Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:43PM

More than half the Republicans voted against this shameful money grap. And ALL but 4 voted for it.

I am not even in a TARP bank and this does not affect me but I at least know that this is just the beginning. I pity the useful idiots who voted for and contributed to their own doom in Nov.

Oh, they love gays. I guess that is all that matter.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:44PM

that was fast

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:45PM

TGFD likes the result. Hmmm...Now lets see what the bill actually says.

The Guy from Delaware

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:49PM

This shit is getting outta control - I can feel it. Pass the ammo.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:49PM

90% is the new killing it

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:49PM

Trade wars, higher income taxes, taxes on healthcare benefits, post hoc excise taxes on people contractually paid what they were owed, in(stag)flationary monetary policy.....

This guy's really taking a dump on our country....and the beauty of it all is that people are dumb enough to buy his line that all problems from here on out are only Bush's fault.

See you all in Singapore.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:50PM

on the positive side, base salaries will go up or everyone will end up at credit suisse.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:53PM

#2 - The only reason why the republicans voted against it is because the bill didn't have language in it apologizing for allowing bonuses in the original TARP bill, and because it basically has language that states Obama is doing the right thing and had no part in the original bill.

By the way, if you do work at a non-tarp bank it definately affects you because all the high performers from TARP banks will be banging down the door to get you fired.

This is a controlled breakdown and restructuring of the banking system without allowing thejerkoffs that broke the system to benefit.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:57PM

#9 die.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:57PM

Someone just mentioned more than 100 lawmakers changed their votes, so the measure was defeated?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 2:59PM

This will be long forgotten once the pension funds start to collapse.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:02PM

"This is a controlled breakdown and restructuring of the banking system without allowing thejerkoffs that broke the system to benefit"

As I said, I pity you if you think that this is only going to happen to the banking system.

This is a new age when you can take away as much wealth as you want at popular whim - that too retroactively. This is the start of the end of private capital.

Democrats have had these ideas for a long time. First it was 'windfall profits'. Now it is this. And listen to the rhetoric carefully. If the mon decides after the fact that something is unfair - then it is tagged as unfair. There are no guiding principles outlined so as to why this happened.

The governmen is not propping up almost every part of the economy and can by this tortured logic lay claim to the revenues of ANY industry. Hence - it can tax ANY compensation in ANY industry at ANY rate that it wants to. It is just a matter of working up the appropriate amount of populist angst.

After all, with tens of millions unemployed why should anyone earn above 150k, especially when without government support and the trillions of dollars all industries would be hit?

You got any counter to that?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:03PM

#9 has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:05PM

#10 - kill yourself

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:07PM

Do you guys realize how happy I am working for a Boutique right now? hhahahhahahahahahaa

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:08PM

USA! USA! USA!

hahahaha.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:08PM

Our government has failed us. Employees of TARP banks are taxpayers too. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. Time to start looking for work at a foreign bank. Let the brain drain begin.

-Tax Chick

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:09PM

Stop working and enjoy life?

Money is just paper. Jump on a plane to Guatemala with $250, 3 t-shirts, a pair of jeans and a passport and force yourself to stay for a month. Then go to western union and pull out $1,000 and stay a year. Rinse, Lather, repeat and three years later everything will be fine.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:09PM

I really hope that all the employees in the FP division, simply do not show up tomorrow. Then Congress will really get what they wanted, which is "those underving of anything including air people" out, and those books collapse and the entire company will implode by the weekend.

The house did not really even have a clue of what these bonuses were for or all about. They hear bonus and their mouths begin to froth and their eyes twikle as they see themselves on teh front page.

That that it has not been said plenty of times, however it is simply a witch hunt at this point.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:10PM

revolution?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:12PM

21 Until they find your headless corpse in the Arizona desert.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:17PM

I'm sure Goldman had some sort of trade on the 90% tax law. If it didn't pass they would have lost billions

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:17PM

If the AIG-FP employees don't show up to work and this is a national emergency, then draft them. Doctors already can be drafted in a national emergency, I don't see why that shouldn't apply to derivative traders. I hear Rangel likes the draft.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:18PM

@26, WTF is wrong with you? do we have a 'morgal obligation' to trade derivs?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:20PM

20: Check your "math" taxchick, they aren't "dividing" wealth, they are taxing (not enough) the ill gotten gains of the very employees that created the mess that AIG finds itself in. They should all have been fired months ago in which case they would have had no bonus. I would have preferred criminal sanctions plus fines, but we know how hard it is to actually convict a group fraud like the one perpetrated at AIG.

taxdude

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:20PM

#13, #14, slow your roll. Private capital ended when Paulson and Bernanke rammed the original TARP bill down congress' throats by saying they could prevent financial armegeddon.

#13, your argument is a textbook example of the fallacy of the slippery slope. The guiding principle is paying exorbitant prices for failure while taking federal bailout money.

#14, don't ask me if I want to supersize it next time we meet face to face. I've been on a diet.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:21PM

Simple solution, any bonus going forward gets a multiplier of 10, let them take their 90%. Then flip 'em the bird while driving by in a new Bently

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:22PM

@13 Only one: HA-HA!

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:25PM

@30 If you can't spell the f*cking thing, please abstain from mentioning it.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:26PM

@30 is obviously our best and brightest.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:29PM

Meh, it's not that huge a deal anyways. Nobody in my group got a gigantic bonus - the government can have the 90% of the shitty bonus I got this year while I take a job at a non-TARP bank.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:29PM

@28: do your math "taxdude"! They are taxing anyone who works at a TARP bank (Citi, BofA, Wells Fargo, US Bancorp, JPM, etc.) who jointly earns more than $250K. So you could work at the bank as some lowely assistant with no relationship to the "mess" but your spouse works somewhere else where he/ she makes $200K and now your bonus is being taxed at over 100% if you live in NYC (state and city combined rate 10.05%). This is under the cover of AIG, but they are attacking the entire banking system. And yes, they are redistributing the wealth since the money is coming out of the bank employess' hands and back to the government who is bailing out the assholes underwater with their mortgages.

- Tax Chick

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:29PM

Crap...now how am I gonna pay for my House on Monticello Ave in Dallas, TX

R. Bobby Jones

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:31PM

I'm glad most of you are fine with your tax money paying those bonuses in the first place

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:32PM

13: Congress has exerted its power to tax on a more or less arbitrary basis since introducing the income tax. Republicans are guilty of a wide range of tax increases for the average sub-500k worker while lowering tax on the wealthy, so I guess I would prefer the democrats on balance.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:34PM

since this only applies to bonuses paid in '09, does anyone know which >$5b TARP recipients *paid* bonuses for FY '08 in 2009? E.g., Merrill famously paid in '08, so their bonuses would seem to be safe.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:34PM

All Your Base (Salary) Are Belong to US (Govt)

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:35PM

39...You are an idiot! Do you believe what you wrote, or did you get that insight from the Empty Suit?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:38PM

Taxchick, didn't the jerks at the mortgage companies tell those assholes that they could afford the mortgages while the fuckfaces that run the banks were buying those mortgages and looking the other way knowing what was going on the whole time but those fuckfaces knew that if they could resell it to a dumbass foreigner and get gigantic bonuses for the past decade?

Don't single out the assholes without including the jerks and fuckfaces.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:38PM

@41,
Well played.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:39PM

Being a teacher is the new killing it. 20% tax bracket and summers off.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:40PM

28, do you have any evidence that these people are the ones that caused problems at the banks? Most of those people are long gone, sipping margaritas on the beach. What about people who had record years in groups that did not blow up? Why don't they deserve their bonus? Or what, you hear "bankers" and you think, "blew up the financial system"? Perhaps you should go back to your craphole in suburbia and chug some more corn syrup.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:43PM

@27 U.S. citizens (including derivatives traders) have an obligation to protect and defend the country. If AIG really is the center of systemic risk that threatens to destroy the U.S. banking system, then a draft is called for.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:44PM

@ 45 - 180 days off per year, fat pension, and free lice checks.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:49PM

Why wasn't this news posted by Equity Private? After all, it was Equity Private who posted on this topic 2 days ago, when she assured us that the score was AIG $169 million - US 0. I seem to remember EP telling us that Congress couldn't pass a retroactive tax and that any attempt to do so would raise "due process" issues. (Any first year law student could tell you that constitutional limits on retroactivity don't apply to tax laws and other civil statutes.)

So where is Equity Private, our resident legal eagle with no legal education or any understanding of constitutional law? Maybe she is out giving buying drinks for the newly impoverished middle aged douchebags at AIGFP.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:50PM

46 We've heard this story before, about the record year in a group that earned money within a firm that didn't. Problem is you need to share the pain, or else the owners - in recent times the govt but usually the shareholders - will be paying for the losses. You want the game to be heads you win, tails you break even? Life doesn't work that way son. Another Wall Street boy crying survival of the fittest until it happens to hit him in the gut. Then he just starts crying. You're all pathetic.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:52PM

@43, taxchick is pissed off because the assholes don't pay taxes since they are homeless and can't be tracked, the jerks don't pay taxes since they are out of a job (or in jail), and so the only ones left that can afford tax experts are the fuckfaces, but since they can't pay their mortgages they certainly can't afford tax advice. And if that happens they will lose their homes - so I guess that makes them a fuckface and an asshole?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:53PM

how many of you are on visas?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:55PM

@51--normally I would agree with you, but if the people in the profitable divisions have to share the pain, they are fully flexible to go to a bank still paying bonuses not under TARP restrictions to achieve a higher salary.

Thus, the morons on capital hill shoot themselves in the foot by evicting the talent from the already crippled institutions, and the govts' equity investments will wallow while foreign and boutique banks prosper. Thank god the electorate doesn't understand this or else the govt would issue a tax rule that would follow any AIG, BSC, MS, BAC workers where ever they go.

Then again, the Messiah is proposing a full financial services industry tax...which wouldn't be necessary if he left everything alone.

Hurray! Hope and Change!

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 3:56PM

@51--normally I would agree with you, but if the people in the profitable divisions have to share the pain, they are fully flexible to go to a bank still paying bonuses not under TARP restrictions to achieve a higher salary.

Thus, the morons on capital hill shoot themselves in the foot by evicting the talent from the already crippled institutions, and the govts' equity investments will wallow while foreign and boutique banks prosper. Thank god the electorate doesn't understand this or else the govt would issue a tax rule that would follow any AIG, BSC, MS, BAC workers where ever they go.

Then again, the Messiah is proposing a full financial services industry tax...which wouldn't be necessary if he left everything alone.

Hurray! Hope and Change!

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:02PM

@43, taxchick is pissed off because the assholes don't pay taxes since they are homeless and can't be tracked, the jerks don't pay taxes since they are out of a job (or in jail), and so the only ones left that can afford tax experts are the fuckfaces, but since they can't pay their mortgages they certainly can't afford tax advice. And if that happens they will lose their homes - so I guess that makes them a fuckface and an asshole?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:06PM

@50

The problem with EP is that she is young and a little naive. She thought that the government was the ultimate in dumb money and that the smart bastards at AIG would always be able to out maneuver their government counterparts. The thing is though, the government is like an explosive; when you play with it, anything can happen. So it finally went boom. I am sure that this will be a lesson that she will remember for a long time to come.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:07PM

@43, taxchick is pissed off because the assholes don't pay taxes since they are homeless and can't be tracked, the jerks don't pay taxes since they are out of a job (or in jail), and so the only ones left that can afford tax experts are the fuckfaces, but since they can't pay their mortgages they certainly can't afford tax advice. And if that happens they will lose their homes - so I guess that makes them a fuckface and an asshole?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:09PM

I'm pissed because I am getting screwed as a result of a bunch of assholes over at AIG, because the ignorant public thinks screaming about this issue will solve some mystery problem, and that this legislation will set the industry back to Sept. 08. AIG and Citi will be on the verge of collapse as a result of the defections. Wells, BofA, Chase, etc. will pay back the funds at the risk of their capital and then hoard cash to preseve capital and we will see LIBOR shoot through the roof again. All because some little fuckfaces in the middle of the country got their panties in a wad over 73 bonuses.

-Tax Chick

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:11PM

wow 50. you got schooled. do your homework dude.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:12PM

In the words of one of our great founding fathers (although I think I would have fallen in the federalist camp):

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed now and then with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:13PM

29 said - "The guiding principle is paying exorbitant prices for failure while taking federal bailout money. "

So I am assuming that all the people who sold their homes for profit or cashed out their home equity in 2002-2007 are going to be hit with a windfall tax? The borrowers who cannot pay today actually gave all that borrowed money to the sellers who profited by selling their homes at heightened valuations.

That is the root of the entire problem, right? So Mr. Guiding Principle - what do you have to say?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:15PM

I'm not in the financial industry and it will be a number of years before I see any income close to this but...even I think this is f*cking RIDICULOUS!!!! Were some really awful decisions made? Yes. Were some executives given bonus packages they didn't deserve? Yes. Were there excesses? Yes. But you know what? There are also a lot of hard working, GOOD people at these companies, many of whom have created value for their companies and their clients. They do NOT deserve this! The Democrats (and some Republicans too) are feeding off populism and class warfare and it is SICKENING.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:16PM

Tax Chick, are you saying that only 73 folks make a joint $250k or more from banks that took over $5b from TARP?

I expect more attention to detail from a tax specialist.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:19PM

OH MY OBAMA... i just saw two people jump out of WFC. One was a realtor. OBAMA SAVE US ALL

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:23PM

@51 - Pontificate all you like. What is the government's end game for AIG? They need AIG to thrive until the market supports selling large pieces of the company to pay off the loan.

Does the whole bonus train wreck threaten that? Who knows?

But you have to admit it is bizarre that one portion of the government (press, taxpayers) are gleefully "making the bastards pay" while the Fed/Treasury has taken a much longer term view.

Want your money back? Help them succeed. If not, shut them down and write it off.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:23PM

@69 Educate yourself before you comment. AIG paid $168MM in bonuses to 73 individuals. This is what has set the nation on fire. The break down ranges from $1MM up to $6.4MM. How going after anyone at a TARP Bank that makes $250K jointly is justice is beyond me. The net is too wide. If you add all the bonuses up for all the TARP Banks >$5B, you are probably looking at $10B in bonuses that is about to be sucked out of the economy and back into the coffers of the federal government. Explain to me how that solves the current fiscal crisis!

-Tax Chick

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:27PM

Correction:

AIG BONUS BREAKDOWN
Financial Product Division

Top 7 execs: more than $4m each

22 execs: more than $2m each

73 execs received more than $1m

11 execs no longer at AIG
received retention bonuses
Seven employees got $3M+

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:35PM

There is nothing quite so entertaining on this site as watching EP destroy those who condescendingly attempt to smack her down.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:36PM

I thought it was cool to support Obama because he was cool and 'different,' but not anymore. FML..,

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:38PM

@74 What are you talking about? EP brought a bagel to a knife fight. She should have brought that gun of hers.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:41PM

@72 - nothing is going to immediately solve this financial crisis. We have a couple of things in play here including a reduced leverage ratio and a assload of worthless securities, not to mention the money we just printed which is going to make the dollar tank?

Explain to me how continuing to keep these banks on life support while allowing them to pay their employees handsomely is going to solve this financial crisis!

Before this ever happened, $10B is a lot more than many federal agencies get.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:44PM

Maybe they can use the $10B to build up an industry that consumers can use instead of our current economic model based on outsourcing, lending to people that are not credit worthy, cars nobody wants, and more houses than we have people?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:44PM

@72, this is the ultimate financial stress test. Banks that can repay the TARP money will do so to escape the bonus tax provisions. Banks that can't are failures and will be eventually wound down at a loss. Also, the bonus tax provisions are intentionally broad in order to protect the tax from legal challenges.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:47PM

as a long-time reader and recent fan ep has totally replaced natalie portman for my fantasy material. girl owns a hkp7m8, knows about 5.56 ammo, planes, finance, law, hands to them that would diminish her their own asses on a plate with a rosemary garnish, digs free markets and is deathly mysterious. the only thing that dulls the sharp edge of her eroticism is the possibility that since she knows so much about so much she is actually five different writers.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:51PM

@81 the 50,000 foot response is yes to both. Commissions are a little trickier because of how they are reported and most banks have already paid and reported the bonuses.

@80 Well that is a brilliant stroke of genius. Now we will surely get our money back from AIG and Citi. Sure you would like to see them fail, but you (joe taxpayer) are on the hook to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars. Sound investing policy to kill your investment.

- Tax Chick

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:53PM

@76, the point of this long discussion is that it is not just about AIG. The press is completely missing this. Read the bill. Anyone who received $5bn in TARP money. That is JPM, Citi, BofA, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. The bill that just passed is saying that anyone working for those firms with a combined family income of $250k or more will have the bank employee's bonus taxed at 90%. This is going to affect a really large number of financial services employees. I'm a Dem who voted for Obama, and I can't believe this is happening.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:54PM

77 who is obviously also 50:

never seen a man killed so easily by a girl with a bagel before. sure is messy!

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:54PM

76 - the problem is not the 90% tax on AIG employees. it's the 90% tax on the families where someone works at BofA, Citi, JPM, Wells, etc. even commercial bankers and secretaries are now affected. if the non-TARP spouse has a decent job that pays well, the other spouse may have 90% of his/her entire income for 2009 taxed. this is fair? no, this is theft.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 4:55PM

@81 the 50,000 foot response is yes to both. Commissions are a little trickier because of how they are reported and most banks have already paid and reported the bonuses.

@80 Well that is a brilliant stroke of genius. Now we will surely get our money back from AIG and Citi. Sure you would like to see them fail, but you (joe taxpayer) are on the hook to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars. Sound investing policy to kill your investment.

- Tax Chick

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:02PM

@83

"Well that is a brilliant stroke of genius."

What, you mean pay for performance? God forbid you should have to work. Either these institutions get their shit in order and pay back the TARP funds so that their employees' bonuses are free and clear or we are writing them off. End of story, and much better than waiting 10 years and having to write it all off after a lost decade. It is so ironic that the government just accidentally passed a rather good incentive structure.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:06PM

@84 "I'm a Dem who voted for Obama, and I can't believe this is happening."

Honestly, what did you think would happen?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:07PM

So, basically the bonuses don't happen, because they would cost more in taxes. Which means there is zero tax revenue from them. Which means the NYC's tax base gets, um, fucked.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:09PM

@91--agreed. He is acting entirely of a piece with his background and public statements. Sorry that so many of you thought this was just campaign rhetoric and he "didn't really mean it." He did.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:16PM

@88 "Incentive structure"? No, what they did was voided their earlier work.

@89 Commissions paid to salespersons- employees are deductible as compensation for services rendered the business. Deducted commissions must be reasonable in relation to the services rendered by the salesperson. I think you could probably restructure a lot of bonuses as commissions. Not my area, so no legal advice given.

And I am just angry because a lot of innocent people are being caught be this new law. I know a couple where each spouse works at two different TARP Banks. Individually they are below the $250K, but together they are over it and now their bonuses will be wiped out. And it is their bonuses that allows them to pay their mortgage, pay for day care, and basically live in NYC. What options do they have? Sell their home for less than they paid? Go into foreclosure? This just sickens me.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:16PM

Tax Chick - There is an assumption built into your response that these companies will be able to pay back the federal government and everything will be fine. If you're right let's retroactively bail out Enron, bring back TWA, PanAm, and Eastern Airlines, and Zenith Electronics.

Enron went under and yet you can still turn on the power in California. PanAm and Eastern went under yet we can still fly places. Zenith no longer exists but I can watch TV. Are we going to go through any less pain by keeping these entities alive and making a very select few rich?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:16PM

Let this thing evolve.

$250 seems like a lower bound established by the Big O's promise to leave 95% of Americans untouched by tax hikes.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:20PM

This is friggin' hilarious! The old capitalists now act like socialists as they try to figure out loopholes so that they can get guaranteed government payments while the old socialists now act like capitalist as they champion tying performance to compensation. It is like Bizarro World.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:22PM

@90 - It's $125K for married filing separately.

@97 - Okay. Then lets pull the plug on AIG, Citi, BofA, the entire auto industry, etc. I hope your spanish is good.

- Tax Chick

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:22PM

@91, it's Congress who passed the bill, not Obama. I haven't heard Obama saying that employees of every major bank in the US need to make less than $250k. He has proposed $500k cash limits with the rest in stock. He put forth a stimulus package that exempted 08 bonuses. So I'm not sure that this was "expected".

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:24PM

50 here -

EP thanks for showing your abject ignorance. Whether the contracts can be voided outright is a separate and distinct question from whether the payments can be avoided under the contracts. No one other than AIG and Geitner has concluded that the payments couldn't be avoided. AG Cuomo has preliminarily concluded otherwise and of course none of us has actually seen the relevant contracts. You, of course, don't understand any of these distinctions and simply rely on the (unseen) analyses of AIG and Geitner of the (unseen) contracts. Your laziness coupled with your bias make you an unwelcome addition to DealBreaker. In any event, even a law voiding the contracts outright would not raise a retroactivity issue (as opposed to other constitutional issues), since the ban on ex post facto laws does not apply to civil statutes.

Finally, your original post, as opposed to your subsequent comment to your own post, made clear that you took the position that the payments were a done deal and that the score was AIG $169 million -US $0. You didn't even discuss the tax option, which had already been publicly reported, until I raised it in a comment. More laziness on your part. No wonder you "drifted away" from Private Equity into the lucrative field of blogging.

You can assert that taxation is "theft" all you want, but as legal or moral analysis, it is about as useless as everything else you post.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:25PM

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist,

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:26PM

>>"I'm sure the 1L @40 would like to forget that in this instance it is the federal government that is trying to retroactively void a bunch of payments that appear otherwise to be quite legal. If our eager legal beaver doesn't think that has due process issues then there's not much more to discuss, is there? >As to applying a retroactive "AIG Tax," at least that approach has the forthright honesty to admit "You know, we have no idea how to steal your money other than to just declare it ours by taxing you... personally <<

This is more than broad enough to be legal. Read some of the other idiocy in the tax code. Congress can draw lines on taxation anywhere it wants to.

The likelihood of a court challenge to this tax provision succeeding is just about zero.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:31PM

What about hazzard pay? At this point, it is hazzardous to one's health to work at a TARP bank.

-TC

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:36PM

86 - "this is fair? no, this is theft."

If you want to get technical about the whole thing the real theft came over the past few years while wall street was funding the housing bubble knowing full well that there is a high probability that mortgagers would not be able to make their payments. That theft was then compounded in September with the start of the bailouts, when banks were still paying out huge bonuses and still paying dividends.

And spare me with this secretary / good paying job with a non-tarp bullshit. One would assume that it would be all the easier to get a job at a bank that does not take TARP funds.

1.5% of households earn $250k or more in this country. 98.5% of the households in this country are not going to fund the 1.5% that have failed. They are going to have to figure out how to get it from another source (perhaps working for a non-tarp bank?).

You want to blame someone? Go to the MBS division at your job start kicking some ass. There were a lot of good people that didn't do anything wrong that worked at Enron as well.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:36PM

TGFD has a home remedy for the pain that is soon to be inflicted by the knockout tax on TARP bank bonuses...

TARP banks should just pay back the TARP funds pronto. GS & MS should do it tomorrow. After all, we can't have people like Jon Winkelried getting tax angina now, can we?

BTW, in light of the knockout tax, if GS & MS don't pay back the TARP money soon, TGFD believes that investors might conclude that the problems at GS/MS are much, much deeper than anyone previously thought.

Bently@#30...

Even TGFD has to claim that you're an idiot. Just think. Where are the TARP banks going to get all that 10x bonus cash to pay employees? If they had it available, wouldn't they be better off taking the extra 9x and paying down the TARP balance?

@#81...

The Commission trick won't work. It is as phony as Chris Dodd's loophole explanation, and Uncle Sam will see it as such.

The Guy from Delaware

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:37PM

cluzo,
those loopholes apply TARP bonuses categorized as "disqualified bonus payments". The other definition of a TARP bonus is much more strict:

(B) the excess of—
(i) the adjusted gross income of the
taxpayer for such taxable year, over
(ii) $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of
a married individual filing a separate return).

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:39PM

cluzo,
those loopholes apply TARP bonuses categorized as "disqualified bonus payments". The other definition of a TARP bonus is much more strict:

(B) the excess of—
(i) the adjusted gross income of the
taxpayer for such taxable year, over
(ii) $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of
a married individual filing a separate return).

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:40PM

the checks were distributed last Friday, before anyone had a chance to consult the pompous asshole know-it-all #50.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:41PM

@102 - AIG's outside counsel, and the Fed's legal department came to that conclusion.

EP's been here quite a while now - I'm guessing she'll be here after you've trolled off into the distance.

@97 - there is an assumption is your response that the AIG et al is doomed. The Fed didn't have billions at stake with Enron, Eastern, etc. The remaining employees at AIG FP are responsible for unwinding a $1.6T derivatives book. $160M in bonuses is ugly, but has a nice ROI if they pull it off. If AIG went under (for a variety of reasons) - the economy will survive, but the Fed will have a very large number in their account receivable column.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:45PM

@113

"$160M in bonuses is ugly, but has a nice ROI if they pull it off."

Exactly! They should get paid IF they pull it off. Conditional on performance. Wow! So why did they want to get paid for merely existing?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:46PM

@ legal eagle

Rep Wilson mentioned yesterday the TARP Wage Accountability Act that would only allow 3.9% raises on current base salaries for companies receiving tarp funds.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:53PM

102- you must really like punishment. the girl has been gelding you for two solid days and you are back for more like its candy.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:54PM

How is AIG et al not doomed?

How does the Fed's balance sheet look after the trillions of dollars that are required in bailouts?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:55PM

102 = EPwned

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:00PM

legal eagle,

You are playing a dangerous and losing game. This is why greed is generally good, but, in the end, it consumes itself and becomes a vice. If you keep playing these games, you will just engender a much harsher governmental response. Like I said, if this is truly a national emergency, then there is no reason why bankers, brokers, and lawyers can't be drafted into positions to keep the banking system from failing.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:02PM

107,

No one put a gun to ANY borrower's head and forced them to take out a mortgage. Mutual greed was the guiding factor there. ALL parties involved were greedy - the borrowers who expected to make a bundle on the house, the broker making the commission, the trading desks packaging securities for their bonus, the buyers who wanted more yield out of 'AAA', the local govts getting the tax revenue and the whole economy - hoping that all these greedy people would but their stuff. But all transactions were voluntary and of free will.

On the other hand, if you dont pay the 'tax' then you go to jail. How on earth is that the same as the first?

Also, 1.5% of households earn $250k or more in this country.

Correct. And they also pay 35% of the taxes. The bottom 50% (the ones with time to protest of workdays) pay less than 5%.

So what is your point once again?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:16PM

Nice reach 123. Without securitizing shitty loans and stamping them AAA the delinquent homeowner never gets to be a homeowner.

The point is that 98.5% of the voters in this country are going to have a difficult time justifying a vote in favor of keeping the companies that financed this whole debacle wealthy.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:33PM

@125, you previously said "98.5% of the households in this country are not going to fund the 1.5% that have failed". Do your homework, the bottom 50% of the country paid 2.99% of total taxes collected in 06. The bottom 75% pay 14% of total taxes. So don't tell me that all these voters who are against bonuses have been contributing that much to the running of this country. The top 10% pay 47% of the country's taxes.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:44PM

@126

Actually, I think it is more like 50% of the top 10% pay 94% of the bonuses for the other 50%.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:51PM

125,

You try to morph you earlier miserable argument into something else but fail miserably.

The original argument was not about assignment of guilt (on which also I think you have a retarded argument) but on the voluntary nature of lending vs the involuntary and confiscatory nature of taxation. From your response I can see that you have ceded your point.

On the 98.5% thing, you initial post implied that they were not going to share the burden of the top 1.5%. On pointing out that they actually have no burden to share, you flip and mention (correctly) that they are the numerical majority and hence will prevail. That was never contested. But what still stands is that these people are controlling the treasury purse-strings even though they almost contribute nothing to it. If you threw the bottom 5% out and brought in random people from all over the world, there would be no impact to the bottomline of the country. If anything, the outsiders would require less welfare.

Given that clearly you are confused yourself, it might suit you better to go and mingle with people at you level of understanding and intelligence on some other board. Thanks.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:03PM

@126, the bottom 75% would love to have the "problem" of paying 86% of the taxes if they could get the income that the top 10% enjoys.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:28PM

This is bullox. So what happens if you draw a $100k base salary from a TARP bank and made half a buck day trading in your personal porfolio? The only thing this shows is what a bunch of incompetent morons we have in congress. If Obama has any semblance of a brain, he will veto it pronto.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:28PM

@129 Great. Then they can have a tax of 90% levied on any amount of their mortgage that is forgiven and will call it even.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:38PM

The whole point of the TARP was to prevent the chain of derivative counterparties... guess what will happen to all that bonus money that went into the stock market, real estate etc. Financial crisis part 2 coming up... woo hoo!

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:48PM

You guys all need some perspective. There are soldiers younger than us who are dying for this country in the miserable deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:56PM

Wow 133 way to bring down the party. You are right, however.

126, 128 - The government has always used taxation to promote it's own agenda. That's why tax shelters exist and why there isn't a flat tax in this country. Sure, lending is voluntary. Nobody put a gun to the derivatives traders heads, and nobody made the investment banks buy the crappy mortgages that they knew were bad.

I don't think anybody has a problem with paying people in the top 1.5% of folks in America. I think the problem is doing that while working for a company that would have otherwise failed.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:06PM

#133, So? I dont get your point. Is your point that because soldiers exist in this country hence the government is allowed to do anything that it wants to and the other people raising any questions equals 'losing perspective'? I see that we are slowly and surely stepping towards fascism here.

And you need perspective? A billion people will go to sleep hungry tonight. So?

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:23PM

134, you are one hell of a delusional moonbat!

Someone said that this act of taxation was theft. You said securitization was bigger theft. I pointed out that everything in securitization is voluntary whereas taxation is involuntary. And you respond with exactly what? Taxes have always existed and hence that is fine?

And what in earth does that have to do with tax shelters or flat tax? What are you - a fifth grader who has picked up these terms along with 'theft' and 'securitization' and goes about spewing them on all forums?

As far as the 90% goes, their outrage is feigned! The top 10% have been paying all the taxes. Even if they are getting bailed out now - the bailout money is borrowed money which will be repaid in future with the taxes that the top 10% pay.

The bottom 90% are freeloading schmucks. They are a load on the country. You can replace them with equivalent Chinese or Indians and the country would be better off! Nice bit of phony outrage there.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:59PM

the checks were distributed last Friday, before anyone had a chance to consult the pompous asshole know-it-all #50.

Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 11:25PM

Wow is everything f'd. Take if from one of the "masses" who has more than earned a right to voice an opinion, this bill is shit and will usher in a pain 10x as bad as we have seen. You think the target of this bill will feel it as badly as the "bottom" 75%? You're f-ing crazy. After 4 years in the Marine Corps to fund an education at a state school, and a lowly income well under $250K as an analyst, I can firmly say that this is all crap. How does this bill help anyone? I worked hard for this spot and now I am being told that there is no real upside? For crying out loud, $250K in NYC is FAR from rich. Tax those bastards making $80K in Iowa because their quality of life is a hell of a lot better than mine. Way to remove financial incentives and virtually guarantee that people bail on these so-called "good" jobs in which they bust their asses and get no reward. If this goes through, I will bet you anything you want that we go into a massive depression for many years. Wouldn't want to own an apartment in Manhattan right now.

Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 1:02AM

139 said - "but a very good deterrent for all those criminal bastards, who created the mess and walking away from it laughing, with millions of our money"

In that case shouldn't the home sellers in 2003-2007 also be hit with punitive taxes? They are the ones who walked away with the MOST money!

I think that you are being incredibly naive if you think that this is going to stop here. Democrats have displays immense hostility towards contracts. They are willing to tear anything up when politically expedient. Be afraid - very afraid. If you have made any money in the last 5 years investing it in the market then the government coud now very well take it and give to people who lost money because it was 'earned fraudently'. You surely cannot expect to be enriched by fraud - directly or indirectly - can you?

Dont say that is incredulous. Till last week if you told me that Congress would pass a bill that would retroactively take away money that had been legally earned as per all existing laws then I also would not have believed you.

By the logic that they have applied, they can justify taking away ANYONE's income because everyone is benefiting from the stimulus spending. Are you ready for it?

Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 8:57AM

Dec 31, 2008 retroactive. So Goldman doesn't get taxed. Is Paulson still running things?

Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 1:24PM

139 said - "but a very good deterrent for all those criminal bastards, who created the mess and walking away from it laughing, with millions of our money"

What you fail to take into consideration is that those same "criminals" have millions and probably didn't get bonuses this year. They have already made their money are are gone. So even if they had to pay anything back, it is only what they earned in 2009 and they have plenty of cash in the bank to do it. It is the poor slobs left behind to clean up the mess who are living paycheck to paycheck in NYC on $250K who are going to have to fork over $20K, $50K, $100K to the government. And what will the government do with it? Waste it on pork barrel projects and earmarks. So destroy the remaining people at these companies, kill the local economy, increase the number of foreclosures in the area... because all of this will make the world a better place for the fat, Walmart shopping cows in Kansas.

Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 2:56PM

142 - "because all of this will make the world a better place for the fat, Walmart shopping cows in Kansas."

I think that is wholly incorrect. Most of this is being driven so that the world is a better place for the fat Walmart hating union thugs of New York, Michigan and California.

Given how clearly you chose to blame people not responsible for something, how dare you even try to create an argument out of unaffected people bein punished?

Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 10:32PM

It seems like many people forget the original reason for giving $25B to the top banks. It wasn't to bail them out. It was to increase their capital base so they can lend more money to main street and ease the credit crisis. Some banks though were very unhealthy and had no choice to use the money to simply help themselves (especially since the govt did not enforce how the money was to be used). However some healthy banks like JPMorgan took the money and did what the govt asked them to do and lend. Now, the poor employees may have to pay back what amounts to typically 20-50% of their compensation to the govt. I am of course one of those employees. These bonus are not extra money that employees just put in the bank. This is part of their compensation that they earmark to their living expenses. I used to work in consulting before I joined an investment bank. I had to take a major pay cut in my base salary when I joined because banks do not pay high base salaries but my overall compensation increased because of the performance bonuses. I am not one of those traders making millions of dollars. I am just a computer programmer who works 60 hr weeks. If this becomes law, I will get hit with a major tax bill that I can't afford because my bonus has already been spent on my mortgage and other expenses. I am also upset at the AIG bonuses making this to all the big banks and retroactive puts some hard working people in the position that they can't afford.

Posted by guest , Mar 21, 2009 2:28PM

I agree with 144. The big problem is bonuses have already been paid. (2008 bonuses paid in early 2009). This punishes the people who are keeping these companies going. You could make 100k and get a 10k bonus. If your spouse makes 140k whether at a Tarp company or not you have to give 9k of the 10k to the government. I am sure that 9k is already spent. The bigger problem is why would anyone want to work at one of these companies? Many seem to cheer the demise of the companies but they seem to forget we the taxpayers own a big portion of them. If they fail we will not get paid back. Finally, think of all the time and money that will be wasted in court cases if this becomes law, instead of actually working on the economy.

Posted by guest , Mar 21, 2009 2:52PM

It this is pass all should give back the bonus money if it is taxes a close to 100%. Then NYC and Federal Govenment can raise taxes of everybody to make up for the lost tax revenue. Then we can hear the same people applauding this cry the blues :)

Posted by guest , Mar 21, 2009 2:52PM

It this is pass all should give back the bonus money if it is taxes a close to 100%. Then NYC and Federal Govenment can raise taxes of everybody to make up for the lost tax revenue. Then we can hear the same people applauding this cry the blues :)