Does everyone see where this ends? You can make up to $249,000 in America, and that's all. If you make a dollar more than that, it goes to the U.S. government.

/did Congress not just vote themselves a pay raise?????

No, they wouldn't. The whole idea is to biatchslap the AIG executive staff into a new world of being stewards of taxpayer's monies, not the profit-drunken whores of yesterday.

Objectively speaking, the performance of everyone working for the financial wing of AIG is worth less than zero, so any bonus greater than 0 is unwarranted.

Talk about trying to put the horse back in the barn. Yes, by all means pass what looks dangerously analagous to a bill of attainder and a blatant end run around the Contracts Clause to make up for the fact that you didn't do your due diligence before you dumped BILLIONS of dollars our OUR MONEY in an absolute rush to do anything, you miserable hypocrites. Next time you want to give someone a "bail out," how about you actually get a look at what debts are coming due beforehand and exert a tad more control instead of some half-assed, questionably legal political stunt after the fact.

JacksBlack: Does everyone see where this ends? You can make up to $249,000 in America, and that's all. If you make a dollar more than that, it goes to the U.S. government.


I'm confused - when did the top marginal rate jump to 90% for everyone making over $250,000? I was under the impression that the administration, starting next year, was going to the restore the Reagan-Bush Sr.-Clinton level of taxation, which never led to economic disaster or people trying desperately to make less money.

Oh, wait, you're a bombastic retard. Sorry, forgot that for a second.

JacksBlack: Does everyone see where this ends? You can make up to $249,000 in America, and that's all. If you make a dollar more than that, it goes to the U.S. government.

OOOGA OOOGA BOOGA! SNOMGWTFBBQ!!~!~!! The sky is falling!

Rain-Monkey: No, they wouldn't. The whole idea is to biatchslap the AIG executive staff into a new world of being stewards of taxpayer's monies, not the profit-drunken whores of yesterday.

This time it's companies that the government (effectively) owns. Next time, it's companies that they don't own.

Rain-Monkey: drunken whores of yesterday

Good thing you had "profit" before that, buddy! The DWoY have a strong union and don't take kindly to libel!

Nabb1: Talk about trying to put the horse back in the barn. Yes, by all means pass what looks dangerously analagous to a bill of attainder and a blatant end run around the Contracts Clause to make up for the fact that you didn't do your due diligence before you dumped BILLIONS of dollars our OUR MONEY in an absolute rush to do anything, you miserable hypocrites. Next time you want to give someone a "bail out," how about you actually get a look at what debts are coming due beforehand and exert a tad more control instead of some half-assed, questionably legal political stunt after the fact.

Exactly. Sh*tty as it is for the bonuses to go out, it doesn't seem like we can do much legal about it now.

I'll join an angry mob, though.

Nabb1: Talk about trying to put the horse back in the barn. Yes, by all means pass what looks dangerously analagous to a bill of attainder and a blatant end run around the Contracts Clause to make up for the fact that you didn't do your due diligence before you dumped BILLIONS of dollars our OUR MONEY in an absolute rush to do anything, you miserable hypocrites. Next time you want to give someone a "bail out," how about you actually get a look at what debts are coming due beforehand and exert a tad more control instead of some half-assed, questionably legal political stunt after the fact.

This.

dj_bigbird: This time it's companies that the government (effectively) owns. Next time, it's companies that they don't own.

The government already taxes companies they don't own. Your fear is retarded.

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

and THIS is why nationalization is a TERRIBLE idea and needs to be unwound as quickly as practicable. Your obligations when reporting to Uncle Sam are different than in a traditional corporate structure (coincidentally, this is why contracting out government functions gets so messy).

I can concede that a government position in a company may be the least bad solution to extreme circumstances in the short term, but the longer this goes on, the more and more tempting it is going to be for congressmen to try and run that company and others from DC.

While the bonuses WERE unwarranted in the first place, using a 90% tax to penalize them is pretty much socialism.

Asa Phelps: Objectively speaking, the performance of everyone working for the financial wing of AIG is worth less than zero, so any bonus greater than 0 is unwarranted.

For a long time, Wall Street has been working to change the meaning of the bonus. This time, it was a "retention bonus", essentially a mechanism for paying people because they stayed with a sinking ship. Laughable- after all, where are else these guys going to go? It's not like people are looking to hire failed AIG financial planners.

kmmontandon: JacksBlack: Does everyone see where this ends? You can make up to $249,000 in America, and that's all. If you make a dollar more than that, it goes to the U.S. government.


I'm confused - when did the top marginal rate jump to 90% for everyone making over $250,000? I was under the impression that the administration, starting next year, was going to the restore the Reagan-Bush Sr.-Clinton level of taxation, which never led to economic disaster or people trying desperately to make less money.

Oh, wait, you're a bombastic retard. Sorry, forgot that for a second.

I was going to also make a snarky comment about this and how an incremental tax rate works but my browser crashed. You'rs was funnier, anyway.

Somaticasual: using a 90% tax to penalize them is pretty much socialism.

No, it's not socialism. It's wrong and offensive in a lot of ways, but it's not "socialism." Socialism has a specific meaning and specific trappings. There are lots of economic and political systems other than "socialism" that can, do and will implement confiscatory policies.

While I was appalled that the execs of a company suckling on the governments teat get a bonus for arguably failing worse than any company in history, isn't there something called a bill of attainder that makes laws like this unconstitutional? Does anyone read that thing anymore?

Somaticasual: While the bonuses WERE unwarranted in the first place, using a 90% tax to penalize them is pretty much socialism.

Socialism is the government running the company. A high tax rate does not socialism make. If that were true, then the US was quite socialist in the 40s and 50s, when the tax rates were 90% or more for the rich.

If this was done by one private entity to another, wouldn't it be racketeering?

/is all for the move, actually
//but there are constitutional and contractual law issues to be worked out

The vote was 328-93.



who were the 93

I still don't see how this will stand up in court.

Ex post facto and all that.

This thread is full of equal parts fail and flail.

And there's no way that the accountant that works for a guy who gets 7-figure bonuses can figure out a way to get around the extra tax.

kronicfeld: Nabb1: Talk about trying to put the horse back in the barn. Yes, by all means pass what looks dangerously analagous to a bill of attainder and a blatant end run around the Contracts Clause to make up for the fact that you didn't do your due diligence before you dumped BILLIONS of dollars our OUR MONEY in an absolute rush to do anything, you miserable hypocrites. Next time you want to give someone a "bail out," how about you actually get a look at what debts are coming due beforehand and exert a tad more control instead of some half-assed, questionably legal political stunt after the fact.

This.

Damn. Dead on.

As an average citizen though I'm still inclined to take a chance on the big tax penalties that may hit me if I take a huge handout from the government in the first place. 10% of something is probably more than 100% of nothing for most values of x dollars.

Somaticasual: While the bonuses WERE unwarranted in the first place, using a 90% tax to penalize them is pretty much socialism.

No, socialism is completely egalitarian. This hits a certain group of people who have done nothing more than expect the contracts they negotiated before any bailout happened to be honored.

JacksBlack: Does everyone see where this ends? You can make up to $249,000 in America, and that's all. If you make a dollar more than that, it goes to the U.S. government.

/did Congress not just vote themselves a pay raise?????

Your posts are getting dumber.

/hot

Nabb1: Somaticasual: While the bonuses WERE unwarranted in the first place, using a 90% tax to penalize them is pretty much socialism.

No, socialism is completely egalitarian. This hits a certain group of people who have done nothing more than expect the contracts they negotiated before any bailout happened to be honored.

Which, by the way, is not that I am pleading for their cause as much as I am upset with the fact Congress didn't do its job beforehand.

alexdroog: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

The Pelosi fixation doesn't seem to resonate with middle America. Most people don't even know who she is.

Rush have another tack, this dog don't seem to hunt.

AIG executives need all the sympathy they can get, but it is strange to find so much here on FARK. High maximum tax rates mark some of the best economic times this nation has ever had. That was back when we had real patriots instead of only this false kind.

hillbillypharmacist: Somaticasual: While the bonuses WERE unwarranted in the first place, using a 90% tax to penalize them is pretty much socialism.

Socialism is the government running the company. A high tax rate does not socialism make. If that were true, then the US was quite socialist in the 40s and 50s, when the tax rates were 90% or more for the rich.

Umm, what do you think they are doing if not running the company? So far, if you accept a single dollar of government money, you are required to

- surrender bonus and pay to the goverment (90% of bonuses, 100% of any salary above $500k)
- halt any marketing of your products that the government does not approve of (golf tournaments)
- travel to only government-approved destinations (no Las Vegas or Florida!)
- travel via commercial carrier, even if you absolutely need to be there now to do a deal

It is only going to get worse, as the new socialists will expand their control over companies that, say, receive tax depreciation or any other government "benefits".

Yes, they are slowly taking over the means of production, and we are only in the top of the fist inning.

Nabb1: Talk about trying to put the horse back in the barn. Yes, by all means pass what looks dangerously analagous to a bill of attainder and a blatant end run around the Contracts Clause to make up for the fact that you didn't do your due diligence before you dumped BILLIONS of dollars our OUR MONEY in an absolute rush to do anything, you miserable hypocrites. Next time you want to give someone a "bail out," how about you actually get a look at what debts are coming due beforehand and exert a tad more control instead of some half-assed, questionably legal political stunt after the fact.

Goddamn, nice dude. Agreed

Yes, they are slowly taking over the means of production, and we are only in the top of the fist inning.

I'm not sure if I meant to say "first inning" or "get ready to get fisted"

chi_tino: Umm, what do you think they are doing if not running the company?

Precisely. Running the company is socialist, though necessary right now, IMHO.

Tax rates, however, don't make socialism.

So we're compounding one really bad move with another incredibly asinine move.

f*cking great move guys.

If Dodd hadn't altered the bailout legislation to allow AIG to pay out executive bonuses in the first place, we wouldn't BE in this position.

chi_tino: hillbillypharmacist: Somaticasual: While the bonuses WERE unwarranted in the first place, using a 90% tax to penalize them is pretty much socialism.

Socialism is the government running the company. A high tax rate does not socialism make. If that were true, then the US was quite socialist in the 40s and 50s, when the tax rates were 90% or more for the rich.

Umm, what do you think they are doing if not running the company? So far, if you accept a single dollar of government money, you are required to

- surrender bonus and pay to the goverment (90% of bonuses, 100% of any salary above $500k)
- halt any marketing of your products that the government does not approve of (golf tournaments)
- travel to only government-approved destinations (no Las Vegas or Florida!)
- travel via commercial carrier, even if you absolutely need to be there now to do a deal

It is only going to get worse, as the new socialists will expand their control over companies that, say, receive tax depreciation or any other government "benefits".

Yes, they are slowly taking over the means of production, and we are only in the top of the fist inning.

People who get money from the government are "welfare queens", "scum", and other assorted rabble. Surely our corporate betters (those rugged bastions of individuality and capitalism) will see this shift in the wind and harden their position by not taking such "benefits" as you called them. No ?

The top bracket was 90% or more for a good portion of the 20th century. Get ready to be called "rich"....

Feel-good bullshiat.

No wonder Obama is the current Pres.

It's a country full of feel-good bullshiatters!

Weaver95: If Dodd hadn't altered the bailout legislation to allow AIG to pay out executive bonuses in the first place, we wouldn't BE in this position.

That's not necessarily true at all. There's no way Congress was going to let the bailout die because of the inclusion or exclusion of that provision, and there's no way that such a provision wouldn't have ultimately been challenged in court.

No, not unless there was a nationwide pitchfork-wielding mob in front of an average American that deserved it.

Nabb1: Somaticasual: While the bonuses WERE unwarranted in the first place, using a 90% tax to penalize them is pretty much socialism.

No, socialism is completely egalitarian. This hits a certain group of people who have done nothing more than expect the contracts they negotiated before any bailout happened to be honored.

One could say that the bailout negated the contract. Part of the reason AIG was run into the ground is negotiating bonuses that are in no way affected by performance. If you effectively destroy the company you work for, you're not honoring your part of the contract. Why should AIG honor theirs? ESPECIALLY with taxpayer money.

For people about to scream that a 90% tax is socialism.... ahem:

DURING THE AGE OF MCCARTHYISM AND COMMUNIST PARANOIA, THE TOP MARGINAL INCOME TAX RATE WAS OVER 90%.

NYZooMan: Feel-good bullshiat.

DANGEROUS feel good bullshiat. What happens if congress decides that some OTHER group is dangerously wealthy and decides to tax them at 90%?

Tresser: The vote was 328-93.



who were the 93

RON PAUL!!

Senescent Dawn: For people about to scream that a 90% tax is socialism.... ahem:

DURING THE AGE OF MCCARTHYISM AND COMMUNIST PARANOIA, THE TOP MARGINAL INCOME TAX RATE WAS OVER 90%.

It's really hilarious that a lot of people arguing that they should get to keep the money were against the bailout in the first place.

Good to see the tax rates are getting back to reasonable levels. Citizens have been unwilling to force politicians to shrink the government so now the politicians must start taking the appropriate amount of money from us. It's our own damn fault.

Nice to see it's starting with AIG. How they thought they were ever get away with taking tax money and paying it to private employees as a "bonus" is beyond me. Especially the claims that only a few people are capable of holding those jobs and they need to be compensated or they would leave. I'm pretty sure I could have run AIG equally as poorly.

Maybe even better because I wouldn't have gotten anything done at all after drinking up all the company booze.

JacksBlack: Does everyone see where this ends? You can make up to $249,000 in America, and that's all. If you make a dollar more than that, it goes to the U.S. government.

/did Congress not just vote themselves a pay raise?????

I really, really wish I could make an automobile operate on the sheer Neocon fear over the Obama administration's potential success.

Richer than Cheney's wildest dreams man. Farking A would I be rich.

hillbillypharmacist: Precisely. Running the company is socialist, though necessary right now, IMHO.

Tax rates, however, don't make socialism.

I'm not to sure about the second. At some point, taking most all of the profit from production is no different than controlling it. e.g. Sweden.

As to the first, if the industries that the government is controlling control the capital, then they control the other industries as well. Why buy (or nationalize) the factory when you can buy the bank that owns it?