• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Sen. Schumer threatens huge tax on AIG bonuses

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This should chill a few companies.
It should also help tank AIG of talent.
I wouldn't want to work there with jerk offs like Schumer baiting and switching.
Painting employees there as Satan.

We need some CEO's to testify before the Senate and TAKE THESE MARXISTS ON.

Grill THE LEGISLATORS.
The creators of this mess.

Don't sit and take the crap.
FIGHT DAMN IT!

"They should voluntarily return them (the bonuses). If they don't we plan to tax virtually all of it," Senator Charles Schumer, a member of the Democratic leadership, said in a speech on the Senate floor.

"If you don't return it on your own we will do it for you"

...be forewarned you are never going to see it.
US Sen. Schumer threatens huge tax on AIG bonuses | Currencies | Reuters
 
Last edited:
This should chill a few companies.
It should also help tank AIG of talent.
I wouldn't want to work there with jerk offs like Schumer baiting and switching.
Painting employees there as Satan.

We need some CEO's to testify before the Senate and TAKE THESE MARXISTS ON.

Grill THE LEGISLATORS.
The creators of this mess.

Don't sit and take the crap.
FIGHT DAM IT!

US Sen. Schumer threatens huge tax on AIG bonuses | Currencies | Reuters

These retention bonuses are to keep sophisticated talent working at the company. The bailout money is to keep the company from going out of business.

I reason that taxing the bonuses will shoot AIG in the foot...or maybe higher.

It might wound AIG or kill it.

And at worst ALL the bailout funds might have been wasted as well as having the effect of maybe causing other companies to fail in a domino-like phenomenon.
 
These retention bonuses are to keep sophisticated talent working at the company. The bailout money is to keep the company from going out of business.

I reason that taxing the bonuses will shoot AIG in the foot...or maybe higher.

It might wound AIG or kill it.

And at worst ALL the bailout funds might have been wasted as well as having the effect of maybe causing other companies to fail in a domino-like phenomenon.

Would you, as a talent, want to work there now?
How would it make you feel coming home at night?
Telling people where you worked?
Pride in company?
Phew

.
 
AIG took taxpayer money.

What did they expect would happen?

The government shouldn't have given the money, true, but that doesn't matter now.

I say the government takes back the taxpayers' money and lets AIG pay it's bonuses from it's own funds, if it wants.
 
Let me propose a different scenario that would (if US. Sen. Schumer's Bill were to be passed) come about.
What he is proposing is a way in which the Government would (Legally) be able to tax a (any) person's income retroactively.

Now folks, use you heads.
If this were to come about then there would be nothing to prevent Government say to you (the Taxpayer) ok you paid your taxes correctly in say 2000 but now your Government needs more money, so we are going to increase your taxes for that year 2000 by X%.
Under this proposed Bill, you do not have a leg to stand on, likely you would probably not have a house to live in either.

I am as outraged as anyone else at the idea that these guys at AIG receive a Bonus for in effect bankrupting their own company.

But retroactive taxing will only cause more problems than it solves.

What continually surprises me is why ostensibly sane people continue to elect idiots such as those in the DNC and GOP to office.
They rarely enact laws that protect you the voter, they regularly strip away Laws and Regulations that are designed to protect you.
They regularly accept donations from businesses that profit from the removal of Laws and Regulation.
And yet, you still continue to elect them...........................WHY?
 
Schumer knew about the bonuses before the money was given, just like Dodd, Frank, Geithner, and Obama. Talk about disingenious.

And the whole thing is a smoke screen for the 70 billion they laundered through AIG to give to foreign banks.

If they can tax them like this, they can tax us the same way, too.

Scary stuff.
 
What a tangled web the democrats weaved. :lol:

LOL...once again the right wing is on the wrong side of an issue...trying to defend money managers who conspired to steal millions from hardworking taxpayers. Do you guys just obey your directives without thinking of the consequences? Keep it up, this is very amusing.
 
LOL...once again the right wing is on the wrong side of an issue...trying to defend money managers who conspired to steal millions from hardworking taxpayers. Do you guys just obey your directives without thinking of the consequences? Keep it up, this is very amusing.

Did you know that AIG was Dodd's biggest campaign contributor?
 
That was by far one of the most frightening speeches I've ever heard from a U.S. politician.

:shock::shock::shock::shock:
 
This should chill a few companies.
It should also help tank AIG of talent.
How much talent do you think it took to run that company into the ground to begin with? I don't think AIG has any to lose.

Furthermore,would the best and brightest want to work for AIG anyway?
 
Let me propose a different scenario that would (if US. Sen. Schumer's Bill were to be passed) come about.
What he is proposing is a way in which the Government would (Legally) be able to tax a (any) person's income retroactively.


Now folks, use you heads.
If this were to come about then there would be nothing to prevent Government say to you (the Taxpayer) ok you paid your taxes correctly in say 2000 but now your Government needs more money, so we are going to increase your taxes for that year 2000 by X%.
Under this proposed Bill, you do not have a leg to stand on, likely you would probably not have a house to live in either.
AFAICT that's actually the status quo. Of course I understand why you don't like it on principle, but this bill is nothing new in that regard.
 
Did you know that AIG was Dodd's biggest campaign contributor?

Dodd is toast in 2010. If the Dems don't primary him out, or if he doesn't resign, the Republicans will have a rare win in the Northeast.
 
This should chill a few companies.
It should also help tank AIG of talent.
I wouldn't want to work there with jerk offs like Schumer baiting and switching.
Painting employees there as Satan.

This "talent" did such a wonderful job at AIG that the company has thus far needed over 170 BILLION DOLLARS to stay afloat.

This talent that received these bonuses were derivatives traders, the very greedy douche bags whose actions resulted in AIG needing over 170 billion dollars to stay afloat and advert worldwide financial collapse.

Do you honestly think that anyone else wants that "talent" right now? If you ****ed your company like that, would you deserve a bonus?

I picked the wrong profession. In IT, if I **** up and cost my employer a lot of money, they would just can me. However, if I just would have went into derivatives trading, I could get millions in bonuses after my **** ups cost my employer over 60 billion in just the last quarter, then get some rabid right wingers defending my bonuses.
 
Last edited:
These retention bonuses are to keep sophisticated talent working at the company. The bailout money is to keep the company from going out of business.

I reason that taxing the bonuses will shoot AIG in the foot...or maybe higher.

It might wound AIG or kill it.

And at worst ALL the bailout funds might have been wasted as well as having the effect of maybe causing other companies to fail in a domino-like phenomenon.

That's why with all their bluster in D.C. - it ain't gonna happen- it's too late. The politicians, both repub and dems, are just trying to make Americans, that are paying for these bonuses, feel better.:sinking:
 
Have these idiots not heard of the Bill of Attainder clause in the US Constitution. I guess no one should be surprised. They are playing to a really stupid electorate. They will posture for a few more days until it dies down then go on to the next big controversy. :roll:
 
How much talent do you think it took to run that company into the ground to begin with? I don't think AIG has any to lose.

Furthermore,would the best and brightest want to work for AIG anyway?
They could get sued by those employees for breach of contract if the bonuses didn't get paid, so yes, they did have alot more to lose. However I will agree with you that incompetence led to the initial mess with A.I.G.
 
Let me propose a different scenario that would (if US. Sen. Schumer's Bill were to be passed) come about.
What he is proposing is a way in which the Government would (Legally) be able to tax a (any) person's income retroactively.

Now folks, use you heads.
If this were to come about then there would be nothing to prevent Government say to you (the Taxpayer) ok you paid your taxes correctly in say 2000 but now your Government needs more money, so we are going to increase your taxes for that year 2000 by X%.
Under this proposed Bill, you do not have a leg to stand on, likely you would probably not have a house to live in either.

I am as outraged as anyone else at the idea that these guys at AIG receive a Bonus for in effect bankrupting their own company.

But retroactive taxing will only cause more problems than it solves.

What continually surprises me is why ostensibly sane people continue to elect idiots such as those in the DNC and GOP to office.
They rarely enact laws that protect you the voter, they regularly strip away Laws and Regulations that are designed to protect you.
They regularly accept donations from businesses that profit from the removal of Laws and Regulation.
And yet, you still continue to elect them...........................WHY?
Well put. Seriously, everyone should be scared of the thought of retroactive taxation.
 
It's time for the feds to bite the bullet and just nationalize AIG. Throwing huge piles of money at them while getting nothing in return hurts the taxpayers so the investors can benefit. Allowing them to just go belly-up would create a disastrous domino effect that could cripple the global economy for years.

It's time for the feds to just buy them out completely, sit on their assets for a couple years, and then auction them off for whatever they're worth.
 
Have these idiots not heard of the Bill of Attainder clause in the US Constitution. I guess no one should be surprised. They are playing to a really stupid electorate. They will posture for a few more days until it dies down then go on to the next big controversy. :roll:

They're not idiots but of course they think we are. The dems are now asking AIG to GIVE the bonuses back. Oh really? Other Republicans said Democratic leaders last month killed a plan that would have forced financial institutions to compensate taxpayers if they paid their executives large bonuses after receiving federal bailout money.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a co-sponsor of the amendment to Obama's stimulus bill, said striking it "left open an escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street."

Why are we just hearing about this now?!
 
Have these idiots not heard of the Bill of Attainder clause in the US Constitution. I guess no one should be surprised. They are playing to a really stupid electorate.
This timing aspect of this bill is not abnormal whether you like it or not.

Here's a source you'll probably trust
Retroactive Tax Increases and The Constitution

Congress has been adopting retroactive tax increases for a very long time, essentially since the 1930s. The 1913 Revenue Act was the first one with an effective date before the date of the actual enactment. Generally, the increased tax rate is applied retroactively to the year in which it is enacted.
bolding mine.

as for the Bill of Attainder

The Bill of Attainder Clauses, which also constrain state and federal governments, provide only limited protection against retroactive civil legislation. Although the Supreme Court has construed these clauses as protecting rights, the clauses bar only those laws that legislatively determine guilt and inflict punishment on identifiable individuals without the protections of a judicial trial. The Supreme Court has not struck down a law as an unconstitutional bill of attainder since the mid-1960s.
 
This timing aspect of this bill is not abnormal whether you like it or not.

Here's a source you'll probably trust
Retroactive Tax Increases and The Constitution

bolding mine.

as for the Bill of Attainder
My understanding it that its not about enacting a retroactive tax. It's about applying it only to certain individuals. They can enact a 100% tax on everyone in a particular tax bracket but not just on those that displease them.
 
They could get sued by those employees for breach of contract if the bonuses didn't get paid, so yes, they did have alot more to lose. However I will agree with you that incompetence led to the initial mess with A.I.G.

Which is why companies should be nationalized and then sold off once the market recovers rather than handed hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Companies should be scared to death of being nationalized if they are in this position. That creates an incentive against this kind of incompetence. As it is, we have only created a huge moral hazard for these derivatives traders.
 
My understanding it that its not about enacting a retroactive tax. It's about applying it only to certain individuals. They can enact a 100% tax on everyone in a particular tax bracket but not just on those that displease them.
By my reading of that article, taxation by its nature doesn't appear to be covered by the bill of attainder clauses because it is considered "civil".

Basically the idea of that law was to prevent Congress from taking over the judicial role and legislating someone's punishment without giving them a trial. Raising your taxes doesn't seem to meet that qualification in the interpretation of the courts.
 
Back
Top Bottom