Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Senate committee exploring 90% special tax for AIG bonus recipients, to be filed using form 1040FU   (edition.cnn.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

10179 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2009 at 5:47 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



397 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-03-17 02:00:45 PM  
Yeah. That certainly passes constitutional muster. Pass a special IRS regulation that targets one specific group of people and tax them at an unprecedented rate.
 
2009-03-17 02:17:13 PM  
I look forward to seeing this in TurboTax next year:

"Did you receive a bonus out of TARP funds from AIG, you arrogant cocklicker?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No"
 
2009-03-17 02:19:06 PM  

FredaDeStilleto: Yeah. That certainly passes constitutional muster. Pass a special IRS regulation that targets one specific group of people and tax them at an unprecedented rate.


I don't care if it doesn't pass. The most important thing to come out of this is that AIG will need to fight for these bonuses. To lobby for them and argue in front of CSPAN's cameras. Frankly if any of these people are ballsy enough to stand in front of America's wrath and try to snag the money, they deserve it. They're practically risking their lives at this point.
 
2009-03-17 02:23:48 PM  

Senescent Dawn: I don't care if it doesn't pass. The most important thing to come out of this is that AIG will need to fight for these bonuses. To lobby for them and argue in front of CSPAN's cameras. Frankly if any of these people are ballsy enough to stand in front of America's wrath and try to snag the money, they deserve it. They're practically risking their lives at this point.


Exactly. Public shame and humiliation. Make it an untenable position for the company. And those shameless asshats who take it can just hope and pray that their contact information never gets released to the mob.
 
2009-03-17 02:28:26 PM  

The Icelander: "Did you receive a bonus out of TARP funds from AIG, you arrogant cocklicker?


That is hilarious.
 
2009-03-17 02:30:15 PM  

FredaDeStilleto: Yeah. That certainly passes constitutional muster. Pass a special IRS regulation that targets one specific group of people and tax them at an unprecedented rate.


They can get around that by making the law applicable to bonuses paid by any corportaion that is more than 75% owned by the federal government.
 
2009-03-17 02:32:18 PM  
Senescent Dawn: I don't care if it doesn't pass. The most important thing to come out of this is that AIG will need to fight for these bonuses.

I agree to a point. But I'm tired of the dog and pony show Congress is putting on. AIG execs are smart enough to know that proposal is a bunch of crap. All this sounds like is a bunch of gruel handed out to the American public to make us believe the Senate cares for us poor working stiffs.
 
2009-03-17 02:34:32 PM  
SusanIvanova: They can get around that by making the law applicable to bonuses paid by any corportaion that is more than 75% owned by the federal government.

Good idea for the up and coming thieves, but you can't grandfather that.
 
2009-03-17 02:34:37 PM  

FredaDeStilleto: Yeah. That certainly passes constitutional muster. Pass a special IRS regulation that targets one specific group of people and tax them at an unprecedented rate.


it's not an unprecedented rate, our top rates have reached 90% before. it's also not targeting a specific group, it's targeting specific conditions that this group just happens to fulfill.
 
2009-03-17 02:35:01 PM  

The Icelander: I look forward to seeing this in TurboTax next year:

"Did you receive a bonus out of TARP funds from AIG, you arrogant cocklicker?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No"


To be fair, they could reasonably answer no. The first $80 billion came from the Federal Reserve.

They just need to raise taxes on anyone who has more than $20 million total dollars. Have a wealth cap.
 
2009-03-17 02:35:11 PM  

FredaDeStilleto: at an unprecedented rate.


To be fair, 90% isn't an unprecedented tax rate. The top bracket was taxed at 91% as late as 1963.

It was still at 50% as late as 1986.

Funny enough, the last time before 1986 that the top tax bracket was lower than 50% was 1925 to 1931.
 
2009-03-17 02:40:20 PM  

FredaDeStilleto: Good idea for the up and coming thieves, but you can't grandfather that.


I'm not so sure about that. Retroactive tax increases are not unknown, and have passed muster somehow. IANAL, and also am not a lawyer.
 
2009-03-17 02:40:45 PM  

Dust: Funny enough, the last time before 1986 that the top tax bracket was lower than 50% was 1925 to 1931.


It's interesting and ironic that Reaganomics is correct to the extent that the rich do spur investment and grow the value of companies -- but SO much so that it creates bubbles and crashes as they throw their money from "safe spot" to "safe spot."
 
2009-03-17 02:42:21 PM  

The Icelander: I look forward to seeing this in TurboTax next year:

"Did you receive a bonus out of TARP funds from AIG, you arrogant cocklicker?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No"


Thank you. There is Pepsi all over my desk now.
 
2009-03-17 02:46:16 PM  

BKITU: FredaDeStilleto: Good idea for the up and coming thieves, but you can't grandfather that.

I'm not so sure about that. Retroactive tax increases are not unknown, and have passed muster somehow. IANAL, and also am not a lawyer.


Usually it's been on a bracket or specific type of income, not aimed at a handful of individuals. Tax law is outside of my practice area, but I'd be hard pressed to think of one that will be both narrowly tailored and pass any number of Constitutional issues that may be in the way. The lesson here is that maybe the government shouldn't have fallen all over itself to throw money at the problem until they looked at the books to see what debts AIG had coming due.
 
2009-03-17 02:49:37 PM  

Nabb1: The lesson here is that maybe the government shouldn't have fallen all over itself to throw money at the problem until they looked at the books to see what debts AIG had coming due.


or, since we own 80% of them, maybe we should actually just take ownership and shutter/sell the division in question and nullify their contracts.
 
2009-03-17 02:52:45 PM  
I'd prefer my government not start doing things like this.
 
2009-03-17 02:54:17 PM  

burndtdan: Nabb1: The lesson here is that maybe the government shouldn't have fallen all over itself to throw money at the problem until they looked at the books to see what debts AIG had coming due.

or, since we own 80% of them, maybe we should actually just take ownership and shutter/sell the division in question and nullify their contracts.


Nullify the contracts on what grounds? The federal government is potentially limited by the Contracts Clause, anyway. Maybe bankruptcy, but that opens a slew of issues, and would take years to resolve, and the brouhaha would probably have died down and by then anyway.
 
2009-03-17 02:54:22 PM  
Ugh, can the government PLEASE just butt out and let capitalism do its job!!???!!!
 
2009-03-17 02:55:00 PM  

bulldg4life: I'd prefer my government not start doing things like this.


You and me both. There is a reason they tell every first year law student, "Hard cases make bad law."
 
2009-03-17 02:56:24 PM  

Nabb1: bulldg4life: I'd prefer my government not start doing things like this.

You and me both. There is a reason they tell every first year law student, "Hard cases make bad law."


No kidding. We're Americans. When the going gets hard, we just give the fark up.
 
2009-03-17 02:58:01 PM  
i'm all for punishing these farks, but how is this not a bill of attainder?
 
2009-03-17 03:00:36 PM  

palladiate: No kidding. We're Americans. When the going gets hard, we just give the fark up.


I guess the only way I know to answer that is that somewhere between "giving the fark up" and "shiatting on the rule of law" the truth lies, and maybe we should, for once, figure out what that is instead of falling all over ourselves to do something rash, which is what I think at least partially got us into this conundrum in the first place.
 
2009-03-17 03:01:19 PM  
What is there to explore? They had CONTRACTUAL obligations to these people to provide these bonuses.

If my company had been given bailout money and 10% of my income is in the form of bonuses or other incentives, I would be LIVID that the govt could tell the people who pay my salary what to do.
 
2009-03-17 03:02:25 PM  
Congress is showing us that the US Government is the greatest enemy this country has ever faced. They need to declare war on themselves and turn the military loose.
 
2009-03-17 03:02:37 PM  

burndtdan: or, since we own 80% of them, maybe we should actually just take ownership and shutter/sell the division in question and nullify their contracts.


Your idea has promise.
 
2009-03-17 03:05:01 PM  
Lucidz: Ugh, can the government PLEASE just butt out and let capitalism do its job!!???!!!

The problem with that is like if you said "we don't need building codes. Poorly built buildings will fall and this alone will teach architects and engineers to build stronger ones." It discards the pesky detail that there's people underneath!

And I'm not talking about the upper manager who will lose his bonus, I'm talking about all the low-level employees who would lose their jobs as a result.
 
2009-03-17 03:06:05 PM  

FlashHarry: i'm all for punishing these farks, but how is this not a bill of attainder?


Well, strictly speaking, it's not a legislative criminal conviction, and it's not inflicting capital punishment for a "high offence" under the Common Law, so it's not quite that. Lesser acts of a similar nature are barred under the Constitution, though, in Article I.
 
2009-03-17 03:06:14 PM  

Nabb1: Nullify the contracts on what grounds? The federal government is potentially limited by the Contracts Clause, anyway.


Why can the UAW have their contracts renegotiated or nullified and the folks at AIG not have their contracts renegotiated or nullified?

/Just wondering.
//AIG would probably be bankrupt without the bailout money.
 
2009-03-17 03:08:53 PM  

Flab: Lucidz: Ugh, can the government PLEASE just butt out and let capitalism do its job!!???!!!

The problem with that is like if you said "we don't need building codes. Poorly built buildings will fall and this alone will teach architects and engineers to build stronger ones." It discards the pesky detail that there's people underneath!

And I'm not talking about the upper manager who will lose his bonus, I'm talking about all the low-level employees who would lose their jobs as a result.


Hey, a hundred million is a hundred million. That money could have paid 1000 employees with six figure incomes for an entire year. It would have been great if those execs had said, hey you know what, keep that money in the coffers, I'm not going to provide for my family the way they expect.

But they didn't. They didn't have to. And the govt has no right to govern compensation like that.

This is the core problem with big government.
 
2009-03-17 03:10:26 PM  

The Onanist: Nabb1: Nullify the contracts on what grounds? The federal government is potentially limited by the Contracts Clause, anyway.

Why can the UAW have their contracts renegotiated or nullified and the folks at AIG not have their contracts renegotiated or nullified?

/Just wondering.
//AIG would probably be bankrupt without the bailout money.


The UAW agreed to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement, which is allowed under federal labor law. In bankruptcy proceedings, the bankruptcy judge may nullify the CBA (as well as other contracts), so it was probably in the UAW's interests to bargain for some restructuring rather than having the slate forcibly wiped clean and starting over from scratch. The AIG contracts are not the product of a collective bargaining process, and would have to be renegotiated at an individual level. Barring that, you would probably have to go through bankruptcy to void the contractual obligations.
 
2009-03-17 03:10:43 PM  

Lucidz: If my company had been given bailout money and 10% of my income is in the form of bonuses or other incentives, I would be LIVID that the govt could tell the people who pay my salary what to do.


Yeah, but AIG isn't paying their salary. The government is, through the Chinese, and eventually through us (with interest!) So the rules of "capitalism" no longer apply if AIG can spend money however irresponsibly they like and the rest of the country has to foot the bill.
 
2009-03-17 03:10:49 PM  

bulldg4life: I'd prefer my government not start doing things like this.


Don't make me agree with you.

I'd prefer the money stop flowing. What we need is our very own version of Dune where Paul Atredies rises up and prevents the spice from flowing...and the Emperor Obama must bow to the desert nomad with the blue eyes.
 
2009-03-17 03:13:12 PM  

Nabb1: palladiate: No kidding. We're Americans. When the going gets hard, we just give the fark up.

I guess the only way I know to answer that is that somewhere between "giving the fark up" and "shiatting on the rule of law" the truth lies, and maybe we should, for once, figure out what that is instead of falling all over ourselves to do something rash, which is what I think at least partially got us into this conundrum in the first place.


That might be conveniently accomplished by "looking into" solutions and maybe forming "exploratory committees."

But, and I'm just going by what Fark commenters are saying, that's WAY beyond the pale. Let's just accept their bonuses are part of legal contracts, that are neither unconscionable or illegal, and have absolutely no problems in interpretation to bring to court. Because anything less is socialism or anarchy.
 
2009-03-17 03:14:49 PM  

Lucidz: Ugh, can the government PLEASE just butt out and let capitalism do its job!!???!!!


i129.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-03-17 03:15:48 PM  

Senescent Dawn: Yeah, but AIG isn't paying their salary. The government is, through the Chinese, and eventually through us (with interest!)


Wait, don't the rich pay all the taxes, I mean that's what they keep saying, how they pay all the taxes, so aren't the rich paying for this?
 
2009-03-17 03:15:51 PM  

Nabb1: Nullify the contracts on what grounds?


it's common practice to shed failing business units and remove yourself from the costs associated with it, including contracts.

basically, you make that unit a separate entity and let it go into bankruptcy, thus nullifying all contracts. if they want their bonuses, they can deal with it in bankruptcy court.
 
2009-03-17 03:17:44 PM  
Lucidz: Hey, a hundred million

I wasn't addressing the bonuses. I was addressing the whole "let them fail!" mantra. If your comment was only about the bonuses, then I apologize for reading more into it than that.
 
2009-03-17 03:18:16 PM  

Lucidz: If my company had been given bailout money and 10% of my income is in the form of bonuses or other incentives, I would be LIVID that the govt could tell the people who pay my salary what to do.


I would be too, in the moments the I broke through the haze of anger at the folks who paid me. You know, the same folks who held the world economy hostage for government cash to cover their malfeasance.
 
2009-03-17 03:18:47 PM  

timmy_the_tooth: Wait, don't the rich pay all the taxes, I mean that's what they keep saying, how they pay all the taxes, so aren't the rich paying for this?


Sure! And especially so when we see how light the middle class' tax burden will be when we start paying back over 10 trillion in debt while trying to service social security and medicare.
 
2009-03-17 03:19:03 PM  

burndtdan: Nabb1: Nullify the contracts on what grounds?

it's common practice to shed failing business units and remove yourself from the costs associated with it, including contracts.

basically, you make that unit a separate entity and let it go into bankruptcy, thus nullifying all contracts. if they want their bonuses, they can deal with it in bankruptcy court.


Well, if you force AIG into bankruptcy, then what was the point of the bailout? Second, since it is the government we are talking about, such a move might be seen as a flagrant violation of the Contracts Clause.
 
2009-03-17 03:19:28 PM  

Nabb1:
The UAW agreed to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement, which is allowed under federal labor law. In bankruptcy proceedings, the bankruptcy judge may nullify the CBA (as well as other contracts), so it was probably in the UAW's interests to bargain for some restructuring rather than having the slate forcibly wiped clean and starting over from scratch. The AIG contracts are not the product of a collective bargaining process, and would have to be renegotiated at an individual level. Barring that, you would probably have to go through bankruptcy to void the contractual obligations.


CBA have protection under bankruptcy, do they not?
 
2009-03-17 03:20:32 PM  

Lucidz: What is there to explore? They had CONTRACTUAL obligations to these people to provide these bonuses.


Does that seem odd to anyone else? They had contractual obligations to provide bonuses? In what world is something you are obligated to pay a "bonus"? Isn't that just "normal compensation for services rendered"?
 
2009-03-17 03:21:04 PM  

Nabb1: what was the point of the bailout?


to keep people from panicking

it didn't work
 
2009-03-17 03:21:34 PM  

Nabb1:

The UAW agreed to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement, which is allowed under federal labor law. In bankruptcy proceedings, the bankruptcy judge may nullify the CBA (as well as other contracts), so it was probably in the UAW's interests to bargain for some restructuring rather than having the slate forcibly wiped clean and starting over from scratch. The AIG contracts are not the product of a collective bargaining process, and would have to be renegotiated at an individual level. Barring that, you would probably have to go through bankruptcy to void the contractual obligations.


Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation.
 
2009-03-17 03:22:08 PM  

FredaDeStilleto: All this sounds like is a bunch of gruel handed out to the American public to make us believe the Senate cares for us poor working stiffs.



Mmmmmm....Sweet, nourishing gruel....
 
2009-03-17 03:22:32 PM  

Neeek: Lucidz: What is there to explore? They had CONTRACTUAL obligations to these people to provide these bonuses.

Does that seem odd to anyone else? They had contractual obligations to provide bonuses? In what world is something you are obligated to pay a "bonus"? Isn't that just "normal compensation for services rendered"?


I just posted this in the other AIG thread in the queue:

Here's something I'll never understand - if they are contractually obligated to pay the bonuses, why are they called bonuses?

This is likely the real problem most Americans have trying to get their heads around this whole conundrum.

If they were instead paid $6m in salary and no "bonuses", most people would still be pretty ticked off, but they'd accept a little easier that it was a contractual agreement to receive that amount of money as compensation for time worked.
 
2009-03-17 03:23:21 PM  

sloppy shoes: Nabb1:
The UAW agreed to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement, which is allowed under federal labor law. In bankruptcy proceedings, the bankruptcy judge may nullify the CBA (as well as other contracts), so it was probably in the UAW's interests to bargain for some restructuring rather than having the slate forcibly wiped clean and starting over from scratch. The AIG contracts are not the product of a collective bargaining process, and would have to be renegotiated at an individual level. Barring that, you would probably have to go through bankruptcy to void the contractual obligations.

CBA have protection under bankruptcy, do they not?


While I am pretty familiar with labor law in general, bankruptcy - not so much, so with that disclaimer: They can be protected but they can also be voided or restructured. IIRC, it is up to the discretion of the bankruptcy trustee.
 
2009-03-17 03:24:20 PM  

The Icelander: I look forward to seeing this in TurboTax next year:

"Did you receive a bonus out of TARP funds from AIG, you arrogant cocklicker?


I will be incredibly disappointed if TurboTax doesn't say precisely that. I'm sure my dad will email them a suggestion to include it after I forward him this story.
 
2009-03-17 03:28:26 PM  
Dust: Here's something I'll never understand - if they are contractually obligated to pay the bonuses, why are they called bonuses?

Just a guess. Because they have performance incentives written in their contracts. The amount may vary depending on the actual performance, but it state that "Bob will get $1000 per mortgage signed by his division" or "Jane will receive 2% of all insurance claims denied by her dept."
 
Displayed 50 of 397 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report