House passes 90% tax on AIG et. al. bonuses

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ravenvii, Mar 21, 2009.

  1. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #1
    http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/19/house-passes-bill-taxing-wall-street-bonuses/

    The hell? They gave AIG et. al. the capability to pass out all those bonuses in the first place, and now they want to dish out some revenge?

    The damned thing is probably unconstitutional too - people will use this precedent in bad ways, I guarantee you.

    More evidence that the only thing the government can do is screw things up even more.
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    It's just wrong for congress to pass a law like this and retroactively put on a tax like that if they didn't like the bonuses they should have put it into the origional legislation.
     
  3. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #3
    Not including the language would have invited legal battles that ate up the taxpayer money. This way has been done before, so they are effectively maneuvering around the whole ordeal. Still, it's sad any action has to be taken to prevent them from getting the bonus money.
     
  4. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #4
    It is actually a pretty clever move. If they had simply rejected bonus payments they would have conceivably been sued for breach of contract by numerous people. This way they avoid breaking the law while still getting to keep the vast majority of the money.
     
  5. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    They should use my proposal.

    These merchant bankers (never has that euphemism been more apt!) should have a 110% tax imposed on them (back dated). Or be shot.

    Note my benevolence. I even give them a choice.
     
  6. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #6
    I like the late night joke.

    "We're just religious fanatics, not bankers."
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    I'll agree with that. AIG had a lot of nerve doing what they did.
     
  8. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #8
    The government had a lot of nerve pissing money away into these companies they way they did.
     
  9. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #9

    The TARP bill put that capability in there in the first place, and this was introduced by Henry Paulson, backed by both sides of the House and signed by George W. Bush.

    This is government money, taxpayer's money, your money. Why are you so keen to reward failure and potential fraud?
     
  10. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    Which is exactly why any bailout was a bad idea ... there is no end.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    You'll get no argument from me on that either. But for a company to give out millions in bonuses at a time like this is ridiculous.
     
  12. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #12
    I agree, although a profitable company that isn't on corporate welfare is free to dish out whatever bonuses it likes.
     
  13. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #13
    Has it? In the news coverage I've seen so far, I haven't seen mention of precedents for this kind of law.
     
  14. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #14

    The 'bailout' was necessary. You don't let a global concern like AIG go to the wall just like that; they're too interconnected, too important... you don't rip out the arteries to save the patient. But you don't also make it easy for them to reward failure. They should be grateful they've still got jobs in the first place.

    Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    This company isn't, and very well should not be doing what it's doing.
     
  16. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #16
    For what? All it did was ensure that we will have long term economic pain. Yes, failing companies causes pain, but it is short term, and much better than trying to artificially hold up something that can't sustain itself.

    It's like keeping someone on life support that has no arms, legs or head just because they are an important or famous person.

    Correct. No argument here.
     
  17. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #17
    And what company would that be?
     
  18. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    GE, Pfizer, MS, Apple ...
     
  19. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #19
    If you don't know how important AIG is, and which parts of AIG were doing OK and which ones bought them all the trouble and why that trouble is also shared by global banks who did similar things, causing a collapse in global credit... and why credit is important to the global economy... then I suggest you stop posting and do some reading before condemning something.
     
  20. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #20
    That rules two out. I'm sure I could rule out the others with a little more time.
     
  21. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #21
    I do understand, and it would have been horrible ... for a short time. Now it will be very bad for a very long time, with no guarantee that it wont still get worse as companies realize they can do whatever they want, and the government will save them.
     
  22. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #22
    Alright, for that one I could give several more. My point is that they are profitable companies out there.
     
  23. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #23
    Sure. But they're on corporate welfare.
     
  24. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
  25. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #25

    No, it would not have been horrible for a short time. It would have caused the collapse of global businesses across almost all sectors. And companies will not be getting away with this all the time... it's just a matter of putting regulations back in place that would have prevented this in the first place.

    This is the question before the G20 in April; generally speaking, the Europeans want that regulatory framework in place first before more stimulus, the Americans want to stop the bleeding first.

    But honestly, all this noise about the bonuses is disingenuous. They're a mere fraction of the money paid out and loaned to various companies... but the real hypocrisy is the Republicans attempting to control and put wage stipulations on the auto workers of GM and Chrysler who were also in receipt of public money, but whining like babies when the rich are told to do the same. This is how they roll. They care nothing about you.
     

Share This Page