100% Tax?

AIG is in the news again with the bonuses they dolled out, Democratic lawmakers in the hill are proposing a legislation to explicitly tax their bonuses at 100%. (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2009/03/17/aig-bonus-checks-may-be-taxed-at-up-to-100-says-sen-chuck-schumer.html) Is that even possible? Has that ever been done before?

I thought I heard that it was up to 91% in some cases.

These congressmen will do anything even they knew about these bonuses months ago and their stimulas package stated that all due bonus money before the stimulas could still be paid. Now that the news is out they are acting like this is the first time they have heard about this and are outraged. What a joke. Like they don't waist a ton of our money as it is.

From what I read Chuck Schumer was the one who put the provision into the bail out money to allow for these bonuses.

I thought I heard that it was up to 91% in some cases.

During 1944 and 1945 the the highest tax bracket (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf) was 94% and from 1951 to 1963 it was around 91% to 92%.

During 1944 and 1945 the the highest tax bracket (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf) was 94% and from 1951 to 1963 it was around 91% to 92%.


On a side note, the top rate in Britain was 95% for many years. Hence the line from Taxman - "There's one for you, nineteen for me..."

What I want to know is how much of this bailout money is winding up overseas? Obviously, all this bailout money goes to AIG and then goes right back out again to cover claims by entities that got swamped by the Securities meltdown. If it's the Chinese (or the English or Libyans or Whoever), I say "Tough Shit. Next time dig some wells or something. Build a school or a road with your trade-imbalance lucre. In fact the same goes for hedge funds, union pension funds, grandmas life savings - screw you. You gambled, you lost. Next time give the money to the poor like you're supossed to.

On a side note, the top rate in Britain was 95% for many years. Hence the line from Taxman - "There's one for you, nineteen for me..."

What I want to know is how much of this bailout money is winding up overseas? Obviously, all this bailout money goes to AIG and then goes right back out again to cover claims by entities that got swamped by the Securities meltdown. If it's the Chinese (or the English or Libyans or Whoever), I say "Tough Shit. Next time dig some wells or something. Build a school or a road with your trade-imbalance lucre. In fact the same goes for hedge funds, union pension funds, grandmas life savings - screw you. You gambled, you lost. Next time give the money to the poor like you're supossed to.

LOL...you learn something new every day.

I don't mind the money going overseas because our economic strength is partly predicated on the confidence of foreign investors to invest here. Plus those foreign guys bought legitimate insurance service and are entitled to receive compensation. What I do mind is letting AIG leverage 11 to 1 (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/17/aigs-failure-is-so-much-bigger-than-enron.aspx). That's 9.5 trillion to 860 billion.


p.s. Forgive me Lord SS for providing links without pre-aproval.

LOL...you learn something new every day.

I don't mind the money going overseas because our economic strength is partly predicated on the confidence of foreign investors to invest here. Plus those foreign guys bought legitimate insurance service and are entitled to receive compensation. What I do mind is letting AIG leverage 11 to 1 (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/17/aigs-failure-is-so-much-bigger-than-enron.aspx). That's 9.5 trillion to 860 billion.


p.s. Forgive me Lord SS for providing links without pre-aproval.

I think the preasure put on the CEO's to drive up stock prices is a big problem today and they take risk that either make them great or flop. I'm sure at some point that leveraging was paying off big but when things start to go bad then things just fall apart.

these bozos had no problem telling the hourly at general motors they had to re open their contract, and trim the fat. i guess there are different sets of rules for the millionaires club

I think the preasure put on the CEO's to drive up stock prices is a big problem today and they take risk that either make them great or flop. I'm sure at some point that leveraging was paying off big but when things start to go bad then things just fall apart.

That's no excuse, look at Berkshire Hathaway, they leveraged 2 to 1 and they always perform.


This brings up a good question, should we limit how big companies (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5256SB20090307) can get so that the failure of a single company can not be detrimental to the economy?

That's no excuse, look at Berkshire Hathaway, they leveraged 2 to 1 and they always perform.


This brings up a good question, should we limit how big companies (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5256SB20090307) can get so that the failure of a single company can not be detrimental to the economy?
I was not making an excuse just maybe a cause of why people do what they do. A big NO to your other question and if thats a good idea why not limit goverment so they only screw up in small ways. I love how congress just passed a bill full of earmarks but now are jumping all over AIG for this and if I'm correct both are in dept.