90% tax on bonuses....

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
well, now with this law people making over $250k a year for AIG and other bailout recipients will get taxed 90% on their bonuses. We may see an exodus of leadership in this and other companies now. Who wants to get capped out on bonuses?
Click to expand...

What companies give bonuses when they go bankrupt?
 
it's_GO_time said:
Please Mr. threat of finding old posts . . . where do I say I don't know jack about Obama?

Confront me with an admission I actually wrote . . . there are plenty of the which I was probably wrong.

I've posted here long enough to know there is no clueing you in . . . Obama sucks, the mods constantly pick on you and you constantly complain about it . . . that is your world.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with your "you're" quotes, KMD.

And I can't help it if the mods feel the need to single me out. It's a compliment at this point.
 
PapaG said:
That's the great irony of this, but I posted about it a few days ago and nobody cared. It's a dead end. Had AIG gone bankrupt, the bonuses would have been eliminated.
Click to expand...

Its a new world order. I think we've reached the point of no return.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
They haven't gone bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Because of gov't money . . . hence the reason the gov't can step in and say "timeout, you gave how much in bonuses . . . I don't think so"

And the people who got bonuses should not have taken the bonuses and just been happy they have a job . . . thanks to . . . the gov't.
 
it's_GO_time said:
Because of gov't money . . . hence the reason the gov't can step in and say "timeout, you gave how much in bonuses . . . I don't think so"
Click to expand...

Yes, and these contracts were made prior to the bailouts. Furthermore, they were given without restrictions really in the need to "rush" the money to the "failing" companies.
 
"timeout, you gave how much in bonuses . . . I don't think so"
Click to expand...
See, that would be great, except that it's not allowed by the constitution.

You know what else would be fun? Taking convicted child rapists outside and shooting them in the head. Sadly, that's also disallowed.

Doing profiling at the airports, so our time isn't wasted by TSA agents searching 80y/o ladies. Disallowed as well.

Let's just get rid of the constitution and go back to the olden days, when Might Made Right.

Yes We Can!
 
BrianFromWA said:
See, that would be great, except that it's not allowed by the constitution.

You know what else would be fun? Taking convicted child rapists outside and shooting them in the head. Sadly, that's also disallowed.

Doing profiling at the airports, so our time isn't wasted by TSA agents searching 80y/o ladies. Disallowed as well.

Let's just get rid of the constitution and go back to the olden days, when Might Made Right.

Yes We Can!
Click to expand...

Hey I'm not saying any of this is fun . . . hard times call for hard decisions.

If I understand the situation correctly, the gov't is going to eat some major crow over all this. And sounds like they deserve that, but I'm glad to know they are going to fight to try and correct it.
 
BrianFromWA said:
You know what else would be fun? Taking convicted child rapists outside and shooting them in the head. Sadly, that's also disallowed.
Click to expand...

Is it? I thought Utah still used a firing squad for death penalty cases. [after checking that fact, it seems that Utah outlawed it in 2004, but Idaho and Oklahoma could use it still].

barfo
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
No reason to turn down money you're guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Well there are many moral and ethical reasons . . . but many choose to overlook them to collect the cash.

And in all honesty I might/probably do the same thing . . . but I also would seriously consider not taking the bonus.
 
I didn't know about Idaho and Utah...I know that someone got off of Death Row on appeal b/c the thought of the firing squad was cruel and unusual.

Not quite Mitchell Rupe-esque, but still kind of lame.

And isn't aggravated 1st degree murder the only death-penalty-able offense? Death for Child rape was looked at by the SC last year, iirc..but I never heard a resolution on it.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
You would turn down $500,000, right now? Money you have guaranteed in writing?

bollocks I say, bollocks.
Click to expand...

If I had millions in the bank . . . i would consider it.


I know this is a concept taht is hard for you to comprehend . . . but some have already returned their bonuses.
 
it's_GO_time said:
Well there are many moral and ethical reasons . . . but many choose to overlook them to collect the cash.

And in all honesty I might/probably do the same thing . . . but I also would seriously consider not taking the bonus.
Click to expand...

How would you feel about agreeing to a contract, having Congress approve that contract, and then having Democrats like Barney Frank demand that your name be given to the government and made public after receiving the bonus?
 
PapaG said:
The contracts were guaranteed by Dodd and Obama on 2/11/09 retrocatively in the "Stimulus Bill".
Click to expand...

That's not accurate. They were not guaranteed by the stimulus bill, they were left alone by the stimulus bill. The stimulus bill had no effect on the bonuses.

barfo
 
barfo said:
That's not accurate. They were not guaranteed by the stimulus bill, they were left alone by the stimulus bill. The stimulus bill had no effect on the bonuses.

barfo
Click to expand...

Incorrect. They were a retroactive protection against TARP money bonuses. I suggest you educate yourself before commenting further on this.
 
PapaG said:
How would you feel about agreeing to a contract, having Congress approve that contract, and then having Democrats like Barney Frank demand that your name be given to the government and made public after receiving the bonus?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be happy about that . . . and probably more likely to give my bonus back because I was just made a villan by the gov't.

Is it right, under that senario, it doesn't sound right . . . but I still don't think they deserved the bonuses and am glad gov't is trying to get it back.

It really sickens me that in this time period, some people feel the entitlement to six figure bonuses when the private business they helped run into the ground needs financial bailout from taxpayers.
 
PapaG said:
Incorrect. They were a retroactive protection against TARP money bonuses. I suggest you educate yourself before commenting further on this.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are wrong. The bill excluded the bonuses from the effect of the bill. It leaves the bonuses unchanged. It does not add any new protection for the bonuses, nor does it prevent later legislation from addressing the bonuses.

“(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.
Click to expand...

barfo
 
barfo said:
Sorry, but you are wrong. The bill excluded the bonuses from the effect of the bill. It leaves the bonuses unchanged. It does not add any new protection for the bonuses, nor does it prevent later legislation from addressing the bonuses.



barfo
Click to expand...

Um, you just posted why they are protected.

papag
 
PapaG said:
Um, you just posted why they are protected.

papag
Click to expand...

I think it's probably pointless to argue with you about this, since you don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between protection and exclusion.

One last time though: the bill did not protect the bonuses. It simply did not change them. The stimulus bill had the exact same effect on the bonuses as the Iraq War authorization bill, the civil rights act, or any other bill you might want to mention. None whatsoever.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I think it's probably pointless to argue with you about this, since you don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between protection and exclusion.

One last time though: the bill did not protect the bonuses. It simply did not change them. The stimulus bill had the exact same effect on the bonuses as the Iraq War authorization bill, the civil rights act, or any other bill you might want to mention. None whatsoever.

barfo
Click to expand...

The administration and Dodd both admit that the bonuses are protected unless legislation is enacted to specifically target the recpients of the bonuses. That's why there were hearings, and that's why there is a bill to tax these bonuses.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the basic fundamentals of our system of government, PRODUCER.
 
PapaG said:
The administration and Dodd both admit that the bonuses are protected unless legislation is enacted to specifically target the recpients of the bonuses.
Click to expand...

Well of course they are. The gummint can't just take your money without passing a law enabling it.
The point is, the bonuses were protected in exactly the same way before the stimulus bill. The stimulus bill didn't change the status of the bonuses at all.

That's why there were hearings, and that's why there is a bill to tax these bonuses.
Click to expand...

Right, because the prior legislation didn't do that.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the basic fundamentals of our system of government, PRODUCER.
Click to expand...

I think producer is spelled in lower case. Check below my avatar.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top