To attempt to use taxation as a bludgeon and punishment towards a targeted group is just flat wrong

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

also, the attempt to make it retroactive is wrong (plus, isn't that unconstitutional? I forget the phrase, but I believe that it is specifically prohibited).

If Congress wants the AIG bonuses back, let them sue on some legitimate basis in a court of law.

No one rails at corporate excess more than I, but I would never pervert the tax system to attain a goal that was not attainable through other, more legitimate means.

Talk about a slippery slope!

[muntrv]

1. I believe it's a bill of attainder that is unconstitutional.

[lelgt60]

22. I disagree. This is exactly one of the things taxes should be used for.

They are already and have been for a long time. When you give tax breaks to makers of solar panels and tax cigarettes, you're specifically trying to both raise revenue and do the social engineering desired by your constituents. Nothing new here.

It's not a bill of attainder, because it is not criminalizing anything.

[stillcool]

2. I think Congress should pay the bonuses..

they approved them in the first place. Get every one who voted for the bill to pony up their share..maybe they can do a sliding scale thing..pay according to their net worth. Bet they wouldn't do it again.

[emilyg]

8. I like your idea.

[G_j]

12. best idea I've heard

[Hello_Kitty]

3. It's not unconstitutional

Bills of attainder refer to criminal law. The AIG execs are not being charged with or punished for a crime (well, not yet). They are being taxed. It doesn't violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws either because, again, it's taxation. SCOTUS upheld retroactive taxes in U.S. v Carlton in 1994.

[MADem]

5. Yes indeed. They are being TAXED. They may feel like they're getting the very same sort of

SCREWING that they gave to the American people, but that, as Poppy would say, is nothing more than "quid pro quo."

[Hello_Kitty]

7. And you know what? High taxes on bonuses is nothing new

At my previous job I'd usually get an annual bonus of about $4000 or so. Uncle Sam took about 50% of it. It was standard practice and while it sucked, I never whined that I was being "targeted" with a tax. I took the 50% that was left and was happy with it.

[MercutioATC]

28. You had 50% WITHHELD, you weren't TAXED at 50%.

You're taxed in a given bracket by paycheck. If you had $4000 extra in one paycheck, it bumped you into a higher btacket FOR THAT PAY PERIOD and you were subject to WITHHOLDING at a higher rate.

However, when you filed at the end of the year, your entire income (including the bonus) was TAXED based on the bracket you fell into for the year.

[Andy823]

4. Yes, you are right, but

It did my heart good to see Cantor and those other republicans vote for a increase on taxes up to what, 90%? What will Grover and the gang say?

[Egalitariat]

6. We now have Congress dictating how to run a business

Congress does not have a good track record running much of anything.

This is going to be bad. But it won't last. These things will either die before they become law, or when the unintended consequences start to materialize, they'll be reversed.

We, as taxpayers, are now owners of several big banks. The company we own isn't allowed to pay its best people more than $250K/year. There are other banks out there that are allowed to pay them.

If you were one of them, where would you work?

[Brucie Kibbutz]

18. And how does Wall Street's track record look to you?

If I were one of them, I'd feel glad to be employed right now.

[Egalitariat]

35. AIG's fiscal record, even now, is better than that of Congress****

nm

[Brucie Kibbutz]

39. I'm not sure we even have the full story on AIG's fiscal record.

:shrug:

[Brucie Kibbutz]

9. They're the ones that pervert the tax system.

To hell with them.

[Mike 03]

10. I agree, and I posted an example but it dropped like a stone. NT

[originalpckelly]

11. What you're saying is that we can't have progressive taxation...

after all, it targets a group of people, who make a certain amount of money.

I think that on the other hand, this is an ex post facto law, and that is unconstitutional.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. I am NOT saying we can't have progressive taxation

Progressive taxation is not designed to be a bludgeon and a punishment and it's not enacted towards a very, very, small, teensy, weensy subset of people who work for one specific employer.

I can't stand it when people use a false extrapolation like this.

Although, thanks for agreeing with me on the ex post facto part!

[Brucie Kibbutz]

17. It's OK for the government to tear up the UAW contracts

but we shouldn't deny bonuses for executives who only have a job, these days, because of our generosity. :patriot:

Were the subset of people that work on the line at GM and Chrysler plants bludgeoned and punished?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

19. I never said it was ok for the government to tear up the UAW contracts

I specifically think it ISN'T ok to tear up the UAW contracts, especially since the bailout avoided a bankruptcy, where that might have happened. AND, if they were going to renegoiate UAW pay, they should have renegotiated ALL pay, especially at the executive levels.

But, the government DIDN'T say:

Sure, we'll keep the contracts, but you UAW workers will now have your own specific UAW tax that applies ONLY to you and your UAW salaries as a means to that end.

My point is: you don't use the soverign powers of government, TAXATION, to obtain goals that you cannot get through other legal channels. That is an abuse of power, pure and simple.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

24. They weren't taxed but they were singled out for punishment.

Their right to strike was the only bargaining chip they had so it will definitely have an effect on their income just as a tax would.

Wall Street abuses it's power every day. They use that power to wage war on the working class and they win every single battle. Like I said, they should be glad to still have a job. If they don't like the terms being changed to reflect the same economic problems the rest of us face, I say: TOUGH TITTY! Do us all a favor and jump! :nopity:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

31. I AGREE with you that it is sickening that the rank and file working guy

was asked for givebacks while plundering and looting executives skate. We're on the same side

My issue in this thread is simple:

Do not attempt to achieve through an abusive use of after the fact taxation what you could/should achieve through other means.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

36. understood

I just don't have a problem with them doing it to Wall Street, considering the ramifications of their greed and incompetence. Whatever means hurts the most are the means I want the government to use.

[MercutioATC]

27. Sems to me that Congress should have thought about that before

they refused to put any strings on the money.

Now, their payoffs to their big contributors are causing political problems for them so they're abusing the tax code to save their asses.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

30. I think they did think of that but it was taken out at the insistence

of a certain few...:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

32. The bottom line is that they screwed up the first time and it's biting them in the ass...

...so they're trying to save themselves by screwing up again.


If I exhibited such gross incompetence at work, I'd be fired.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

33. If Wall Street executives exhibit gross incompetence,

they get a bonus at our expense! :patriot:

[MercutioATC]

34. I'm not supporting the bonuses, I just believe the "fix" is a greater injustice.

...especially in the ham-handed manner in which Congress has "fixed" it.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

37. I can understand having a problem with the tactics

Congress is using. Normally I would probably feel the same way. They certainly have a lot to answer for themselves. However, since it's AIG, I don't care if they are dealt with in an unjust manner. Piss on them.

[leftchick]

13. it is a moot point as well

the federal government owns 80% of AIG, therefore we could say, fire the fucking thieves, clean uo the toxic waste, and install very strict regulations. But what do I know? I just read every economist worth his salt calling for this daily for weeks now.

Bottom line? We have no fucking democracy.

[varkam]

15. Article 1 § 8 of the United States Constitution

But I'm not sure that taking back the cash would be construed as a punishment. Plus, I'm pretty sure that it just applies to legislation - if the executive can figure some other way to get the money back then I don't think it would run afoul of the constitution.

[DireStrike]

16. Yeah yeah, we have to be the good guys.

Meanwhile we lose all the battles and they keep all the resources so we lose more in the future.

[Mike 03]

20. I agree totally that this is not a good idea, and that it could and probably

will backfire bigtime.

Kick and Rec.

[Mike 03]

21. Only one rec for this thread? That surprises me. NT

[Obamanaut]

25. I'll do a rec. Just read your thread. nt

[Ikonoklast]

23. One thing people are missing here

is that some of those due bonuses were actually in divisions of AIG that were profitable, and did a very good job earning income for their employer.

If I was one of those people not employed in the AIGFP division that wrote CDS and was going to get my bonus hammered by the government by taxation, it sure wouldn't seem very fair to me.

The executives, on the other hand, are a completely different matter. They knew.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

26. Let them be pissed at their co workers for fucking it up, then.

I can't afford to pay their salary.

[mitchum]

29. Fine...they are more likely to be able to find those bastards...

and "discuss" their dissatisfaction with them

[smoogatz]

38. I disagree.

Congress is using the tax code to recover what is essentially stolen taxpayer money. That's no perversion, IMO--it's justice.

[JI7]

40. "bludgeon and punishment" ?

strange choice of words to describe it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

42. How so?

If you look up Miriam and Webster online you will see "bludgeon" defined as "something used to attack and bully".

I'm assuming "punishment" requires no explanation.

Why is my choice of words strange? I am describing a targeted use of tax laws as a weapon.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

45. Maybe it's overly dramatic.

You make it sound like they're being sent to Gitmo or something.

[JI7]

47. how the fuck are they being attacked and bullied ? why should middle class tax payers award those

whores who destroyed the nation's finances.

[JI7]

41. these assholes probably don't even pay the regular taxes they should

even though they make more than most people who pay .

[readmoreoften]

43. Poor rich people.

My heart is fucking breaking.

[xchrom]

44. people can, do and receive targeted tax loopholes all the time.

taxing these bonuses is not a slippery slope -- unless the afore mentioned is as well.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

46. So, some of them won't get a new Ferrari this year.

:nopity:

[Usrename]

48. I disagree about this.

I think it's been clear since the closing days of the campaign that the people do not support using taxpayer revenue, in the form of bailout money, to pay these ridiculous salaries. I don't think this legislation goes far enough. I think their entire salaries over $400,000 should be taxed at %100 in order to bring some kind of sanity to bear on this insane situation.

If the company cannot run without people who earn more than ten times an average salary, then maybe the business is up to no good and should be shut down. This kind of corporate greed is insanity.

If these folks really believe they are worth more than $400,000 a year to anyone, then fine, they can go work somewhere else besides a public corporation. I'm serious. We need some kind of throttle on this trainwreck of an economy.

Taxes are not punishment. They're the revenue that we use to run government. If there is ever going to be something close to economic justice in this country, then these are EXACTly the folks who must be singled out and forced to pay their fair share.

It is wrong to have an economic and tax system that discriminates against people just because they are poor, and that is exactly what we have now. The working poor have been carrying these heartless bastards for too long, and I think it's time to start turning this around.

I believe it is completely legal and constitutional to levy this kind of tax on these particular people. They are not being discriminated against for race or gender or age or creed or anything else other than their behavior, which I believe is a legitimate consideration when assesing their tax burden.

This is no where near as disturbing to me as when the Senate was calling for the firing of General Motors CEO as a condition of any automaker bailout strategy. He wasn't even being accused of any criminal misconduct or anything like that, and they wanted to extort the company into firing him. That didn't seem right to me at the time, and then two weeks later Gov. Rod Blogojevich was ARRESTED for aledgedly making the EXACT same kind of proposal regarding two Chigago Tribune reporters.

To me, taxing these folks looks like the right thing to do. If they wanted to work for bonuses, they should have gotten a different job somewhere else where they wouldn't be receiving taxpayer bailout money. It should have been very clear to them that this was considered bad federal policy and that it would not be tolerated. I don't see how Obama could have made it more clear when he enunciated his conditions for supporting any kind of federal bailout.

"This plan cannot be a welfare program for CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility has contributed to this crisis," Obama's statement said. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

Obama said in his television interview that he was inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26928934/

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama imposed a $500,000 pay cap on some senior executives whose firms receive government financial rescue money, a dramatic intervention into corporate governance in the midst of financial crisis.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/obama-to-limit-executive_n_163765.html

[bottomtheweaver]

50. Seriously.

Nice rant!

[bottomtheweaver]

49. I'll be happy to slide down that slippery slope.

Sooner or later we're going to have to repay that huge national debt the have-mores have been racking up and even stealing the SS trust fund would barely put a dent in it at this point. It's time to pay the piper.