100% Tax?

[saden1]

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%. Is that even possible? Has that ever been done before?

[724Skinsfan]

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

[firstdown]

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

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

During 1944 and 1945 the the highest tax bracket was 94% and from 1951 to 1963 it was around 91% to 92%.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

During 1944 and 1945 the the highest tax bracket 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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

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. That's 9.5 trillion to 860 billion.


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

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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. 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.

[dmek25]

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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 can get so that the failure of a single company can not be detrimental to the economy?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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 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.

[That Guy]

the bonuses are specifically for the very people that helped tank the economy with derivatives business.

I'm all for justice :P.

that said, there does seem to be a bit too much of the torch mob mentality towards anyone making ANY kind of money lately just for having money... i'm not so up on that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the bonuses are specifically for the very people that helped tank the economy with derivatives business.

I'm all for justice :P.

that said, there does seem to be a bit too much of the torch mob mentality towards anyone making ANY kind of money lately just for having money... i'm not so up on that.

I got no problem with people making money - even making lots of money. I do have a problem with people bearing absolutely no risk in doing so due to a manipulation of the market system or for making tons of money as a reward for makng bad market decisions.

At this point, and as others have pointed out, Congress' indignation is somewhat hollow given that the money was given with basically no strings attached.

Ah well, we'll just keep printing money until we get out of this mess. Of course, at that point the money supply will be so flooded that we'll have hyperinflation. I guess we'll just deal with one economic crisis at a time.

Did someone mention that half our debt trillion dollar debt is owed to Chinese. Better start learning Mandarin.

[70Chip]

I found this instructive:

Political Punch: Obama Administration: We Didn't Find Out About AIG Bonuses Until This Month


"Three days later, on March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009."

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I found this instructive:

Political Punch: Obama Administration: We Didn't Find Out About AIG Bonuses Until This Month


"Three days later, on March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009."

Funny that Dood is the one making the most nois about AIG so I guess he is trying to cover his a$$. Didn't I ask the question in another thread about what goverment actually work and performed well. No one listed the bail outs or this stimulas bill. This is what happens when you have to have a 800 billion bill passed in a week. Ok, maybe to weeks and Obams inexperience is showing more and more every day. He is not fixing anything just making it worse.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Funny that Dood is the one making the most nois about AIG so I guess he is trying to cover his a$$. Didn't I ask the question in another thread about what goverment actually work and performed well. No one listed the bail outs or this stimulas bill. This is what happens when you have to have a 800 billion bill passed in a week. Ok, maybe to weeks and Obams inexperience is showing more and more every day. He is not fixing anything just making it worse.

The thing that's infuriating is that no one seems to be owning up to who actually changed the bill in conference. You may recall that there were complaints about changes being penciled in to the margins at the last minute. If Dodd (or any other Senator for that matter) says to some flunkie, "cross out that section", does that give Dodd deniability? Can he then say to the press "I don't who made that change?"

I know as the Warpath's reactionary in residence I'm completely biased, but I think it's time for the Senator from CountryWide to hit the bricks. The Democrats would be better off without him and Barney Frank but again, not really for me to say.