90% tax on bonuses....

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
It's unconstitutional.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ex-post-facto-law


Ex post facto law

<table style="width: 580px;"> <tbody><tr><td valign="middle"> US Supreme Court: Ex Post Facto Laws </td></tr></tbody></table>
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > US Supreme Court

Are statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such an act was not an offense when committed. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government. The Supreme Court early determined that these clauses prohibit laws with retroactive effect only in the field of criminal law and do not apply to statutes dealing with civil matters. Nonetheless, retroactive laws in the civil area may under certain circumstances violate the Contract or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. The ban on ex post facto laws operates solely as a restraint on legislative power and has no application to changes in the law made by judicial decision.

Besides preventing the enactment of laws making acts criminal that were not criminal when committed, the Ex Post Facto Clauses also render invalid the retroactive application of laws that, while not creating new offenses, aggravate the seriousness of a crime. Moreover, a statute that prescribes a greater punishment for a crime already committed violates the clauses. A law that alters the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially easier to convict a defendant is likewise prohibited by the Constitution.
 
But I expect this congress to walk all over the constitution anyway.
 
yeah, we'll see what happens. this is a new america i guess. 90% tax....what's next...you know what's next.
 
Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law believes that it would pass Constitutional muster:

I'm in the process of taking a closer look at this issue at the request of several others both in and out of government, but I can tell you this much on the basis of what I know from my past research and experience: It would not be terribly difficult to structure a tax, even one that approached a rate of 100%, levied on some or all of the bonuses already handed out (or to be handed out in the future) by AIG and other recipients of federal bailout funds so that the tax would survive bill of attainder clause challenge.

Such a tax would presumably be leveled on the basis of some criterion sufficiently general to avoid classification as a measure targeting solely a closed class of identified and named individuals. The fact that the individuals subject to the tax in its retroactive application would in principle be readily identifiable would not suffice to doom the tax either from a bill of attainder perspective or from a due process perspective. Moreover, the fact that the aim of such a tax would be manifestly regulatory and fiscal rather than punitive and condemnatory, and that the tax would be part of a measure that would be prospective as well as retroactive in its operation, would serve to blunt the force of any bill of attainder challenge. Finally, such a tax would be devoid of the sting of political retribution and would not partake of the classic "trial by legislature" that the attainder ban was designed to avoid.

All things considered, I believe it very likely that Congress could design a fully constitutional means of clawing back into the federal treasury all amounts paid (or to be paid in the future) in the form of retention bonuses from federal funds disbursed either by the Federal Reserve Board pursuant to legislative authorization tracing to the 1930s or by the Treasury pursuant to the most recently enacted federal bailout and stimulus measures.
Click to expand...

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/laurence_tribe_is_taxing_aig_legal.php
 
I love the reasoning: "We must strike down a part of the bill we voted for but didn't read!"
 
maxiep said:
I love the reasoning: "We must strike down a part of the bill we voted for but didn't read!"
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what happens when you rush things just to get them passed so no one can analyze the stimulus package itself. we posted here that we thought the plan was rushed...looks like we, in our dumbass wisdom, were right to doubt the govt.

disgusting.
 
I am quite sure that Tribe is both wrong and rooting for the law to be constitutional.

It's pretty much a matter of the public record that this tax is targeted, the timing more than suspect, the rhetoric of the debate, and so on.

Regardless of the actual fact it's an ex post facto law.
 
From the TARP Bill:

TITLE VII--LIMITS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
SEC. 111. (b) (3)(D)(i) A prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP remains outstanding,


[snip]

(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
 
[video=youtube;PUXx8nkgB7U]
 
This Congress seems to be more interested in mob rule than the rule of law.
 
I think that video and many others like it, doom this futility to be little more than chest thumping by folks who need a chest in the first place.

There really should be outrage about this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45240

Democrats and Wall Street
3521.jpg
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Rich Galen
It was only a matter of time before people started figuring out a way to make a buck out of this economic disaster. Here's today's outrage from the NY Times: "New Jersey Sues Over Its Lehman Losses"

It seems that the great (wait until the laughter dies down) state of New Jersey has filed a suit against the "former executives and directors of Lehman Brothers, contending that fraud and misrepresentation had caused the state's public pension fund to lose $118 million."

OK, I can buy that. But here's the fun part. The Governor of the great (wait until the laughter dies down) state of New Jersey is Jon Corzine. A former U.S. Senator. And … a former employee of Continental-Illinois Bank which, until the failure of Washington Mutual last year was the BIGGEST BANK FAILURE IN U.S. HISTORY.

But that's not all. The Governor of the great (wait until the laughter dies down) state of New Jersey was also the co-CEO of Goldman Sachs. The other co-CEO? Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. It is reported that when Goldman went public, Cozine made upwards of $400 million.

SIDEBAR

After he was tossed out of Goldman Sachs, Corzine ran for the U.S. Senate and won by spending something on the order of $62 million of that $400 million he had earned when Goldman went public.

It is amusing, to those of us who follow these things that, having spent $62 million of his own money to buy a U.S. Senate seat, Corzine then voted FOR McCain-Feingold so that only the extremely wealthy who had pillaged investors on Wall Street could afford to run for public office.

END SIDEBAR

Nowhere in the NY Times story about the great (wait until the laughter dies down) state of New Jersey suiting the poor schlugs who went down with the Lehman Brothers ship does it mention the fact that Corzine used to be a member in good standing of the Wall Street Club. Member? Hell, he was on the Board of Directors of the Wall Street Club.

If Jon Corzine were a Republican it would not have escaped the NY Times' notice.

You know those AIG bonuses which have become such a problem for President Obama and his crew of merry men? It seems that those exact bonuses were protected by none other than the DEMOCRATIC Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, during the negotiations on the $700 billion stimulus bill.

According to Fox Business, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called "the Dodd Amendment" by the Obama Administration provides an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009" -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.

Why? Because in the 2008 election cycle guess which Senator was the biggest recipient of AIG contribution money. KEEREKT! Christopher Dodd DEMOCRAT of Connecticut ($103,000).

Why? Because Dodd is the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Want to know who was next? Barack Obama DEMOCRAT of Illinois ($101,000).

If Dodd were a Republican do you think there would be calls for him to give the money back? Where is the Senate ethics investigation to see whether there was any connection between $103,000 in campaign contributions and the Dodd Amendment?

Happily for Dodd he is a Democrat and is, therefore, granted immunity from media accusation.

On the Obama ($101,332 from AIG in 2008) front, the geniuses who are in charge of figuring all this out are talking about getting the Congress to pass a law which would tax the AIG bonuses at the rate of 100 percent.

Drat. Once again, here comes that pesky Constitution. Article I, section 9: No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed.

According to a definition on the usconstitution.net website: In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment).

Passing a law which specifically names AIG executives to be taxed at 100 percent on a portion of their income would, it seems to me (who spent seven-and-a-half-years as an undergraduate student at Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio 45750) to qualify as a prohibited Bill of Attainder.

Oh, and about Sen. Dodd? His take from AIG over the past five years has been about $223,000 and that's on top of the $316,000 he's taken from Citigroup AND $218,000 from … the Royal Bank of Scotland. More than three quarters of a million dollars from just three bankrupt financial firms.

As I said, good thing for Dodd, Corzine and Obama they're Democrats.
 
Denny Crane said:
It's unconstitutional.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ex-post-facto-law


Ex post facto law

<table style="width: 580px;"> <tbody><tr><td valign="middle"> US Supreme Court: Ex Post Facto Laws </td></tr></tbody></table>
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > US Supreme Court

Are statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such an act was not an offense when committed. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government. The Supreme Court early determined that these clauses prohibit laws with retroactive effect only in the field of criminal law and do not apply to statutes dealing with civil matters. Nonetheless, retroactive laws in the civil area may under certain circumstances violate the Contract or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. The ban on ex post facto laws operates solely as a restraint on legislative power and has no application to changes in the law made by judicial decision.

Besides preventing the enactment of laws making acts criminal that were not criminal when committed, the Ex Post Facto Clauses also render invalid the retroactive application of laws that, while not creating new offenses, aggravate the seriousness of a crime. Moreover, a statute that prescribes a greater punishment for a crime already committed violates the clauses. A law that alters the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially easier to convict a defendant is likewise prohibited by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Congess isn't trying to make it a crime, they are proposing civil regulations.
 
This whole situation as me a little worried. The government has created and encouraged an environment were there are armed guards walking down the AIG halls. I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if we hear about someone barging into the AIG headcouters and opening fire and the gov. would be entirely to blame. It's, as Maxiep said, mob rule.

The way the gov. is acting is as though they are trying to distract the American people from something else, like say, the outrageous plan Obama has for taxing injured veterinarians health care or the fact the stock market as been going down the toilet ever since Obama took office, and I'm saying this as someone who voted for him.
 
Anima said:
The way the gov. is acting is as though they are trying to distract the American people from something else, like say, the outrageous plan Obama has for taxing injured veterinarians health care or the fact the stock market as been going down the toilet ever since Obama took office, and I'm saying this as someone who voted for him.
Click to expand...

While I feel that veterinarians should be taxed just like anyone else, I do think that injured veterans should have their healthcare provided by the government:ghoti:
 
Anima said:
The way the gov. is acting is as though they are trying to distract the American people from something else, like say, the outrageous plan Obama has for taxing injured veterinarians health care or the fact the stock market as been going down the toilet ever since Obama took office, and I'm saying this as someone who voted for him.
Click to expand...

ah, maxiep beat me to it.

barfo
 
“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
 
maxiep said:
While I feel that veterinarians should be taxed just like anyone else, I do think that injured veterans should have their healthcare provided by the government:ghoti:
Click to expand...
I was a little off, he didn't want to tax a vets health care, he wanted to charge vets for private health care insurence and treatment of injuries received during battle.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4061
 
It seems to me a more reasonable approach would be similar to what New Jersey is attempting to do: shareholder actions against those that made the bonus deals possible.

Or the Feds could have, essentially, forced AIG into bankruptcy and restructuring so the ridiculous bonuses could be set aside.

The Federal government essentially nullifying contracts through specific legislation merely because of public outcry is weak and sets a terrible precedent.

Ed O.
 
maxiep said:
This Congress seems to be more interested in mob rule than the rule of law.
Click to expand...

We're a couple of guillotines short of the Terror, but with Dodd, Frank and Pelosi playing the role of Marat et. al., it's getting a bit hard to read about.
 
Wow, no one mad at AIG for declaring they will go under without gov't help then giving out millions in bonuses . . . including those who have already left the company.

I'm all for the gov't stepping in and regulating this situation.
 
No, not mad at AIG at all. If the government was stupid enough to give them money, caveat emptor. They had contracts as well as legal protection within the economic stimulus program that specifically protected these bonuses and the government changed the taxation code to essentially nullify them.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
No, not mad at AIG at all. If the government was stupid enough to give them money, caveat emptor. They had contracts as well as legal protection within the economic stimulus program that specifically protected these bonuses and the government changed the taxation code to essentially nullify them.
Click to expand...

Good
 
it's_GO_time said:
If businesses rely on gov't money to survive . . . you bet.
Click to expand...

Nope. They had the freedom to use that money as they saw fit, without restrictions as was the terms given to them. Also, per the terms of the money, the contracts for bonuses were to be protected (per Chris Dodd).

The government is manipulating its policies mid-game in a way that no other entity would be allowed to. There should be a fight for this, legally but its probably not going to happen.

Government intervention into private businesses do not work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top