The government giveth, the government taketh away.
Taxcashblog.com
|
Denouncing a “squandering of the people’s money,” lawmakers voted decisively Thursday to impose a 90 percent tax on millions of dollars in employee bonuses paid by troubled insurance giant AIG and other bailed-out companies.
The House vote was 328-93. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate and President Barack Obama quickly signaled general support for the concept.
Republicans took Democrats to task for rushing to tax AIG bonuses worth an estimated $165 million after the majority party stripped from last month’s economic stimulus bill a provision that could have banned such payouts.
AIG has received $182.5 billion in federal bailout money and is now 80 percent government-owned.
Obama administration special envoy Richard Holbooke was on AIG’s board of directors in early 2008, when the insurance company committed to the bonuses, and during the previous years of aggressive investment strategies that brought the firm to brink of collapse. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday: “Mr. Holbrooke had nothing to do with and knew nothing about the bonuses.”
Will this make things better, or is it just a “look good now” tactic for Congress and the White House?
That conservative guy you voted for had a big problem with the constitution
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_vs._the_U.S._Constitution
Lets see if this is just grand standing for the cameras or if they actually get a bill singed.
# 41 ghost in the machine said, “That conservative guy you voted for had a big problem with the constitution…”
Hmm, I didn’t vote for him but I did support the Dems getting back congress so they’d impeach. Do YOU support impeaching a Pres for violating the Constitution?
Waiting…
#30 – Paddy-O
No, but I’m sure O’mama, being a Harvard Law dude will NEVER sign a bill into law that is unconstitutional. I mean that would intentionally be violating his oath of office and be treason, which is currently punishable by death…
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Didn’t they teach you that in Radio Shack? If this is treason and punishable by death, then there are going to be a lot of deaths going around in government.
# 43 Misanthropic Scott said, “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.”
I am glad you agree that there is no excuse for Obama.
Good man.
#31 – JimR,
As one of 300 million chickens, well said, but why insult headless chickens?
Not having any confidence in your interpretation of the US Constitution and knowing you like to make quick inane responses I’ll skip answering you on that one.
But if you are wondering lying about a BJ under oath, not a State issue.
yes its lying under oath I hate to admit it but I think some questions are more equal than others
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys for political ideals Yes! State issue. I could go on but you can just google crimes of the provisos administration. Better leave a day or two to read them all.
Glad you did not vote for Bush knowing you are so civic minded and would not shirk your voting responsibility:::assuming you were old enough in 2000 the Nader and Gore supporters here plus the 2004 Nader and Kerry supporters here will be glad to know you are on there side Paddy who did not vote for Bush
#37 – MikeN,
And people here mocked the idea that business investment is down for fear of Obama’s tax plan.
??!!?
How exactly does discouraging using bailout money as boni discourage anyone who actually has money and didn’t ask for a bailout from investing their money?
#44 – Paddy-trOll,
Do you actually know how to read?
# 46 ghost in the machine said, “Not having any confidence in your interpretation of the US Constitution”
No interpretation is necessary, just read the section. I pasted it on post #27. I can understand how you wouldn’t want to call Obama on the carpet for violating his oath of office and the Constitution. LOL
#49
that all you got Paddy you Gore Nader Kerry voter.
If you are referring to US Congress bravado about enacting a law to tax bonus recipients at companies that receive bailout funding. Lets wait and see if such a bill ever gets signed.
My bet is nope, just a show for the outraged masses
I think Obama knows to stay away from that one and just let the Congress have there fun with the cameras.
#50 – http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003062407
I’ll let you know if Obama signs it…
Thanks #25 I was trying to find that Article myself, however it still bothers me that they’re trying to do this. It’s a scary precedent to set to let the government reach back into time to take money you earned from you. All the while saying they won’t completely refund money that you paid in taxes but never got (i.e. the Madoff ponzi scheme).
Personally, I don’t care about the bonuses, but would like to see AIG investigated for other offenses. For example, dealing out bailout money to foreign banks (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/16rescue.html?hp), but that’s just me.
LOL. A.I.G. Sues U.S. for Return of $306 Million in Tax Payments: http://tinyurl.com/dfsnbw
On “The Economist” their interviewed Barney Frank about this. He had a better solution. He said the government should have sued AIG as an owner to block or recover these funds. First smart things I’ve ever heard him say.
Why isn’t anyone bringing up the fact that there is a cost of transferring this money back and forth?
# 54 Ron Larson said, “First smart things I’ve ever heard him say.”
As majority stock holder the Gov could just direct the company to write a check to the Gov for the amount.
Done.
#54–Ron Larsen==sue AIG for what? There is no “I don’t like what you did” cause of action. Violation of law–none. Violation of Contract?–Just the opposite.
#56–Paddy -O- Nonsense==the same. “In General” the rights of stockholders is only to elect the Board Members. After that you look to the By Laws for any special vote issues. I doubt AIG has empowered its stockholders to do much of anything.
I like the AIG mess. It is half the camel under the tent for the Gov to regulated ALL THE OVERPAID CEO’S that have gotten away with this crap given the limited power of the stockholders.
It won’t be a silver lining until the rule gets moderated down to a 95% tax on all income above 20 times the average hourly wage.
A rocket launch to existential recognition that indeed all jobs/work have equal dignity and are paid the same within that limited range.
Hah, hah. Probably just a dream.
# 57 bobbo said, “#56–Paddy -O- Nonsense==the same. “In General” the rights of stockholders is only to elect the Board Members.”
Extrapolate a little Booboo. The “Gov” tells the Board Members to do it or lose their position. Use that little thing between your ears…
#58–Paddy -O- FlipFlop==oh, when you said xyz, you were actually thinking of abc?
Well, thats different.
#47, a 90% tax.
Imagine the impact if Congress passed a 90% tax on business income. Now with this bill, business owners think there is a chance it will happen to them, and act accordingly. Take a look at bobbo’s post above calling for a 95% tax. Before it was just words coming from various liberals. Now it is seen in action, raising the likelihood that taxes will go up. So why take a risk in a business when if you fail you lose, and if you do well, you may still lose 90%?