Congress to tax AIG bonuses at 90%

[HoldAndBuy]

I think this is a bad idea. I'm as disgusted with what's gone on with these bailout companies as anyone (I actually worked at AIG briefly on a computer contract several years ago, incidentally). But to pass arbitrary laws like this because the mob is shouting for them doesn't sit well with me. Having said that, voiding the bonuses completely would have been an even worse move.

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

[Hoosier4life2005]

This is a horrible idea.  If the government doesnt respect a contract (whether you disagree or agree), what good is a contract anymore?  Jeez.. unbelievable.

[Mdhaas]

The way I see this, if the government does not step in, AIG goes bust and there aren't any bonuses paid and the executives are unemployed.

If a new suitor (U.S. Government) steps in to save them.  As with any takeover, they go by the rules of the new suitor.

So why if we are bailing them out, thus salvaging their jobs, should a bonus be paid? They are lucky to be keeping their jobs and I am sure that their current compensation is much higher than yours and mine.

This isn't about contracts.  I believe in the sanctity of contracts.  It is about performance. If Bonuses are performance based and they fail to perform, then their performance or lack there of voided them. 

Just my 2 cents.

[John_in_NC]

This is all a dog and pony show to get the general public into hating capitalism so that the new radical democratic group can further their agenda. It should be obvious to anyone with intelligence that BO and his administration knew about these bonuses almost a year ago.

Don't fall for this.

[Hoosier4life2005]

This is all a dog and pony show to get the general public into hating capitalism so that the new radical democratic group can further their agenda. It should be obvious to anyone with intelligence that BO and his administration knew about these bonuses almost a year ago.

Don't fall for this.

100% agreed.  I dont know if any of you watch Glenn Beck, but it is amazing how much tax dollar money AIG has sent to other countries.  The politicians would rather have us argue over 160 million than the 45 BILLION of our tax dollars that were sent to other countries.  Its all a game, thats all it is, and I am getting P@&@(*SSED

[propertymanager]

How many people at AIG got these bonuses?  SEVENTY THREE got multi-million dollar bonuses.  What I find particularly disturbing about the government's action is that our federal government is targeting only a few undesireable people for oppressive taxation.  When the federal government is allowed to target these few undesireables, who is next?  Maybe next they will decide to target those rich landlords!

The tax code should not be used as a punishment for individuals!  This is a VERY DANGEROUS precedent!

Mike

[phlegmaticjay]

It is constitutionally illegal for Congress to tax those bonuses arbitrarily.  I can't remember the section.  Also, Congress was totally aware and signed off on these retention bonuses when they passed the bailout bill.  Socialists do not care about contracts.  It falls under their whole view of moral relativism.  They are throwing a fit over these bonuses to distract from the fact that Barry's approval ratings are plummeting, now that people are seeing that he isn't going to govern from the center and that he is in fact a Marxist.  hopefully 2010 will serve as a stop loss.

[HoldAndBuy]

I don't think this has anything to do with socialism. It's just congress pandering to public outrage and making a (bad) snap decision to make themselves look better. Business as usual.

It is constitutionally illegal for Congress to tax those bonuses arbitrarily.  I can't remember the section.  Also, Congress was totally aware and signed off on these retention bonuses when they passed the bailout bill.  Socialists do not care about contracts.  It falls under their whole view of moral relativism.  They are throwing a fit over these bonuses to distract from the fact that Barry's approval ratings are plummeting, now that people are seeing that he isn't going to govern from the center and that he is in fact a Marxist.  hopefully 2010 will serve as a stop loss.

[Rich_in_CT]

To be devil's advocate for a quick second here-

Most people on this forum are against the AIG bailout and bailouts in general, at least that is the impression I get.  What's worse than giving AIG money to keep the company afloat?  Giving the people that ran it into the ground bonuses for their catostrophic failures.  Not only that these are RETENTION bonuses to keep these people at AIG, a good portion of them don't even work there anymore so why should they be subject to a retention bonus if they weren't retained?  I am very much against these people getting bonuses of any kind but it is a rather dangerous precedent to allow the gov't to randomly levy taxes against specific groups or individuals.  Of course there really is no other way to prevent them from getting their bonuses due to the damn contracts.  Its really hard to imagine a retention contract wouldn't be dependant on performance, why would a company wish to retain/give bonuses to a dismal performer?  I really hope they rethink how they word their contracts in the future.

[phlegmaticjay]

Pass the Fair Tax and then it won't be an issue. 

[HoldAndBuy]

I agree. The solution is in changing how these contracts are done in the future, not meddling with taxes after the fact.

To be devil's advocate for a quick second here-

Most people on this forum are against the AIG bailout and bailouts in general, at least that is the impression I get.  What's worse than giving AIG money to keep the company afloat?  Giving the people that ran it into the ground bonuses for their catostrophic failures.  Not only that these are RETENTION bonuses to keep these people at AIG, a good portion of them don't even work there anymore so why should they be subject to a retention bonus if they weren't retained?  I am very much against these people getting bonuses of any kind but it is a rather dangerous precedent to allow the gov't to randomly levy taxes against specific groups or individuals.  Of course there really is no other way to prevent them from getting their bonuses due to the damn contracts.  Its really hard to imagine a retention contract wouldn't be dependant on performance, why would a company wish to retain/give bonuses to a dismal performer?  I really hope they rethink how they word their contracts in the future.

[phlemboy]

I believe these contracts were written over a yr. ago. "Tiny Tim" knew about these bonuses and asked them to be put into the stimulus bill. He was afraid of legal action against the govt. The govt. then entered this contract with AIG with these bonuses INCLUDED. It wasn't caught or was ignored because nobody bothered to read the 1200 page bill. In less than 48 hrs. the bill wqs passed without any discussion, debate or analysis because the sky was falling and something had to be done ASAP . Now that this public outrage is running rampant, the govt. has egg on their face and is trying cover their A*%. As much as I hate the idea of these bonuses, the govt. committed to this and has to honor it. Not weasle out the back door by unjustified taxation.

[Hoosier4life2005]

This is all completley unconstitutional.

[d_sbrown]

  Also, Congress was totally aware and signed off on these retention bonuses when they passed the bailout bill. 

Totally aware?

They passed it without reading it remember?  The democrats pushed it through so fast that no one could have a chance to read the whole thing.  I wonder why?

This is just sickening.  We gave total power in our government to a radically extreme group and they are doing what they have always done with power.

DB

[Hoosier4life2005]

Anybody think Obama would possibly lose the re-election in 2012?!?  He certainly wont get my vote.(Even though the problem is obviously not only him)