually work and performed well. No one listed the bail outs or this stimulas bill. This is what happens when you have to have a 800 billion bill passed in a week. Ok, maybe to weeks and Obams inexperience is showing more and more every day. He is not fixing anything just making it worse.[/quote]


The thing that's infuriating is that no one seems to be owning up to who actually changed the bill in conference. You may recall that there were complaints about changes being penciled in to the margins at the last minute. If Dodd (or any other Senator for that matter) says to some flunkie, "cross out that section", does that give Dodd deniability? Can he then say to the press "I don't who made that change?"

I know as the Warpath's reactionary in residence I'm completely biased, but I think it's time for the Senator from CountryWide to hit the bricks. The Democrats would be better off without him and [URL="http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx"]Barney Frank [/URL]but again, not really for me to say.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

This AIG thing continues to gather steam:

[url=http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/before-the-fall-aig-payouts-we.html]OpenSecrets | Before the Fall, AIG Payouts Went to Washington - Capital Eye[/url]

Dodd, Chris (D-Conn) $280,238
Bush, George W (R-Texas) $200,560
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $111,875
Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $107,332
McCain, John (R-Ariz) $99,249
Baucus, Max (D-Mont) $90,000
Kerry, John (D-Mass) $85,000
Johnson, Nancy L (R-Conn) $75,400
Sununu, John E (R-NH) $69,049
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $59,515
Lieberman, Joe (I-Conn) $57,900
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $53,582
Giuliani, Rudolph W (R-NY) $50,250
Lazio, Rick A (R-NY) $48,600
Ensign, John (R-Nev) $44,569
Bayh, Evan (D-Ind) $43,700
Larson, John B (D-Conn) $43,000
Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-Del) $41,350
Baker, Richard (R-La) $41,032
Torricelli, Robert G (D-NJ) $39,000
D'Amato, Alfonse M (R-NY) $38,750
Carper, Tom (D-Del) $37,213

Re: 100% Tax?
 

Everyone is on the Roster. Chuck Schumer is a weasel, always has been and will always continue to be. I'll reserve judgment on Dodd until we know more for sure.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=70Chip;537896]The thing that's infuriating is that no one seems to be owning up to who actually changed the bill in conference. You may recall that there were complaints about changes being penciled in to the margins at the last minute. If Dodd (or any other Senator for that matter) says to some flunkie, "cross out that section", does that give Dodd deniability? Can he then say to the press "I don't who made that change?"

I know as the Warpath's reactionary in residence I'm completely biased, but I think it's time for the Senator from CountryWide to hit the bricks. The Democrats would be better off without him and [URL="http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx"]Barney Frank [/URL]but again, not really for me to say.[/quote]

you're probably right on that. there's some good congress critters, and some really bad ones that need to go.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

I've been following politics since I was but a child and this has all the "earmarks"* of a full blown press feeding frenzy. When they get like this they won't let up until they have exacted their pound of flesh and that means somebody loses their job. Dodd is the frontrunner from where I sit, but Geithner is a possibility too. Nobody knows him. Nobody will even miss him. Dodd is a cave-dweller in Washington-speak so he has some reserve of good will that might save him.

It's an old-fashioned populist tar and feather job and by gar it's been a while. Twain was so dead on with that scene from Huck Finn with the Duke and the Dauphin. The American people are pretty naive and they'll put up with a fair amount of bullshit, but when they've had it, they've had it and someone's going to get rid out of town on a rail.

*smug laughter

Re: 100% Tax?
 

Now I just heard on the radio some of the companies that received bailout money owed back taxes to the federal goverment. If I heard correctly several companies owed over 100 million in taxes.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=firstdown;538307]Now I just heard on the radio some of the companies that received bailout money owed back taxes to the federal goverment. If I heard correctly several companies owed over 100 million in taxes.[/quote]

at least the fun never stops... does anyone actually pay their taxes? it seems to be a running theme...

Re: 100% Tax?
 

Here's what I think. I'll ignore the whats and whatnots and comment that this is what happens when the gov't tries to do stuff in a hurry because it is an "emergency". We had politicians, including the current and former Presidents leading the charge, about how this was an "emergency". We had to act NOW or the world would explode. So we have these bozos in Washington currying fear to rationalize their own existence and actions. Only now after we acted so damn fast, full speed ahead with blinders on, are the people who were supposed to be helping actually asking the questions that needed to be asked like 3 months ago. This is example infinty+1 of how our system is so fouled up. While the media is busy exacting it's pound of flesh from the Democrats why isn't anyone asking why the Republicans, who were supposed to "fiscally conservative", didn't see fit to ask these questions? They played similar politics and just voted against or derailed where they could without actually having any good reasosn apparently other than it wasn't their idea.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=FRPLG;538397]Here's what I think. I'll ignore the whats and whatnots and comment that this is what happens when the gov't tries to do stuff in a hurry because it is an "emergency". We had politicians, including the current and former Presidents leading the charge, about how this was an "emergency". We had to act NOW or the world would explode. So we have these bozos in Washington currying fear to rationalize their own existence and actions. Only now after we acted so damn fast, full speed ahead with blinders on, are the people who were supposed to be helping actually asking the questions that needed to be asked like 3 months ago. This is example infinty+1 of how our system is so fouled up. While the media is busy exacting it's pound of flesh from the Democrats why isn't anyone asking why the Republicans, who were supposed to "fiscally conservative", didn't see fit to ask these questions? They played similar politics and just voted against or derailed where they could without actually having any good reasosn apparently other than it wasn't their idea.[/quote]
Well some of them were asking these questions and only a few voted for the stimulas bill which just gave AIG a bunch of more money. Hey, the dems control both houses and President. Its their time to take the heat for the screw ups. I'm not one to point fingers but when you have total control its all on you. Just like I rip the Rep. back when they had total control and did nothing.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=firstdown;538411]Well some of them were asking these questions and only a few voted for the stimulas bill which just gave AIG a bunch of more money. Hey, the dems control both houses and President. Its their time to take the heat for the screw ups. [B]I'm not one to point fingers[/B] but when you have total control its all on you. Just like I rip the Rep. back when they had total control and did nothing.[/quote]
hahahaha

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=firstdown;538411]Well some of them were asking these questions and only a few voted for the stimulas bill which just gave AIG a bunch of more money. Hey, the dems control both houses and President. Its their time to take the heat for the screw ups. I'm not one to point fingers but when you have total control its all on you. Just like I rip the Rep. back when they had total control and did nothing.[/quote]

Sorry. No. THey opposed it because it was Obama/Reid/Pelosi. They weren't asking questions. At least most of them weren't. They screwed the pooch because they were either distracted by politics or didn't care.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=FRPLG;538397]Here's what I think. I'll ignore the whats and whatnots and comment that this is what happens when the gov't tries to do stuff in a hurry because it is an "emergency". We had politicians, including the current and former Presidents leading the charge, about how this was an "emergency". We had to act NOW or the world would explode. So we have these bozos in Washington currying fear to rationalize their own existence and actions. Only now after we acted so damn fast, full speed ahead with blinders on, are the people who were supposed to be helping actually asking the questions that needed to be asked like 3 months ago. This is example infinty+1 of how our system is so fouled up. While the media is busy exacting it's pound of flesh from the Democrats why isn't anyone asking why the Republicans, who were supposed to "fiscally conservative", didn't see fit to ask these questions? They played similar politics and just voted against or derailed where they could without actually having any good reasosn apparently other than it wasn't their idea.[/quote]
Hilary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel said it best. They can't let a good crisis go to waste, so they could pass things that they couldn't pass before.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPwRVpb3KSE[/ame]

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=firstdown;538411]Hey, the dems control both houses and President. Its their time to take the heat for the screw ups. [/quote]

Dude, We are where we are right now, because of the Republicans. Not because of the Democrats. The Dem's don't need to "take heat" because they didn't bring this economy down. :hitfan: They're just trying to bring the economy back up! They're trying to be the hero! :) And yes, they would really like Republicans to join in and help. :boxing: I only hope the Republicans realize that and STOP SAYING NO!



As far as the taxing of bonuses.................Thats awesome! I like how they said, "We want our money back.....Its not that complicated". :laughing2And, they're only taxing 90% so the local governments can tax the rest of it. :woot: Its to bad that they let it get to this point, but I like how they are fixing this now that it has gotten here. Hopefully, this bill will pass the Senate and we all can get our money back.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=steveo395;538480]Hilary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel said it best. They can't let a good crisis go to waste, so they could pass things that they couldn't pass before.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk]YouTube - Rahm Emanuel on the Opportunities of Crisis[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPwRVpb3KSE]YouTube - Hillary Clinton: Never Waste a Good Crisis[/url][/quote]


Reminds me of how 'W' took us to war after the ultimate crisis, 9/11.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=Miller101;538527]Dude, We are where we are right now, because of the Republicans. Not because of the Democrats. The Dem's don't need to "take heat" because they didn't bring this economy down. :hitfan: They're just trying to bring the economy back up! They're trying to be the hero! :) And yes, they would really like Republicans to join in and help. :boxing: I only hope the Republicans realize that and STOP SAYING NO!



As far as the taxing of bonuses.................Thats awesome! I like how they said, "We want our money back.....Its not that complicated". :laughing2And, they're only taxing 90% so the local governments can tax the rest of it. :woot: Its to bad that they let it get to this point, but I like how they are fixing this now that it has gotten here. Hopefully, this bill will pass the Senate and we all can get our money back.[/quote]

This bill they are passing will never come true as its illegal and the stimulas bill actually allowed for the bonuses. Its just a show at this point so the Dems can wipe some of that egg off their face. I agree that taking those bonuses was not right at this time but not sure they can do anything about it. The only reason the Dems. want the Rep. to support all this stimulas stuff is so when it fails its not all on the Dems. If the plan was so great they can pass it on their own and then take full credit for saving us. Wow, how many more seats could they pick up at elections if they could run on supporting the stimulas bill and show how the Rep. faught them on these bills. The only reason I think they don't do this is because they are not sure themself.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;538530]Reminds me of how 'W' took us to war after the ultimate crisis, 9/11.[/quote]
I thought people voted for Obama because he was a change from Bush. I guess they were wrong.

Re: 100% Tax?
 

Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay:
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html"]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html[/URL]