Democrats Pass 90% tax on AIG bonuses

[bashere]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I don’t care who gets the bonuses or what their responsibility is. They’re still not entitled to MY money.

Actually, that’s an interesting question. I wonder how much you make? Aren’t you in like, Minnesota, or one of those other have-not provinces? I’m betting you’ve been taking THEIR money, in the form of government services, for a really, really long time. Even if you are on the hook for the whole (call it 2 bucks for your whole family) so that we can keep the quaint idea of contracts for a tad bit longer, I’m betting that all of the people getting YOUR money have been giving you THEIR money for years. I’m not sure I care what your responsibility is, either.

You’re arguing that we make taxation a matter of current popularity. You may want to consider if that’s voting your own interests.

[Saintly_Loser]

@Sam_Stone

Many of these people are not rich ($250,000 in income in Manhattan does not make you super-wealthy), and many of them make the bulk of their income from these bonuses.

Even in Manhattan, if you’re making $250,000 per year, you’re doing pretty well.

From Wikipedia

The median income for a household in the county was $47,030, and the median income for a family was $50,229. Males had a median income of $51,856 versus $45,712 for females. The per capita income for the county was $42,922. About 17.6% of families and 20.0% of the population were below the poverty line, including 31.8% of those under age 18 and 18.9% of those age 65 or over.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@bashere

Actually, that’s an interesting question. I wonder how much you make? Aren’t you in like, Minnesota, or one of those other have-not provinces? I’m betting you’ve been taking THEIR money, in the form of government services, for a really, really long time. Even if you are on the hook for the whole (call it 2 bucks for your whole family) so that we can keep the quaint idea of contracts for a tad bit longer, I’m betting that all of the people getting YOUR money have been giving you THEIR money for years. I’m not sure I care what your responsibility is, either.

You’re arguing that we make taxation a matter of current popularity. You may want to consider if that’s voting your own interests.

“Have-not provinces?”

Yes, I’m in Minnesota, no, I’ve never taken a single government service. Swing and a whiff there, Sparky.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@bashere

Even if you are on the hook for the whole (call it 2 bucks for your whole family) so that we can keep the quaint idea of contracts for a tad bit longer, I’m betting that all of the people getting YOUR money have been giving you THEIR money for years.

This “contract” talk is a bullshit red herring. The government has no contract with the people getting these bonuses, and no, I haven’t been getting anybody else’s money.

You’re arguing that we make taxation a matter of current popularity. You may want to consider if that’s voting your own interests.

Taxation has always been a matter of current popularity (you might want to pay attention during an election sometime), and if I’m ever in a position where taxing the rich is against my own self-interest I’ll consider myself very fortunate and support it whole-heartedly.

[MrDibble]

@Sam_Stone

I imagine the kind of person who could really be hurt by this would be a regional manager who has a base salary of maybe $125,000, but who could expect a bonus of another $200,000 if he hit his numbers for the year.

I refuse to shed a single tear for anyone whose base salary is already that high. We’re not talking waiters who need their tips to make ends meet, here. Yuppie scum.

[Sage_Rat]

1000 Times

[China_Guy]

the point was made previously. a lot of us working for profitable companies are seeing bonuses cut and staff laid off to weather the greatest ponzi scheme in the history of mankind.

If you took TARP funds, you were banlkrupt or on the cliff. You wanna pay deferred stk options that kick in after the money is repaid - knock yourself out.

you want TARP funds for bonuses or dividends - go pound sand.

[groo]

I’m very conflicted about this issue, but I have to say that they should get their bonuses. I’d like to add that they’re cocksuckers and that their careers have been a complete lie. No sane economy would allow insurance on horse races or insurance on lottery tickets, and that what they were basically doing. And if it weren’t so late, I’d start my own thread about how 90% marginal tax rates could very well be appropriate in thriving economies.**

But the individuals getting (or not getting) these bonuses did not bend us over a barrel and start thrusting; the collective greed and negligence of many, many people did that, and the chaotic efforts to fix things has thus far resulted in very bad decisions. These are just the people whose situation was so extreme that it made a lie to the whole corrupt mess and could be summed up in single headlines by pandering politicians and putrid pundits.

I’ve lost trust in many, many things in the past year. Banks, realtors, appraisers, rating agencies, rating agencies, rating agencies and dickheads who were fast living financiers who made up words to describe transactions that ultimately made no sense whatsoever. And now contracts. People walking away from mortgages doesn’t disturb me, because that was always a possibility. That was the contract. Contracts are shitty and complicated, and they blow up in peoples’ faces. Which is why people need to read them first. But they’re contracts. The U.S. Government, trying to act on my behalf, made the critical error of not forcing all of these contracts to be examined and renegotiated as terms for getting bailout money. Or they could have forced AIG into bankruptcy, dissolve these debts and move on. They somehow remembered to bring the hammer down when talking with the auto companies, but they didn’t with AIG for reasons of stupidity or conspiracy (I always assume stupidity), so now we pay.

Now I have to wonder – what contracts will I have in my life that can magically evaporate if I’m suddenly deemed wildly unpopular?

Obama’s my guy and Bush is the antichrist. I like that Obama says that he’ll take the heat for this, because that’s an honorable thing, but vilifying people who were doing the same legal ass-raping they’d done their whole careers when they have contracts is not a good decision. They could do whatever they wanted to AIG before giving the money, they had a chance to NOT pass the legislation that explicitly allowed these bonuses to be paid, but they didn’t and now we pay. I hope I’ll just have reason to say this the one time: Obama fucked up, and he also disappointed me: he could have said that it burned him to do this, and it burned everyone, and used it as an opportunity to tell people to read the fucking contracts before they sign them, but he didn’t and this will make everyone have less faith in contracts, and moral hazard is no longer a clever end to an argument, it now permeates the very air we breathe.

However, it was my birthday today and the swallows come back to Capistrano on my birthday and that’s a nice little news story to be able to watch each year. Of course, now it’s also the anniversary of a rather embarrassing and deadly faux pas we made in Iraq starting in 2003, but I hope that the swallows will outlast the memory of that.

**Pre-Ronald Wilson Reagan Econ 101 a la groo:
Abstract: Q: Which country had for many years the mightiest, most vigorous economy, the model for all the world? The United States in the 40s through the 70s. What were the marginal tax rates back then? Up above 90%. The captains of industry want (a) to be captains of industry and (b) to have more money. They thought 92% was real shitty, but they still decided to build their industries anyway. Go figure. Nothing’s been trickling down for 25 years, Ronnie, and I hope you burn in hell.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@RickJay

Well, no, it doesn’t. As a matter of fact, whether the tax applies to EXECUTIVES or not is a rather important point. Executives are ultimately responsible for the company’s fortunes and deserve nothing if the company fails. But employees below them may, in fact, not be responsible for the company’s failure.

Like it or not, Sam is right; the net is being cast so wide that a lot of people are going to be screwed for something that isn’t their fault.

Again: I DON’T CARE. I put the word “innocent” there for a reason. That’s my money they’re getting, and they’re a lot richer than me, and there’s no reason they should have money taken from my meager salary to put a bonus atop their much larger salary.

I didn’t cause the clusterfuck either, but I don’t think I deserve a giant bonus.

Daniel

[Rune]

Already my Office has determined that some of these bonuses were staggering in size. For example:
• The top recipient received more than $6.4 million;
• The top seven bonus recipients received more than $4 million each;
• The top ten bonus recipients received a combined $42 million;
• 22 individuals received bonuses of $2 million or more, and combined they
received more than $72 million;
• 73 individuals received bonuses of $1 million or more; and
• Eleven of the individuals who received “retention” bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer working at AIG, including one who received $4.6 million;

Again, these payments were all made to individuals in the subsidiary whose performance led to crushing losses and the near failure of AIG. Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing ~ taxpayer bailout.

AIG Bonuses

• the company is only alive due to state funds. No one would have received anything had it not been for tax funds. Many of the recipients are no longer at AIG – which will help nothing with retaining important employees. Many of the recipients are working in the very office that brought such astronomic losses that it ruined the company – those people deserve a public flogging, not a bonus for their incompetence. This day I consider myself lucky not to be an American tax payer, that I should be forced to hand over my hard-earned money to make millionaires of incompetent greedy fools.

[Kalhoun]

@ElvisL1ves

Without the bailout, AIG would be bankrupt and not liable for any bonuses at all. The only reason they were paid out is because the taxpayers gave it to the company first.

Now, how is outrageous that they be asked to give it back to the people who gave it to them? How the hell are they entitled to it? When did it become “their” money and not ours? Did the WSJ explain that somewhere, Sam?

I tend to support the clawing back of the bonuses, but do we know whether or not the money was set aside and already not counted in the company’s bottom line? Just wondering if that’s possible.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@bashere

Actually, that’s an interesting question. I wonder how much you make? Aren’t you in like, Minnesota, or one of those other have-not provinces? I’m betting you’ve been taking THEIR money, in the form of government services, for a really, really long time. Even if you are on the hook for the whole (call it 2 bucks for your whole family) so that we can keep the quaint idea of contracts for a tad bit longer, I’m betting that all of the people getting YOUR money have been giving you THEIR money for years. I’m not sure I care what your responsibility is, either.

You’re arguing that we make taxation a matter of current popularity. You may want to consider if that’s voting your own interests.

Bzzzzzt! But thank you so much for playing. Given that the redder the state the more likely it is to be a federal tit-sucker, it’s unlikely that your assertion is correct. (Also, the more conservative an opinion, the more likely it is to be factually erroneous, but that’s another debate…)

So, through the miracle of the internets, we find:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Oh, too bad. Not only were you wrong, but of course, embarrassingly wrong. Minnesota is in the top five net contributing states!

Just for grins, let’s see the top 10 federal tit suckers:

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

[bashere]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Bzzzzzt! But thank you so much for playing. Given that the redder the state the more likely it is to be a federal tit-sucker, it’s unlikely that your assertion is correct. (Also, the more conservative an opinion, the more likely it is to be factually erroneous, but that’s another debate…)

So, through the miracle of the internets, we find:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

As a two-decade California resident, I am, I assure you, painfully aware of this. However, I do stand corrected; I am surprised to find Minnesota on the list. In my defense, I thought Minnesota was typically a red state. I hope the fine people of Minnesota accept my apologies.

New York, you will note from you your list, is not a federal tit-sucker, and my point, while not relevant to Diogenes, remains valid. The amount of actual money is trivial.

[Sinaijon]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
   6. Minnesota ($0.77)

Oh, too bad. Not only were you wrong, but of course, embarrassingly wrong. Minnesota is in the top ***five ***net contributing states!

When did #6 become top 5?

[RickJay]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)

Of course, this is a bit unfair to D.C., which is (a) not a state, and (b) obviously, a completely different bag of worms.

2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

All red states save NM. There’s an interesting thread to be had over that.

(I’m also surprised, given its long reputation as a welfare queen state, that Alaska doesn’t even win a bronze medal.)

[burundi]

@RickJay

Well, no, it doesn’t. As a matter of fact, whether the tax applies to EXECUTIVES or not is a rather important point. Executives are ultimately responsible for the company’s fortunes and deserve nothing if the company fails. But employees below them may, in fact, not be responsible for the company’s failure.

Like it or not, Sam is right; the net is being cast so wide that a lot of people are going to be screwed for something that isn’t their fault.

You’re right. There are probably some honest, hardworking AIG employees who aren’t going to get their bonuses because of the company’s failure. But they still have their jobs and they still have their regular salaries. Contrast that with the thousands upon thousands of honest, hardworking people across the country who are not responsible for their companies’ failures, but who find themselves with no job at all. AIG employees should thank their lucky stars that they’re still employed, not whine because they’re not getting a bonus.

[chappachula]

@Sam_Stone

: Could not your logic be applied to the union workers at GM? How about if …any salary of any union employee in a company that received a bailout shall be taxed at 90% if it goes over the average for non-union employees of other auto firms? Do you think that would be fair to the workers?

actually, yes it would be fair to the workers.
Thousands of good, honest workers in Detroit are about to lose their $60/hr jobs and recieve NOTHING. Nothing, zero, zilch…they will be on welfare, unless I personally decide to save their asses.

So, since I’m paying their salary, I can tell them that I’m going to offer them a nice solid, say, $25/hr, and the rest (up to $60) is a bonus, which , if they choose to acept it- will be taxed at 90%.
This is just like your example of the $125,000 AIG low-level manager, and it’s perfectly moral. If the workers want to leave and go find another job, that’s fine, I hope they succeed. After all, if there are enough jobs out there waiting for them, they wouldn’t be sucking up my bailout money, and we wouldn’t be in this mess.

• (well, okay, not just me, personally–it’s me, along with 100 million other taxpayers)

[jayjay]

I’d like to note also that the thread title is inaccurate (whether that was deliberate or inadvertent, I’ll leave to speculation).

According to the Clerk of the House, yes, a vast majority of the Democratic Representatives voted “yes”. However, a little less than half of the Republicans (and we’re talking a 2-rep difference here) also voted “yes”. This was about as bipartisan as anything this Congress has done so far.

[Justin_Bailey]

@jayjay

I’d like to note also that the thread title is inaccurate (whether that was deliberate or inadvertent, I’ll leave to speculation).

According to the Clerk of the House, yes, a vast majority of the Democratic Representatives voted “yes”. However, a little less than half of the Republicans (and we’re talking a 2-rep difference here) also voted “yes”. This was about as bipartisan as anything this Congress has done so far.

I never thought to look at that part of it, that’s interesting indeed. See, everybody hates these AIG scum except for the super righties! Kumbaya, we can ALL get along!

[jayjay]

@Justin_Bailey

I never thought to look at that part of it, that’s interesting indeed. See, everybody hates these AIG scum except for the super righties! Kumbaya, we can ALL get along!

Meh. My take on it is that the Congresscritters have been getting VERY angry letters the last week or so about this. It’s been kind of funny watching Republicans and moderate Dems who’ve been tightly in the pocket of Wall Street for the last umpteen years suddenly go populist when they realized that those pitchforks and torches could swing in their direction, too.