A Dealbreaker commenter points out: "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%."
The reason for this, which I hinted at yesterday, is that its difficult to get such a directed tax bill to pass constitutional muster without widening the people it impacts. If you think it is an accident that the bill has been set up this way after executive comp failed badly on the first two go-arounds, then you just don't understand the meaning of "never let a crisis go to waste."
I expect that anyone who watches carefully for the inevitable "But we had to expand the reach of the bill to make it legal," will be rewarded with almost exactly this line from proponents of the newly expansive bill. This is both because the legislature can't simply target a subset of individuals with punitive intent, even if its a tax, and because the goal was always an expansive executive comp cap.
The "bill of attainder" test keys off these two prongs:
Is it targeted at specific individuals?
Is it of punitive intent?
So what's punitive intent? The Fifth Circuit's SBC Communications v. FCC ruling is about the most direct on this as the Supreme Court hasn't touched the issue in decades. In short:
Does the legislation fall into the historical meaning of legislative punishment,
Can the statute "reasonably be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes," and;
Does the record show "a congressional intent to punish?"
We leave it to you to decide where these prongs fall on the "punish-o-meter."
What is the specificity prong? No one really has any clue as the Fifth Circuit (which effectively invented it) declined to address it in SBC.
All this overlooks the fact that Bill of Attainder jurisprudence is in quite a bit of disarray and this would make for a very juicy (and time-consuming) case if it went to the Supreme Court. The legislature, and the New York Attorney General, is hardly helping itself with the level of punitive sounding rhetoric that daily issues forth from those offices to clog the public record. Neither would it serve the legislation if anyone bothers to recognize that AIG was basically given the green light by the very people now up in arms over the "outrage" of these bonuses, and that they have been "approved" since 2008.
So, instead it looks like, in order to avoid that particular courtroom morass, we will get a wide-ranging executive compensation cap of the sort that was violently resisted not a few months ago. And no one dares vote it down now. Hurray for our side!
Posted by Investorcluzo , Mar 19, 2009 5:22PM
EP, hug me...
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:26PM
I'd just like to publicly say "Fuck You All" for voting these clowns into office. This is all your fault.
Posted by Garuda , Mar 19, 2009 5:30PM
I'd just like to say "Fuck You All" for allowing AIG crooks to scam my taxpayer dollars into their bank accounts.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:36PM
I can't believe this is the US govt. I busted my ass through school, fought hard for scholarships, and moved my family to the US for this shit? Hell of a busted "American dream"
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:36PM
@3 - well said
EP - in answer to the question posed in your title: yes, the tax is constitutional. There is no chance that the language of the bill targets a sufficiently distinct group of people specifically singled out for 'punishment.' The punitive prong is a closer call, but I'd say also a loser for you.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:38PM
why does everyone keep saying "executive" when the overwhelming majority of people making more than $250K household aren't decision makers? Your average IT person would gross over 150 just on base comp, really just punishes anyone with a working wife...
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:39PM
I can't believe this is the US govt. I busted my ass through school, fought hard for scholarships, and moved my family to the US for this shit? Hell of a busted "American dream"
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:40PM
I can't believe NY delegation is supporting this. Effectively eliminating these bonuses will take a very painful bite out of the city and state coffers.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:41PM
I can't believe this is the US govt. I busted my ass through school, fought hard for scholarships, and moved my family to the US for this shit? Hell of a busted "American dream"
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:41PM
Bet they wouldn't have pushed it through if prop 8 hadn't passed...
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:41PM
Tax laws are subject to almost no scrutiny at all on review. They would be in the general "rational basis" catagory anyway (almost always upheld) but this has been construed extremely broadly with taxation. The inquiry is more or less "does this raise revenue?" If it does, discussion over.
A tax doesn't even have to be a net moneymaker, and it can have some blatantly prohibitive other purpose, and it will still be upheld.
Posted by Equity Private , Mar 19, 2009 5:42PM
5:
Oh, I agree with you. As written it passes constitutional muster. But it's not really any AIG tax anymore, is it?
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:44PM
I can't believe this is the US govt. I busted my ass through school, fought hard for scholarships, and moved my family to the US for this shit? Hell of a busted "American dream"
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:45PM
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde (I think), soon we'll all be able to say we're tax collectors on 10% commission.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:48PM
@3 So you assign no blame at all to the government, which threw cash into this furnace several different times (over two administrations), at first without any guidance and then specifically allowing the bonuses, all to widespread support? You are probably a Congressman.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:48PM
Yes we can America! We can fuck your dreams, take your cash, free terrorists, elect tax evaders to positions where they manage taxes. We have change we can believe in with Blogo, Rangel, Schumer, Ted keneny, Holder, Pelosi, Clinton, Dodd and Barney frank. Tis is the worst group of idiots I have ever seen in one room and its the fucking American senat!
If you voted for Obama and dont feel his white cock in your ass. You should really cut down.
Posted by Ben_H , Mar 19, 2009 5:50PM
I think it gets past the Bill of Attainder prohibition, but I am not sure if we can so easily dismiss the ex post facto law problems. Yes, generally ex post facto tax laws are OK so long as they pass rationality review -- see U.S. v Carlton and U.S. v Hemme
In both Carlton and Hemme, the majority needed to distinguish from earlier precedents holding that ex post facto tax laws are unconstitutional. The appeals courts in Hemme and Carlton ruled for the taxpayer, relying on Blodgett v. Holden and Untermyer v. Anderson.
In Hemme, the court held that retroactive taxes could violate due process if the nature of the tax was sufficiently "oppressive" as to transgress constitutional limitation; but that in the present case, the chagne was minor and not substantially detrimental to the taxpayer. Can the same be said about the AIG excise?
In Carlton, the majority claimed that Blodgett and Untermeyer didn't control, as they both dealt with the imposition of "an entirely new tax" (the Gift Tax) That situation was, in the majority's view, different in kind from the mere closing of a loophole of ambiguity (the case in Carlton) or changing of a rate scheme in an existing tax. However, here we have an entirely new tax, no?
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:51PM
I can't believe this is the US govt. I busted my ass through school, fought hard for scholarships, and moved my family to the US for this shit? Hell of a busted "American dream"
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:52PM
Commissions are exempt. For anyone in a revenue producing roll the whole "bonus" term should be redefined as commission as that more accurately reflects what it is.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:54PM
@8 & 9- well said. Its so funny (i mean "funny" fucked in the ass not hahah)
Most of NYC is liberal and we are the ones that the dems are castrating. You would think it would be enough to turn the city GOP but its not, it never is.
I guess when the only people left here to afford the city are the Clintons people may start to ask questions.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:54PM
I knew there would some blathering post by EP. The tide has turned, the precedent has been set. Rejoice!
Oh, and tl;dr.
Posted by Ben_H , Mar 19, 2009 5:56PM
From the opinion in Hemme:
"One of the relevant circumstances is whether, without notice, a statute gives a different and more oppressive legal effect to conduct undertaken before enactment of the statute."
Ummm, in the AIG case, YES.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:57PM
The Republicans split pretty much 50-50 regarding this bill. That's in spite of Boss Limbaugh's opposition to it. Very interesting.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:58PM
I can't believe this is the US govt. I busted my ass through school, fought hard for scholarships, and moved my family to the US for this shit? Hell of a busted "American dream"
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 5:59PM
EP:
Wow, I guess you finally decided to use google to see if there were any actual legal issues to discuss, as opposed to the nonexistent ones you invented in your earlier posts.
So now we are no longer talking about retroactivity, due process, or taxation as "theft". That is so 2 days ago. Now google has helped you stumble your way to the Bill of Attainder Clause.
Demonstrating your keen understanding of the federal courts, you talk about a Fifth Circuit case, which you think is more relevant than Supreme Court caselaw that is "decades" old. Of course, the Fifth Circuit caselaw doesn't and can't govern this dispute (which is in the 2d Circuit) whereas the Supreme Court caselaw, however old, would be binding on any court reviewing the AIG dispute. As it turns out, the analysis would be largely the same (since the 5th Cir. follows the US Supreme Court precedent), but the fact that you don't even understand the hierarchy of courts is both sad and amusing.
There is no Bill of A issue here. If Congress had passed a law identifying and targeting the AIGFP bonus recipients, then we would be talking about a real issue. But Congress has imposed the higher tax on a group which is not readily ascertainable and which will change over time. Also, while the higher tax hurts those who have to pay it, that does not render it a punitive act. Congress can easily make an argument that the measure is not punitive (i.e., designed to punish the recipients), but rather to regulate the use of taxpayer money disbursed through the TARP and other federal programs. And taxation itself is not among the historically punitive measures that would attach to the Bill of A clause. There is no chance for a Bill of A attack on the legislation as written.
So bottom line is: AIGFP and others falling under this bill are f*cked. Deal with it. Eat it. Suck it. You lost.
EP, why won't you tell us what it is you do professionally other than ruin this blog? Also, please confirm whether you are a tranny.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:00PM
@24- Maybe next you'll learn your lesson; stop dreaming.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:02PM
I can't believe this is the US govt. I busted my ass through school, fought hard for scholarships, and moved my family to the US for this shit? Hell of a busted "American dream"
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:02PM
@19...it's exploiting loopholes that got them here in the first place. Continue to enrage the public and a wealth tax will come next.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:04PM
@20
"If you want to cut your own throat, don't come to me for a bandage."
Margaret Thatcher
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:05PM
@17 - No dice, ex post facto applies only in criminal law, no civil law.
And before any one gets cute, failing to submit an accurate tax return has been a loaw for a very long time, so an evasion conviction would still stand.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:07PM
@24 shut up
@Ben_H is this really an entirely new tax? ie can't congress structure it as simply a higher tax on people meeting those conditions?
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:07PM
G'z. Give it a rest, 25. You've been owned five times over already. Any idiot can see she was using the 5th to shed light on the only real application of BoA law the country has seen. Cases in different judicial districts cite parallel jurisdictions all the time. She also pointed out that the case would go up to the supreme court because of the unresolved nature of the law here. This makes her reference to the fifth pretty relevant and obvious. She's not going to fuck you, get over it. Odds are against her being a tranny as well. This means she's twice as unlikely to satisfy your obvious repressed desire to be fucked by a tranny.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:08PM
17 - You are conflating due process (challenge in Carlton) and ex post facto. Ex post facto is a specific type of law, and the prohibition only applies to criminal legislation. Calder v. Bull (1798). This is not criminal, so ex post facto is irrelevent.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:11PM
American Dream boy give it up ass clown!
Screw AIG and GS and all of the other criminals on Wall Street...I cant wait for all you clowns to start working at WalMarts!
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:11PM
@24 is what you call an incendiary... am amazed to see that no one is taking the bait
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:12PM
@32
So all that long post to say this could go to the SC? Almost anything can aim to go to the SC these days. Blame this on a surplus of lawyers.
The tranny thing should be a lot more interesting.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:13PM
having worked on the finance side with the jd/mba that is ep, ill take her over bitter leftist douchebags like #25 any day.
plus, if shes a tranny shes a hot one. where do i sign up?
Posted by Ben_H , Mar 19, 2009 6:13PM
@24- It has been structured as an excise, not as a part of the income tax, so it is definitely more of an "entirely new tax" than an extension of an existing one.
@17 - yes, indeed, the bar for the "ex post facto-ness" of a law rising to a due process violation is very high in tax or civil law as opposed to criminal law, but the bar is not infinitely high, as you can see in Carlton, Hemme, Millikin, etc. It's just that Congress and state legislatures have generally not been unreasonable in the taxes they have tried to levy retroactively; generally we are talking about retroactive closing of loopholes or changing of rates on existing schemes back to the beginning of a calendar year or back to the year of the last legislative session. I suspect that if Congress decided to, say, impose an excise tax on income from mortgage securitization back to the year 2002 (to come up with an extreme example), it would indeed run into due process issues.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:13PM
American Dream boy give it up ass clown!
Screw AIG and GS and all of the other criminals on Wall Street...I cant wait for all you clowns to start working at WalMarts!
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:14PM
"About $3.6 billion in Merrill Lynch & Co. bonuses wouldn’t be affected by the new legislation because they were paid before Dec. 31. Bonuses for employees at Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley would be affected because they were paid after Dec. 31"
BoA screwed (again!) over ML.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:14PM
This is insane, but it is actually happening. Once this retroactive tax is applied, the next step will be a search of those who profited from the mess we're in, i.e. hedge funds. If you are Steve Cohen, John Paulson (sp?), Tudor, etc...a wealth tax is next. Anyone who has capital in the United States will look to remove it as quickly as possible.
Much as I'd hate to see him right, Jim Rogers claim that the United States will implement capital controls at some point looks increasingly likely as we spiral into this craziness. The only one who can probably stop this snowball of mob rule is Obama stepping in and saying "wait a minute, we need a cooling off period. This legislation is too rushed, and when a more rational bill is presented, I will sign it. "
Sadly, this is unlikely, and for once, the goldbugs and gun crazies will be right.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:15PM
CNN reports that this BS new tax would apply to institutions that received more than $5B in bailout funds. I think we'll see those who can paying back the TARP funds very quickly if they plan on retaining talent.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:16PM
38, you don't know what you are talking about. There's a reason the Carlton opinion and the tax jurisprudence it deals with, does not discuss "ex post facto."
Posted by Ben_H , Mar 19, 2009 6:18PM
@17 -- yes, you're right... not really ex post facto per se, just the fact that retroactivity can raise due process issues.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:19PM
@41 bho is a socialist...so what essentially is happening is per his wishes...think he is enjoying this...bho is a la Chaves
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:20PM
this tax is kind of like the opposite of socialism, because the government is essentially trying to ensure that these firms pay back the TARP funds ASAP (this is a HUGE incentive for management to pay back the taxpayer), or at least don't simply redistribute taxpayer funds to their employees. TARP was socialism, and this is trying to reverse that.
Anyone who sees this as socialism is living in bizarro world.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:22PM
EP,
Sure, it's not just an AIG tax, but so what? The inference you want your readers to draw doesn't really make sense. It's not like Congress was in cahoots with AIG to make these bonus payouts so that Congress could pass a confiscatory tax on bank bonuses. AIGFP bonuses were made public, the reaction was disgust and outrage, and Congress was forced to act.
Sure, the money involved is a drop in the overall bucket, but politics is often more about symbolism. Frankly, I'd rather someone spend some time figuring out what quo was involved with the quid of happily handing out cash so GS could be made whole on all the bad CDS bets it made to the tune of $12B of taxpayer cash.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:25PM
@46 more is coming http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8ACNNjDheOQ&refer=home
bizzaro...read the context somewhere..superman comics,i think...so u mean opposite of what you are really saying...???
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:26PM
@42 I think GS will be the first. I give it a month (tops) if they are allowed to return it.
Posted by Ben_H , Mar 19, 2009 6:27PM
Interesting that Senate brought the threshhold down to $100mio in TARP funds. Was thinking before that the House version would inadvertently spare smaller institutions that took more money relative to their size (to the extent that such institutions exist).
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:29PM
@42
You should have typed talent this way: "talent" and be done with it.
@41
That's what happens when douchebags take risks knowing the taxpayer will bear the brunt of the consequences. It usually takes them 20 years to forget history, but even then someone will remember a lesson or two about moral hazard.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:32PM
Yes, it is all about symbolism and posturing. How much attention have the good people of Capitol Hill managed to devote this week to subjects -- for example, the meltdown of Pakistan -- where our national interests are truly at stake? Tough to get on TV talking about Waziristan.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:32PM
Yes, it is all about symbolism and posturing. How much attention have the good people of Capitol Hill managed to devote this week to subjects -- for example, the meltdown of Pakistan -- where our national interests are truly at stake? Tough to get on TV talking about Waziristan.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:32PM
Yes, it is all about symbolism and posturing. How much attention have the good people of Capitol Hill managed to devote this week to subjects -- for example, the meltdown of Pakistan -- where our national interests are truly at stake? Tough to get on TV talking about Waziristan.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:34PM
@ 52,53,54...how much do you know about waziristan and why should it be a policy focus?
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:34PM
@#5 & @#3...
The impetus for this knockout tax has been strengthening for some time. I'm glad the pain finally found its way into Wall Street's heart. Anger and fear are emotions that main Street has already been feeling for quite awhile now.
I imagine Congress just said to Wall Streeters, "Welcome to Shitsville."
The Guy from Delaware
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:36PM
@51 Enjoy tilling the fields when the capital flees. Not everyone who makes more than money you is a douchebag. And what about the "homeowners" who overpaid for homes they couldn't afford and are now getting bailouts, restructurings, etc...
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:37PM
BHO ran his entire campaign promising to screw the top wage earners and redistribute wealth. Why is any of this surprising? Sorry folks this is only the beginning. Take comfort in Margaret Thatcher's words "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Welcome Back, Carter!
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:38PM
@25, Do you even know how to read? The whole point of EP's post was to describe why the bill was drafted so broadly, i.e., to avoid a bill of attainder issue. You will never make law review.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:40PM
@46
Exactly, this bill has excellent unintended consequences. Basically, it turns all bonuses at TARP institutions into pay-for-performance bonuses. If you get your TARP funded institution into good shape and refund the taxpayers by December 2009, you get your bonus in full! This is excellent. Hell, even the AIG-FP people could get their bonuses back if they can close out that giant derivatives book and repay the taxpayers in about 9 months. The clock is ticking...
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:45PM
I dont get the 'household income' part. Are they telling me that since the combined income of my family is more than $250K and one of us works for tarp assisted banks, it makes more sense for me to just quit and stay home rather than support my family?
They are punishing me (who doesnt work for one of those banks) because my husband works for one of those banks? How is that constitutional? They should only apply this to incomes of people who work for these firms. I really dont get the entire household income part!!
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:57PM
@56,
I only wish Congress would say that. It's not an accident that Detroit was forced to renegotiate contracts at the point of a gun to get bailed out, but Geithner insisted that Dodd re-write the bonus comp section of the bill to allow pre-existing bonus plans to skirt the comp restrictions. Geithner got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and Congress now has to try to clean up what it wrought by bending over.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 6:58PM
@61
File as "Married, Filing Separate." You might pay a little bit more, but you are also protected. If the IRS ever went after your partner they couldn't get you for back taxes. I always file this way since you never want to put your spouse in an uncomfortable position.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:05PM
Can you imagine being someone who busted their ass through school, got a scholarship, and moved their entire family to the US just to see this shit happen? I wonder how someone like that feels...
I think it's time we all heed the advice of Tracy Jordan...
"Everyone needs to calm down and start preparing their bodies for the Thunderdome...."
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:07PM
@57
find another fallacy. that's a tired one.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:29PM
4 Senators are proposing a 70% tax on companies taking >100 mil in govt aid.
This thing will pass in some fashion without a doubt.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:30PM
It seems justified that, if you cannot claw back bonuses paid to mark-to-modellers for having exacted a massive Ponzi scheme on the credit markets, you do so via taxation. Why would anyone have a problem with that?
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:35PM
EP said:
"Neither would it serve the legislation if anyone bothers to recognize that AIG was basically given the green light by the very people now up in arms over the "outrage" of these bonuses, and that they have been "approved" since 2008."
In the spirit of clarification, at no point in time was there ever a law barring the bonuses. So there was no law needed giving a "green light" or "approving" such bonuses.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:39PM
I'm a former ML banker who got paid in 2008. John Thain is my hero.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:44PM
This whole country is fucked every way 'til Sunday but anyone who claims that any one at AIG deserves a bonus of any sort is just talking their book.
PS - most of IT does not make 150k as a base salary. Not sure what delusion you're operating under but I could use some.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:55PM
64 is awesome, btw.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 7:58PM
is EP an attorney?
i'm trying to get some context for the original blog entry.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 8:01PM
This is obvious theft. "We want our money back"... what a cun+. Since it's just getting money "back", I assume those who are paying the money "back" will get an equal amount of the government's preferreds. No? So the government gets its money "back" and still has a claim on the same amount of preferreds as before it got its money "back"? If only there were a few Nazis around who could tell us how good it feels to have a scapegoat to tax into oblivion and then...
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 8:14PM
Hamptons Summer 09!!
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 8:20PM
#70 - what fucking impoverished organization do you work for? Sr. IT engineers START at 150 base... Total comp is usually 200 - 250. C Level IT execs make 7 figures.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 8:21PM
#70 - what fucking impoverished organization do you work for? Sr. IT engineers START at 150 base... Total comp is usually 200 - 250. C Level IT execs make 7 figures.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 8:33PM
What is the NY income tax rate? California's is something like 9.1%, with an extra 1% for millionaires, making it above 10% I think. In a month, CA votes to jack up everything by another 1%.
How would a 101% fed+state income tax work?
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 8:36PM
@59 -
25, here, and yes, I can read. I can read the header on EP's post and I can read the following:
"All this overlooks the fact that Bill of Attainder jurisprudence is in quite a bit of disarray and this would make for a very juicy (and time-consuming) case if it went to the Supreme Court"
EP appears to recognize that the tax legislation that ultimately passes will apply more broadly than the AIGFP (and she rues that fact), but she also is obviously trying to argue that the Bill of A clause will provide the basis for a serious legal challenge. It won't. Assuming anyone even sues over this, the matter would be resolved on motion, not at trial. Absent an injunction, the taxes would be paid by 4/15/10, regardless of the course of the litigation. And any litigation not be a morass; it would consist of a set of papers at the District Court and then possibly a re-do of essentially the same filing at the 2d Cir. Again, assuming anyone is stupid enough to waste their money pursuing a case.
A Bill of A. argument is virtually certain to fail for all the reasons stated in my original comment. I would also note that, going all the way back to 1789, the Bill of A has only been used a few times to strike down anything. I don't know how many, but I think it is maybe 3 instances in 220 years. No targeted tax has ever succumbed to a Bill of A attack.
So the point is EP is an ideologue who is more interested in defending the bonus system than in presenting real news and fair analysis. Any informed analysis of this situation would have to acknowledge that a Bill of A argument is a long shot at best and not likely to involve a morass of litigation.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 8:40PM
61 - the bill reads:
"TARP Bonus - For purposes of this section--
(1) IN GENERAL- The term `TARP bonus' means, with respect to any individual for any taxable year, the lesser of--
(A) the aggregate disqualified bonus payments received from covered TARP recipients during such taxable year, or
(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)."
So, if you make more than $125,000, it seems like you should file separately and your household will net more after-tax dollars. When you file separately, anything he makes above $125,000 is taxed at 90%. When you file jointly, anything you make combined over $250,000 is taxed at 90%.
Is this right, Tax Chick?
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 8:46PM
Next step is prohibiting the banks from paying back the TARP money. You watch.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 8:51PM
Ken Lewis, please pay back the TARP money tomorrow! I'd rather have us take our chances than be held hostage and have our pay capped by the loonies in DC. Better upside potential for all of us if you pay back the TARP money now rather than wait. Maybe higher downside risk as well, but screw it. In the end, we're all dead anyway.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:00PM
whoever supports this bill is a moron, a total fucking moron...
if you support this bill, why household income.. defend that
obama would be smart to reject this bill
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:06PM
The whole argument about evil banks making people think they can afford to borrow more than they should makes me fucking sick. I'm constantly getting credit card offers, constantly being hustled on the street, and constantly being told to eat 900 calorie hamburgers from McDonalds. But I actually do this thing called thinking. And that keeps me from getting roped into shit I know will work against me. Helpless liberal fucking fools.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:13PM
Pay-for-performance, fuckers! If you pay back TARP monies within the next 9 months you get your bonus back. End of story. The pressure is on, you man enough to handle it?
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:20PM
@25
Nice teabagging of Ms. EP. Bitch needs it, particularly after a post worthy of one her own blogs.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:21PM
has anyone, including those in congress, actually read the bill?
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/rangel.pdf
i'm not a lawyer, but the language of the bill seems to target all bonuses, regardless of size or total compensation of the recipient. in addition, all compensation in excess of 250k would be treated as if it were a bonus and therefore would be subject to the tax.
see the "lessor of" on page 2, line 11.
since my employer is a recipient of tarp funds, i hope someone can show that i'm wrong.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:42PM
Any know whether Paulson "forcing" the banks (even the ones who claimed they didn't want/need it) to take the original TARP money and then Congress turning around and taxing the employees would be an argument against its constitutionality/legality?
"You have to take this money and then we're going to punish your employees because you took it."
Posted by daytraitor , Mar 19, 2009 9:43PM
If this passes the Senate, the NYC real estate mkt will get destroyed.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:45PM
@87 No, because these banks can pay the money back this year, at any time, and escape the bonus provisions. So go ahead, please, pay the U.S. back ASAP. Then you get your bonus.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:49PM
You want to know what is really absurd about this? The fact that the House claims this is about the bailout and TARP. If that were true, then the money generated from this tax should apply against the TARP loans. But, it doesn't. Instead, the banks still have to pay back the principle amount of the TARP loans and their employees have to pay back bonuses.
Let's take Goldman Sachs as an example. In 2008, Goldman paid out $11 billion in compensation and benefits. Let's assume that 1/2 of that was in bonuses that would fall under this tax. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 39%, the 90% tax would then generate another $2.8 billion of tax revenue. Goldman Sachs received $10 billion of TARP money. So, in addition to paying 5% interest on that $10 billion, the employees have to chip in another $2.8 billion, or 28% interest per year.
So, that is one hell of a retrade.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 9:50PM
It goes without saying that this is nothing more than a witch-hunt. Merrill bonuses paid in 2008 are not included, but someone who turned a profit for a company that *happens* to be owned by a TARP bank is punished? This destroys every bank with TARP money. It destroys the American finance industry. It destroys NYC. I'm sure some posters here would love to see all those who made good financial decisions rounded up into ghettos with dollars signs etched onto their shirts for easy identification. History has judged those McCarthyists among you well. Revenge is not just justice says the mild voice of reason. But I doubt anyone to whom that would be informative got bored and stopped reading by now.
Posted by tigers05 , Mar 19, 2009 9:57PM
@89, bonuses paid for performance last fiscal year will likely be taxed during this fiscal year and therefore this tax applies to last year's bonuses.
That is how my firm and almost all other firms work. So, even if the TARP is paid back this year, last year's bonuses are still being fucked.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:00PM
Screw NYC real estate. The city reached a point that no one could actually afford to live there.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:02PM
@91 The American finance industry is already destroyed and, now, it is just sucking down resources on life support. Everyone thought that the government was just more dumb money. Well, it's not. Look at it this way, at least you have a stable job and the opportunity to turn in a profit at a corporation that could have gone under.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:03PM
why not tax them at 100% on the bonuses?
Posted by tigers05 , Mar 19, 2009 10:05PM
@94 - the government is dumb money. That is why it is destroying any chance of saving its investment in Citi. All of the talented folks at Citi will leave and earn real untaxed bonuses elsewhere. It will just have the less competent left. Whoo hoo. As the biggest shareholder of Citi, you must feel real smart at doing yourself in the ass.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:10PM
@83 -- completely agree, if you are too incompetent to understand a mortgage or too dumb to know what you can and cannot afford, then all your decision making privileges as a US citizen should be stripped... including voting for president of the country
its nice to see barney frank run around washington dc screaming and yelling about predatory lenders, but i want to know who is going to punish the predatory politicians who campaign by lying to hopeless people telling them their lives will change if they are elected and then inevitably and obviously fail to deliver
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:16PM
@92
Effective Date- This section shall apply to disqualified bonus payments received after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such date.
So anything paid in 2009, tax due 4/2010.
@95
The congress was trying to be safe by setting the tax rate at 90% since there is historical precedent for such a high tax rate. A tax rate of 100% might be deemed a taking and could be struck down under judicial review.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:16PM
@78 (&25) "assuming anyone even sues over this"
"assuming anyone is stupid enough to waste their money pursuing a case"
Sorry dude, your impressive legal articulation on a blog post doesn't make for a knockout punch in preventing people who brought in millions in fees or commissions to their employers and subsequently got paid on such in a lump sum matter from pursuing a case against their government attempting to retroactively seize it.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:20PM
98,
We tax at 100% in other contexts, specifically, IRC 4971(b) -- the putative tax for failure to meet minimum funding standards for pensions (which GM will be paying shortly); why should this be different?
- 95
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:24PM
@96
"All of the talented folks at Citi will leave and earn real untaxed bonuses elsewhere."
Sure, let them. They will have to quit, so no unemployment. And then they will have to get a job at one of the handful of smaller, non-TARP firms that are already full of killer talent. Have fun. If they didn't leave already, though, I doubt that they are going to go now. That safe, government-funded paycheck is just too good to give up.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:30PM
@94 -- I'll look at this way: I live in an apartment 1/10 the size of your average McMansion so that I can save whatever is left over after NYC taxes, NYC cost of living, etc. I remember visiting home once and listening to a high school classmate wow everyone with how much money he was making as a mortgage broker and how things like earning A's in college was for suckers. Well, I have to say in retrospect that he was right. This country looks the the other way when it comes to fraud, rewards incompetence and takes what it can from those few who generate value. Tell that to your kids. Or put your own spin on it on how Mommy and Daddy had enough and took their country back. You can have it for all it's worth now.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:51PM
So I have been watching 25/78 since yesterday. I am pretty sure its the same person. I have several observations I can't keep to myself any longer.
-- Your style of argument is beyond sloppy. It seems to consist primarily of badly mauling what 'Equity Private' is saying and then attacking the resulting mutation without any factual basis. If it is intentional you are overusing it is a blunt instrument instead of a foil. If it isn't you are just not in control of yourself. Either way, as a 15 year vet of 'Big Law' and a litigation partner for 6 of those years, this convinces me that if you are in law at all it is as a public defender in a very low-budget jurisdiction. Frankly, I doubt even this. If you are in law school you should immediately demand a refund of your tuition.
-- Your incompetence in argumentation is magnified by an idiotic tendency to argue points you have clearly lost many times over. I used to enjoy eating opposing counsel like this for a light snack on motion day. They were usually young, had a chip on their shoulder the size of the entire courtroom and did not have the sophistication to read the room or check themselves when they started to spiral down.
-- Your tendency towards vulgarity and personal attack is telling. I always knew I had someone dead to rights, witness or opposing counsel, when they slipped into this mode and it wasn't either artifice or by design. The one entertaining part of all this is observing how deeply under your skin 'Equity Private' gets. 'She' gets just personal enough to send you into a rage and then kills you with facts. You try to make up for your losing position with crude attacks. You execute this poorly and people notice. Luckily this is only a message board. Anywhere where it mattered you'd be branded an idiot immediately.
-- You probably haven't been in any environment with sufficient natural or artificial selection to weed these traits out of you. Certainly, you haven't been in the top half of the curve since high school or the early college years (provided you attended a school worth a damn).
-- All of this would be slightly more convincing if your every position wasn't proven wrong almost as quickly as you too it. For example:
--- The AIG bonus legislation has been recrafted from AIG bonus targeted to TARP executive comp cap targeted precisely for the reasons 'Equity Private' indicated. What's more, the legislators have admitted precisely this. That's why the tax rate is 90% instead of 100%. That's why the scope was expanded. You only have to read a paper or two to notice this.
--- The Treasury, Tim Geithner, the New York AG, AIG's counsel, and the Fed's counsel have all come down on the side that abrogating the retention contracts or 'stopping' or 'voiding' the payments, or clawing them back is impossible. Every single one.
In short, you are dead wrong. You have been dead wrong since you first started writing.
'Equity Private,' keep up the good work. Ignore the morons. Try to keep your arguments a bit tighter. See you on your next post.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 10:54PM
@102
No, I hear you, but the problem is that the financial industry does not generate value, it captures it. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Finance allows the rest of the value generating economy to run way more efficiently. The problem is, the financial industry started to think it was an actual industry. In the end, you had people in finance making $6 million per year for losing $40 billion while insiders in value generating industries might make $6 million for life for growing a company to a $3 billion market cap. Now, things are returning to normal. Don't give up, there are still large monetary rewards to be had; however, these rewards won't be going to people that want a return to the old easy-money days of guaranteed returns. Oh, and grades and degrees don't matter all that much.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 11:23PM
@103
"The Treasury, Tim Geithner, the New York AG, AIG's counsel, and the Fed's counsel have all come down on the side that abrogating the retention contracts or 'stopping' or 'voiding' the payments, or clawing them back is impossible. Every single one."
Well, clearly the payments could have been stopped earlier if AIG's management had fired the individuals in the bonus pool for cause (e.g. gross negligence). They chose not to do this because:
(a) They did not want to fight a protracted court battle in the event anyone in the pool sued over his/her termination.
(b) They bought into the argument that AIG-FP was indispensable and that only AIG-FP could close out the derivatives book.
At the end of the day, this is what led to the eventual firestorm. The general public and members of Congress no longer felt comfortable owning an asset without having any control over it. I hate to blame Liddy, but he really should have played hardball with AIG-FP over these contracts. He could have got the necessary concessions and I think he received bad legal advice from AIG's counsel and the Fed's counsel.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 11:25PM
Who invited the fucking lawyers?
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 11:51PM
105, 103 here:
So let me see if I understand this. AIG should have made these retention agreements, let the employees work until it was politically untenable, and then invented 'for cause' pretenses to fire... all 70 plus of them? Do I have that right? They have a phrase for that: wrongful termination.
You really think no one is going to get wise when you just happen to fire all or nearly all the people who are getting bonuses 'for cause'?
Even if they could get away with it, you don't see anything wrong with this kind of behavior?
So far as I know, none of the people we are talking about has so much as been charged with as much as simple theft under $500.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 11:54PM
Dealbreaker site is doing some funky stuff right now. Bet it's been hacked by the commies.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 11:54PM
105, 103 here:
So let me see if I understand this. AIG should have made these retention agreements, let the employees work until it was politically untenable, and then invented 'for cause' pretenses to fire... all 70 plus of them? Do I have that right? They have a phrase for that: wrongful termination.
You really think no one is going to get wise when you just happen to fire all or nearly all the people who are getting bonuses 'for cause'?
Even if they could get away with it, you don't see anything wrong with this kind of behavior?
So far as I know, none of the people we are talking about has so much as been charged with as much as simple theft under $500.
Posted by guest , Mar 19, 2009 11:55PM
wow. lots of unemployed attorneys here...
let's put some unqualified folks in the Financial Products group who don't require guaranteed bonuses. Then we will see how much this is going to cost tax payers!
AIG-FP are being payed based on revenue generated by the unit. its essentially a commission that's paid yearly.
liberal douchebags should understand this would be like if they didn't get their tips for delivering pizzas.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:00AM
@106 seriously man wtf. yawn to lawyers...and i think that elf at the treasury needs a bonus for being anal retentive.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:02AM
lawyers are the new shamwow!
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:04AM
I am pinching myself HARD, and I still can't believe this is really happening.
AIG bonuses = dumb
Congressional reaction = dumber
I have never been more embarrassed to be an American. Not because of anything that's happened up to this point, but because the actions of our elected officials is supposed to reflect our views.
No doubt in my mind that the rest of the world is laughing at us, and rightfully so.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:05AM
Keep some KY handy. This is gonna get a lot worse.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:08AM
Wow, so the Republicans have decided to adopt the Obama admin view that anyone with more than 250k of annual income is rich. Lost my job just in time to capitalize on this socialization project.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:11AM
Getting taxed at less than 100% is the new killing it.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:21AM
Making less than 250K is the new killing it.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:22AM
Moving out of NYC with >$1 is the new killing it!
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:23AM
Political nightmare for Republicans. Right now, they are having dreams in which they are debating their opponents in the next election . . . "Isn't it true Sen/Rep _____ that you voted AGAINST legislation that would have forced the return of the AIG bonuses. . ."
Obama really needs to show some guts and step in front of this train, but I'm sure he won't.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:23AM
@110 Um, no, the AIG-FP bonus was a retention bonus that was set up prior to the collapse of AIG and subsequent government bailout. In the 4th quarter, AIG posted a loss of $61.7 billion and revenue fell to NEGATIVE $23.8 billion since the company had to reverse gains it recorded from investments in past quarters. If the bonus was based on revenue generated by the unit, it should have been a negative bonus.
@109 Many individuals in the AIG-FP unit failed to correctly hedge wrong-way risk. This failure was grossly negligent and, according to contract, such individuals could have been fired for cause. These firings should have been done when Liddy was installed as the new CEO.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:35AM
EP will defend any bonus for any company's senior leadership. If AIG put $165 million in a pit, lit it on fire and called it a "bonus," EP would think it was a great idea. (And the wealth-destroying effects of burning $165 million in cash would not be as bad as giving $165 million in cash to AIG's leadership. If you burn $165 million, you're only out $165 million; if you give $165 million to AIG's executives, those talentless fuck-ups will figure out a way to turn it into a $61.7 *billion* loss.)
At least Chris Dodd can claim he stuck that provision in the bill because he was bought off. That's bald self-interest and is to be expected. Not sure what EP's rationale is. Maybe she's just stupider than I thought.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 1:18AM
@121,
You, my friend, are our winner for "Idiot of the Night." Nobody really gives a shit if the AIG execs have to return a portion or all of what they received. The point here is that this is being used as a vehicle to limit compensation of ALL employees of recipients of TARP funds.
And in case you still don't get it, let's illustrate: You (hypothetically) are a successful employee of company X, a tarp fund recipient. You work hard, diligently, and are successful and generate $2 million in revenue for your company. You have nothing to do with the current market crisis. In fact, you don't even know what a CDO is. You, by congressional mandate, cannot make more than 250k.
Now, let's assume another hypothetical. Tomorrow, you get a call from a headhunter whose been calling from time to time with opportunities. He says UBS is willing to pay you 750k guaranteed (in a contract). They would net $1.25 million. You have know idea when, if at all, your company will pay back the TARP money.
What are you going to do? This, I think, even you can figure out.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 1:42AM
Wow.. Nice forum. Let me just state up front. You bankers/lawyers are parasites on society and produce nothing useful. Now that we got that out of the way. The real question is not why you shouldn't get your bonus, but why should I, as a tax payer earning less than 100K, pay for your fucking 100K+ bonuses?
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 2:53AM
This is nothing but a populist witch hunt. Because one division at one firm fucked up, the House is seeking to punish profit producing people working at firms like JPM and MS. Not to mention the media shitstorm fueled by ignorant "hard working taxpayers" who have never even heard of AIG or know what they do before last week, and now wants all of wall street hanged.
Can you imagine MDs at Goldman/JPM bringing in millions in revenue a year making <250k?
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 3:35AM
Can't we just go back to 2004 when recruiters used to pull us aside during football practice and tell us how much sweeter their firm was? When signing bonuses for entry level jobs were 5 figures? When 4 years of absurdly difficult math and an economics degree meant 6 figures/yr right out of college? To a time when I didn't feel shame when telling people what I do for a living?
The dream is dead, the dream is dead, the dream is dead.
-Should have went to law school
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 3:50AM
Gee, 122, I didn't realise UBS were hiring. Oh wait, they're not. Very few people are. Certainly not enough to re-employ everyone at TARP banks earning over $250k.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 4:07AM
Glory days are over.
If GS bankers can score a better deal elsewhere, they will tarp/no tarp.
The truth is that most of them can't. There are simply too many ibankers for ibanking positions. People need to leave the business.
The other truth is that most of wall street is gambling with other peoples' money and assymetric payouts. Not sure the U.S. economy needs more of this.
The dream was greed--pure and simple. Now that you can't have a bunch of 25-30 yrs running around NYC with 300k-1MM bonuses, life is over? Good, grow up.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 6:13AM
Taxchick, Can they simply lay everyone off, pay them a severence and then rehire them as contractors?
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 6:14AM
Would the House version apply to employees > $250k ("The House bill passed yesterday would affect employees earning more than $250,000 who received bonuses from companies that received more than $5 billion in aid from the Troubled Asset Relief Program." - WSJ) or would it apply to households > $250k?
Posted by Ben_H , Mar 20, 2009 6:49AM
You have to imagine that firms will think twice about participating in TALF, lest consequences for participation be imposed retroactively.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 7:31AM
@119 - Looks like Obama is playing a game of good cop to Pelosi&Co.'s bad cop.
He's sweet talking everybody, pretending to be the friendly tourist asking for directions, while Nancy's in back taking your wallet out of your pants.
Don't be fooled -- they're both working for the same outcome.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 7:44AM
Someone is missing the boat.
Ex post facto. Almost an open-and-shut case for violation of THAT part of the constitution.
The bonuses are certainly a bad idea, and should not have been agreed to - but they are contractual obligations that were agreed to a WHILE ago, the Government KNEW about them last year, and ignored them until now.
Some folks wonder why I am opposed to most government programs.....
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 7:49AM
This whole thing is a big train wreck.
First, those retention bonuses were a huge mistake. I'm not in a position to determine whether the individuals at AIG-FP are the best people to ensure the most efficient wind-up of the outstanding positions, so I won't comment on whether AIG should have tried to incent them to remain vs. looking for other qualified people to unwind them and paid them appropriately (otherwise you would lose so much more by effectively putting in low paid clerks who don't understand the market or the risks). If you accept the argument that it is the people in place that are best suited to unwinding these positions (and don't want to get into that argument), then you need to provide an incentive for them to stay since they won't get paid for writing new business going forward. But to pay them a fixed retention bonus is just bad management since it effectively keeps their rewards at past levels where it is now known that their performance was illusory. And even worse, it provides no incentive to do a proper job in the unwind. More effective would have been to restructure their objectives/bonus system to refocus it to acheiving goals of capturing value in the unwind vs. the old system of generating revenue. Then they have both an incentive to stay (since at this point you've bdecided you want to keep them) and to do a proper job.
Even worse than the mistake in structuring any bonuses is the constant chest beating from Congress. It's wrong on so many levels, which have been pretty effectively covered by many other posters so I won't re-hash it.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 7:52AM
Despite the fact that I would love to see bonuses paid to my competitors taxed at 90%; the proposed tax is un-American, unconstitutional, and fundamentally unfair. If it holds up in court, I'm going to find some capitalist nation to move to. The only good thing about this whole episode is that it has exposed congress as a bunch of raving lunatics incapable of thinking one move forward, let alone three dimensional chess. Here's an idea: let's shoot for referendums next election calling for all state and federal political jobs to be unpaid.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 8:16AM
@2 Ditto
Posted by pbjlong , Mar 20, 2009 8:19AM
I'd rather let the executives have their undeserved bonus than see this country desend even further into socialism. Obama will be the end of the American Dream.
Posted by pbjlong , Mar 20, 2009 8:19AM
I'd rather let the executives have their undeserved bonus than see this country desend even further into socialism. Obama will be the end of the American Dream.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 8:25AM
123, please light yourself on fire immediately. you ignorant, uninformed, mutant, sheep retard. fuck yourself also. dick, pussy, snot and shit. goodnight.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 8:37AM
Heh, nice forum. I consider this the spear-tip of capitalism in the abstract vs. cold, hard reality. A few unsolicited thoughts: (a) profanities reveal shabby thinking processes (directed to #138); (b) Congress represents (albeit ineffectively) the feeling of the general populace; (c) if you don't like the gubment, do something to change it.
I feel not one tiny, itty-bitty bit of sympathy for anyone who (i) complains about Congress, but (ii) is unwilling to (a) quit their job, (b) run for office, (c) get elected, and (d) try to legislate. With all due respect, people who complain about Congress are nothing more than whiners.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 8:54AM
snarky comments reveal (a) a vagina, (b) lack of personality. i bet you're a blast to hang out with. loser.
its from eddie murphy, by the way. tongue-in-cheek use of vulgarity. joke's on you. FUCKER.
there is a 0% chance i would get elected should i run for office, as I would attempt to run on a platform of sensibility, honesty and "change". unfortunately, the dumbshit electorate thinks this is a reality show of "Who wants to be America's next top President" and wants a President on the cover of People magazine and on Jay Leno at night.
Idiocracy is here. President Camacho.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 8:57AM
How can it be considered punishment to take back bonuses given to management of a company that had to get bailout money to stay afloat. A bonus is a reward for good performance. The good perfomance was never achieved by the company as a whole and the bonus money given was taken from bailout money. How can that be considered punishment? All the key managers should be fired. They not only did not perform well, they caused they company to completely fail by not conducting good business practices. Firing is punishment they deserve. Getting bonuses paid with government bailout money is insanity.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 8:59AM
141 - FAIL. Thanks for reading the first paragraph of the story in your local paper and thinking you understand the situation. Oh wait, or did you hear about this on Jay Leno and Good Morning America. Moron.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:14AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=NT-2fenmLnc
Follow this link and do something about it instead of whinning like spoiled children!
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:15AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=NT-2fenmLnc
Follow this link and do something about it instead of whinning like spoiled children!
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:19AM
Anybody can confirm if the $250K limit applies to family income or individual income? Anybody got link to the actual bill?
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:38AM
145- here's a copy of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1586:
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:41AM
The original issue remains that if Congress and Obama (while in Congress)and now, placed the payouts in the bailout, then, we should hold them accountable for this fraud perpetrated upon the American people! All responsible taxpayers can vote for their removal from office..
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:43AM
The prior poster displayed as "guest" appears to to be dangerously enraged. Does this forum permit vulgarity and references to sodomy? If not, you may want to review the majority of his entries.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:43AM
Getting a knockout punch from 'Bill of Attainder" is the new killing it!
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:47AM
What the HELL is going on in this country. I am sick and tired of all the Passing the Buck as they say. Someone have the Balls to say I screwed up and intend to make things right.
Obama, the idiots of this country put you in office, why, I will never know, but they did, and you are making a mockery out of our Constitution. How dare you. All of Congress and the Senate should step down and let someone with guts do the job at hand. Some of you idiots think this is someone elses fault. "President George W. Bush, maybe.NOT! If charges should be brought against anyone it should be the people in DC now. They are the ones that sent this horrible thing through. Pelosi should be hanged for her part in this debacle. All of these people getting kickbacks, should be taken out and shot.
I am ready to stand up and fight for what is right and get these IDIOTS out of the White House for good.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:50AM
Not being sarcastic - does anyone really know what the hell is going on? Washington is out of control. Obama and the whole bunch of them. Most of them should be in prison. Everyday rushing through bills, that end up costing US billions, they don't know what they are agree with, next day have to back peddle to cover up what they did, somehow ends up costing us more. Meanwhile the whole world is laughing, watching us go down the drain and turn on each other. This whole thing smells like rat and worse. How are these people staying in office. We have some great minds just blogging here. I hope we are all putting it to good use to educate and get these criminals out of office.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:50AM
Not being sarcastic - does anyone really know what the hell is going on? Washington is out of control. Obama and the whole bunch of them. Most of them should be in prison. Everyday rushing through bills, that end up costing US billions, they don't know what they are agree with, next day have to back peddle to cover up what they did, somehow ends up costing us more. Meanwhile the whole world is laughing, watching us go down the drain and turn on each other. This whole thing smells like rat and worse. How are these people staying in office. We have some great minds just blogging here. I hope we are all putting it to good use to educate and get these criminals out of office.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:51AM
@140 -- thanks. I notice that the bill carves out Fannie and Freddie from the definition of "TARP recipient." See Section 1(c)(1)(B). Is there any principled reason for that carveout or is Congress just throwing a bone to a particularly well-oiled lobby?
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 9:56AM
@149,
I'm "Bill of Attainder", and I approve your message.
Bill of Attainder
Hero in the War on Wall Street
Posted by m2dad , Mar 20, 2009 10:05AM
There certainly is enough blame to go around for the present ills. But, when it comes right down to it the American People are most to blame for not educating themselves to the issues, and not exerting intelligent political power. The election of the present buffoons in the White House, Senate, and House are a result of a lazy people who are increasingly giving up their ability to control their own destiny and expect the government to cater to their needs. How is the greed by AIG any different than the greed exhibited by your typical American now who expects government to provide all? Personal responsibility has been replaced by dependence and enslavement to the clowns in office. You are getting what you deserve America.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 10:31AM
@4 - For your own safety, get the f*&k out of the country now! This is a direct descendant of the revolutionary war and we're close to starting another. For your own safety...
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 11:01AM
149:
My VP just shovelled a badly thought through pitch on me that I'll have to do over the weekend - then redo on Monday, obviously.
Getting a donkey punch from Bill Lumbergh is the new killing it.
Posted by m2dad , Mar 20, 2009 11:04AM
Do you really think using profanity strengthens your position or makes you sound knowledgeable and intelligent? The great thinkers in society didn't have to resort to such laziness when communicating their brilliant ideas. Profanity is the result of a weak brain trying to express forceful thoughts.
Posted by m2dad , Mar 20, 2009 11:07AM
Do you really think using profanity strengthens your position or makes you sound knowledgeable and intelligent? The great thinkers in society didn't have to resort to such laziness when communicating their brilliant ideas. Profanity is the result of a weak brain trying to express forceful thoughts.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:02PM
Some banks were forced to take the TARP funds, force make loans, and now tax bonuses
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:02PM
Some banks were forced to take the TARP funds, forced make loans, and now tax bonuses
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 12:02PM
Some banks were forced to take the TARP funds, forced make loans, and now tax bonuses
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 1:38PM
What is this, "Above the Law"?
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 2:14PM
@139
Please take your pedantic drivel back to yahoo finance. Are you really suggesting that people quit their jobs and run for office so they can sit on their butts all day? What a joke.
With all do respect, you are a loser.
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 2:37PM
155 - kudos
Posted by guest , Mar 20, 2009 10:47PM
@129/145: you must have figured by now.. it's $250K household income and $125K for married filing separately. nice. so if i am married with a working spouse (and children), and just cutting it (never made really high numbers), then the choices are:
- increase HELOC and pay the thing back (since part of the money went to pay kids tuition, summer camp and taxes);
- divorce my spouse - this will reduce the tax liability;
- one of us to quit working effective now...
how is that good for economy/ America/ capitalism?
it's amaizing how hollywood "educated" angry masses elected whom they elected with huge support from all shades of pink from the upper east side/ new jersey /connecticut. And now we all are getting what we're getting. that's how Hitler came to power. Because many educated liberal germans didn't really vote or cared. economy sucked and people got angry and were looking for the scapegoat. social nazionalism is very similar to communism. this could be the beginning of end.
or may be it's just me not drunk enough to have better thoughts. and all will be beautiful tomorrow and we'll get out of it almost unscathed. but spending the first half of my life watching distruction brought by socialism doesn't make me overly optimistic.
and finally.... single malt scotch is saving the night. i might not be able to afford it much longer though.
Posted by chernevik , Mar 21, 2009 9:14AM
Early last week I suggested these guys were working their confiscations up to biblical levels, and then thought I had gone overboard. Sadly, I hadn't.
Start reading your Locke and Hobbes, people; get your "Federalist Papers" on, and study those Founders. The looters start from Rousseau, so you'll want to know him. Read the Bible, the Shakespeare, the Homer and Virgil that were the literature of the Founders.
This is happening because the people that actually do the work are letting the politicians define our history for us. "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. "
The real fight is in the fucking bookstore, and if we lose there we will will lose everywhere. Stop bitching, and prepare yourself to take a stand.
Posted by guest , Mar 21, 2009 8:36PM
All who will be subject to the tax should just return the Bonus money, why give the Government 90 - 100% of the money. Let's see who the Federal and State Governments will need to tax to make up for the loss of revenue.
Posted by guest , Mar 22, 2009 7:23AM
um, who gives a shit if it's constitutional or not? no one pays attention to the constitution any more - certainly not anyone in the legislatures or courts. the law is whatever the government says the law is at the moment, which is why no one with a modicum of intelligence, common sense or fairness respects the law or the lawmakers anymore.
fighting in the bookstore is interesting, but we're long past philisophical discussions which change nothing. we should be storming DC and Albany and taking these assholes out in cuffs.
Posted by guest , Mar 26, 2009 3:13PM
When FDR raised the federal marginal tax level to 90% on income of 5mm or so, I believe it affected Henry Ford and probably less than 50 people...I'd imagine there was a lawsuit then as well claiming bill of attainder...nice spin by the paid Wall St lobbysits, but do not think they have a chance in court.... As for ex post tax raises, isn't that exactly what Bill Clinton did that led GS/MS/BSC and LEH to begin to pay their bonuses in January instead of December to delay the tax payment for 1 year (the firms used to have a November year end)...on what basis is anyone hoping this is unconstitutional ?