Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI) plans to introduce a bill to tax AIG bonuses at a high rate this year.

[jordi_fanclub]

Source: The Atlantic

(...)
Speaking of punishing AIG: Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI) plans to introduce a bill to tax AIG bonuses at a high rate this year. A spokesman for Peters says that details are still being worked out. Targeting legislation at one company is tantamount to the Congress's passing a bill of attainder against AIG. But these are extraordinary times.

Read more: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/treasury_considers_bailout_reduction_for_aig.php

---

(edited to add)

Tax at a high rate?
Yeah... May I suggest a 100% rate? :evilgrin:

[Tansy_Gold]

1. I believe there has been legislation FAVORING one company over others.

Eli Lilly is the name that comes to mind.



TG

[babylonsister]

2. I'm hoping someone comes along first with a bill telling these

scum they only get bonuses if they deserve them, and that wouldn't be any time soon. Not on our dime!

[masuki bance]

3. They should aim the taxes at the individuals that receive the bonuses

and let it follow them wherever they work for the rest of their lives.

[mbperrin]

4. Don't name the company. Just say this will happen to ALL companies who've gotten

more than 100 billion or more in taxpayer dough the last year. See? Nice and legal. Categories are just fine.

I guess a law making it perfectly legal to pitchfork AIG bonusees in the ass is out, though...dammit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Not at all. Employment contracts with "the little guy" are broken all the time.

[tomm2thumbs]

6. TAX IT AT 150% !!!! I love it

[rocktivity]

7. Tax it at TWO HUNDRED percent--get every penny of it back!

If your company did so badly you needed a government bailout, YOU DON'T QUALIFY FOR ANY KIND BONUS!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[bemildred]

8. Word. nt

[Wizard777]

9. Taxing the bonuses may be the only realistic way to recover the money.

This is a contractual debt to the companies. The US Constitution prohibits the government from impairing the obligations of a contract.

[Jefferson23]

10. WHY do they still have their job at all???

[ConcernedCanuk]

11. Excuse me for my simple Canuk mind, why are execs of FAILING companies getting bonuses?

.
.
.

If a company needs a bailout - the managers fucked up

Managers should be given a pink slip and a new gang brought in.

If the managers that fucked it up get a bonus,

WHY WOULD THEY CHANGE THEIR HABITS???

What is wrong down there ? ? ?

OH - Robber Barons still run the country

Not really hard to figure that one out I guess

President Obama

STAND UP!!

[BrklynLiberal]

27. That could be the question of the decade....

[onehandle]

12. Send Karl Rove to Iraq!

Why?

Why not?!

[AZ Criminal JD]

13. Article I, Section 9, part 3 of the Constitution prohibits this.

But who cares about that document. It is just a piece of paper.

[bemildred]

17. They been doing it for some time now.

I'm all for the Constitution, but only if we're going to start being consistent about it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. I agree...this is stupid

Laws shouldn't target individuals. They are principles for general governance.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. What Does It Say?

I'll admit it, I don't know the Constitution by heart.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Oh, Ex Post Facto

Didn't Clinton do that? I think some other presidents have as well.

[AZ Criminal JD]

30. No Clinton did not do that.

The last President that tried was Lincoln and the court struck him down on that.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. I Think That He Did

e.g., http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5DB153BF936A3575BC0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Senator Dole was simply wrong when he said, "Never before in American history has the Government increased tax rates retroactively."

The Treasury put out a list today of 13 such rate increases since 1917, the most notable of which was Lyndon B. Johnson's surtax, imposed in 1968, to help pay for the Vietnam War. The law was passed on Oct. 22, and the tax was retroactive to Jan. 1 for corporations and April 1 for individuals. Retroactivity Is Common

[bemildred]

28. Here:

"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST

But we have been playing fast and loose with this definition for a long time now, and other things, like:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html

[MannyGoldstein]

29. 100% Tax On Capital Gains Forever

On any remuneration above $100k per year for bailed-out bankers.

[starroute]

35. That's all about criminal law -- where does it say taxes? (n/t)

[bemildred]

36. Taxes are criminal law.

Fines, penalties, jail terms, all that stuff.

Edit: what the hell do you think it is? A TV show?

[starroute]

39. So you can't increase the penalties for tax evasion retroactively

Big deal.

But where does it say you can't make a change in tax rates retroactive?

[bemildred]

40. Well, actually, I think they have done that in the past.

So I'm not really arguing with you. That sort of thing would come down to "due process" in a dispute. I don't really think there is any question about Congress' authority to tax as it pleases, within wide margins, and to change tax rates during the year for all earnings in the course of a year, for example. But it would be bad policy to make a habit of that sort of thing, people generally need to know what they can expect. I think if you went back and changed peoples tax burden for 2006 you could have trouble. But these "bonuses" I think they could have a "tax earmark" for, and I would favor that.

[libodem]

14. Makes sense to me

and plus it seems like it would make the Republicans go nuckin' futz! I'm in to a little mental torture for these A-holeos.

[grantcart]

15. 100% and a free 7 year look back by our friends at the IRS

[Kablooie]

19. AH! The dreaded IRS audit! That's the ticket! We'd catch some jailbirds for sure!

[Abq_Sarah]

37. Not only audit AIG but every single politician in Washington

Think of the money the treasury could rake in if they went after politicians.

[tomm2thumbs]

33. chanting.... "AUDIT, AUDIT, AUDIT!!"

These schemers have probably 7 years of fake investments and hidden tricks to uncover - it's worth the effort just to get things started!

[kaygore]

16. May I suggest 110%--that is if they take the bonus

[nichomachus]

20. Bad cases make bad law

This is a really bad law because it's designed as a punitive measure against one select group of people after the fact. Probably wouldn't survive a test in the Supreme Council of Corporate Lobbyists -- formerly known as the US Supreme Court.

A better thing would be just to charge all the AIG execs and anyone who took a bonus with embezzlement.

[bemildred]

21. That would be more direct, true. nt

[pinniped]

22. They'll just double the bonuses.

Tax them at 70%, and they'll just payout 70% more.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. Good man! I hope the other Dems back him up on this!!!

[nichomachus]

26. All they have to do

Is call in the top AIG folks and tell them that anyone who gives or takes a "bonus" will be audited within an inch of their life. They will be under a microscope for this year, next year, and the past three years.

I'm betting a lot of these guys wouldn't want to undergo an intense audit.

[tedzbear]

32. I say tax them at 100% rate and nothing less.

I am furious with the President for letting this happen.

[Spoon]

34. Though it sounds great, they can't do it - would be unconstitutional.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is on a much better track anyway, calling it what it is, FRAUD, and issuing subpoenas.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/aig_cuomo


Anyway, if anyone needs a civics class refresher:

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

[Ian David]

38. Let's tax their bonuses at 200% n/t