House sets up vote today on taxing AIG bonuses

[Chris_]

House sets up vote today on taxing AIG bonuses



WASHINGTON (AP) - The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

"We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent," said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel said the bill would apply to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money.

House Democratic leaders unveiled the bill as the head of embattled American International Group Inc., which has received $182 billion in bailout money, testified about $165 million in bonuses paid out in the past week to about 400 employees in its Financial Products unit.

Edward Liddy, who was brought in last year by the government to run AIG, told a House subcommittee Wednesday that the company was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses but that some of the recipients have begun returning all or part of them.

MORE

If they can target this group with specific income taxes, they can target anyone and simply steal their money.   

[Carl]

I would like to see this challenged on Constitutional grounds.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

[Lord Undies]

Another day, another attempt by the criminals in charge of congress to take the masses for fools.  I suggest an hour session with each member of congress, individually, while he/she is under the influence of sodium pentathol.  I understand it works good as a truth serum on simple minds.

Has anyone in the media brought up the constitutional aspects of this move?  I doubt it. 

[thundley4]

I would like to see this challenged on Constitutional grounds.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

I've seen the bill of attainder mentioned and also ex-post facto mentioned as reasons why these tax laws would be unconstitutional. OTOH, when has a little thing like the US Constitution been more than a bump in the road for the left?


I have seen both of these mentioned on Fox News. Brit Hume brought up the  "Bill of Attainder" either Monday or Tuesday as a guest of Brett Baier.

[NHSparky]

Another day, another attempt by the criminals in charge of congress to take the masses for fools.  I suggest an hour session with each member of congress, individually, while he/she is under the influence of sodium pentathol.  I understand it works good as a truth serum on simple minds.

Has anyone in the media brought up the constitutional aspects of this move?  I doubt it. 

Yes.  Jonah Goldberg was on Glenn Beck last night talking about it.  If I'm one of those AIG execs I sue and get legal fees paid as well.  The government is shooting itself in the foot.

On another note, have any of the folks that took AIG's money publicly recused themselves from the vote?

[5412]

Hi,

What an outrage!  Those bonuses were EARNED, why the hell aren't the republicans screaming bloody murder.

regards,
5412

[Karin]

I'm a constitutional conservative, and I'm keenly following that angle wherever it's reported in the news, mostly on Fox. 
Also, this spectacle yesterday and today is embarassing.  Another knee-jerk reaction by the jerks, without a thought for unintended consequences or rule of law.  They're acting like 8 year olds.     
In the perfect world of my daydreams, the whole lot of house and senate would be thrown under the bus (thump-thump-thump) and replaced with wet behind the ears newbies.  People with no slimy favors from the past to pay back.  People who still had common sense and still believed in the original dads. 

[Happy Fun Ball]

I would like to see this challenged on Constitutional grounds.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

Also, the Contract Clause. These bonuses were part of a contract that was made over a year ago. By doing this, they are effectively nullifying that contract, and would lead to a dangerous precedent. I remember Boortz talking about this earlier this week.

[claret1995]

 I wish the republicans would scream about this but IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. They don't want to be seen supporting these bonuses as the public is outraged and this would be bad politics. So they will go along  knowing that Scotus ( if they get the chance) will knock this down and they can be seen as taking thepopulist position telling everyone that they tried

[Black Swan]

I would be happy if they just let this bonus thing go.  Stop bailouts and create legislation, if necessary, that forces AIG into a receivership; break them up and put them back in the private sector under new management.  No one should be too big to fail.  The handling of this whole so-called crisis stinks out loud.   

[Konssurvative1]

I would like to see this challenged on Constitutional grounds.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

What is to keep the Government from saying you know that income tax refund you got this year...we think it is way too much...you already make 80 K a year...we are going to tax that at 90% cuz we needs the money!!!!  I don't give a crap what anyone says...AIG did what was legal and what the law told them to do...thanks to Chris DODD...If the Supreme Court allows this we ARE SCREWED...nothing will be safe...

[ReardenSteel]

I would be happy if they just let this bonus thing go.  Stop bailouts and create legislation, if necessary, that forces AIG into a receivership; break them up and put them back in the private sector under new management.  No one should be too big to fail.  The handling of this whole so-called crisis stinks out loud.   

Welcome to the CC Black Swan, and your first high five. 

Receivership is fine by me. Plus there is a huge history and set of legal precidents for bankruptcy of all kinds. The whole Eat the Rich/Statist philosophy ought to have died at the end of WWII.

[Black Swan]

Welcome to the CC Black Swan, and your first high five. 

Receivership is fine by me. Plus there is a huge history and set of legal precidents for bankruptcy of all kinds. The whole Eat the Rich/Statist philosophy ought to have died at the end of WWII.

Thank you.  I have been a member for a while and drop in now and again to read mostly.  These bailouts really have gotten under my skin.  Too many Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs people involved and the doors continue to revolve in Washington.  My question is what to do about campaign contributions seemingly perpetuate this type of corruption against the very people who put them in office.   

[thundley4]

I was watching Fox News earlier during the house vote. Something funny there it seems. Merrill Lynch paid out over 3.6 BILLION in bonuses, but from what I understood, these won't be covered under this new attack law.  Is this right, anyone?

[Carl]

What is to keep the Government from saying you know that income tax refund you got this year...we think it is way too much...you already make 80 K a year...we are going to tax that at 90% cuz we needs the money!!!!  I don't give a crap what anyone says...AIG did what was legal and what the law told them to do...thanks to Chris DODD...If the Supreme Court allows this we ARE SCREWED...nothing will be safe...

Think campaign finance reform and eminent domain (Kelo).
Nothing is guaranteed with any court.

[Ree]

I was watching Fox News earlier during the house vote. Something funny there it seems. Merrill Lynch paid out over 3.6 BILLION in bonuses, but from what I understood, these won't be covered under this new attack law.  Is this right, anyone?

yeppers...the tax only covers "bonuses" from 1/1/09 and on....Lynch got theirs in dec...

[Hawkgirl]

Hi,

What an outrage!  Those bonuses were EARNED, why the hell aren't the republicans screaming bloody murder.

regards,
5412

I have mixed feelings on this...while, yes this may set a precedent to tax ANY bonuses...these particular one werent' exactly "earned" as this company was not exactly profitable and I've never heard of bonuses going to employees who did not PRODUCE.
These bonuses were scams to steal more money from investors.

[rich_t]

Weren't they retention bonuses?

[miskie]

Im certain that this is political sabre-rattling and nothing more - the very concept of charging penalty taxes on legally earned income simply because it is 'unfavorable' is so unconstitutional that they would have better luck giving dogs (hearby known as Canine-Americans) the right to vote.

Just imagine what the administration can do with such a ruling ?

Right wing radio hosts ? 99.3% tax rates.
Work for Fox News ? 96.41% tax rates.
Make nongreen products ? 89.6% tax rate for you.

 

[Chris_]

Im certain that this is political sabre-rattling and nothing more - the very concept of charging penalty taxes on legally earned income simply because it is 'unfavorable' is so unconstitutional that they would have better luck giving dogs (hearby known as Canine-Americans) the right to vote.

Just imagine what the administration can do with such a ruling ?

Right wing radio hosts ? 99.3% tax rates.
Work for Fox News ? 96.41% tax rates.
Make nongreen products ? 89.6% tax rate for you.

 

Paybacks will be a b*tch when the 'ol pendulum of power swings back the other way...and it will someday.  They better be careful what they ask for.

[rich_t]

Paybacks will be a b*tch when the 'ol pendulum of power swings back the other way...and it will someday.  They better be careful what they ask for.

Not unless we replace a whole ton of Repubs currently in office it won't.

The current crop is largely spinless and lack the balls to actually stand up and fight for conservative values.

[NHSparky]

Problem is, a whole shitload of Republicans voted in favor of this, when they (along with everyone else) SHOULD know that this is purely for show.

[Duke Nukum]

I have mixed feelings on this...while, yes this may set a precedent to tax ANY bonuses...these particular one werent' exactly "earned" as this company was not exactly profitable and I've never heard of bonuses going to employees who did not PRODUCE.
These bonuses were scams to steal more money from investors.

I don't have any mixed feelings about this whatsoever, the government has exceeded it's authority.  If it didn't want AIG paying bonuses it should have let them go bankrupt.

The hysteria was highly disturbing and passing this law evil and unconstitutional.

[ReardenSteel]

Thank you.  I have been a member for a while and drop in now and again to read mostly.  These bailouts really have gotten under my skin.  Too many Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs people involved and the doors continue to revolve in Washington.  My question is what to do about campaign contributions seemingly perpetuate this type of corruption against the very people who put them in office.   

My opinion is there is only one way to kill the corruption, kickbacks and locust swarm of lobbyist and it's simple as Hell. (not to be confused with easy) Stop the bailouts and cut the spending. You can't make ethics rules and new regulations and new laws every year and expect to even make a dent. They (lobbyist et al) are not the problem as they are simple minded sharks. Just stop throwing farking chum in the water and they will starve to death.

[Black Swan]

My opinion is there is only one way to kill the corruption, kickbacks and locust swarm of lobbyist and it's simple as Hell. (not to be confused with easy) Stop the bailouts and cut the spending. You can't make ethics rules and new regulations and new laws every year and expect to even make a dent. They (lobbyist et al) are not the problem as they are simple minded sharks. Just stop throwing farking chum in the water and they will starve to death.

I agree with stop the bailouts (they never should have occurred) and cut the spending.  So how do you suggest we kill the corruption in Congress who receive kickbacks and campaign contributions which in turn demand special treatment.  There is another revolving door.  Washington is made up of revolving doors.  I am all for term limits.  I recognize lobbyists have a place but who is lobbying for us?  What do you mean when you say stop throwing chum in the water and they will starve to death and who are you referring to?