• 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!

Banker fury over tax ‘witch-hunt’

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Link
FT.com / Global Economy - Banker fury over tax ?witch-hunt?

This is very much what I feared might happen, when I first read about the proposed punitive taxation of AIG workers, who received the Retention bonus after the US had injected so much cash into AIG, in an attempt to save it from crashing.
However people feel about these guys receiving an apparent reward, especially after their own actions in causing the mess in the first place, a simple fact still remains, these are the only people who can work to undo the mess they created.

If they decide to leave and take their knowledge of AIG with them to another financial institution that has not received US bail out money (and yes there are such Banks) their knowledge can be used against the interests of AIG, such that their new employers may gain profits in the Billions.
Naturally they will also receive bonus for these profits, could Pelosi and her crowd then charge punitive taxation for those bonus's.
I believe (I am not certain) it may be possible under this new Tax law, to limit the amount anyone gets by way of a bonus, retention or otherwise.
I would have wished for Congress to have stepped back a pace and actually thought things through.
But it seems that with such an outpouring of Public (potential voter) indignation, Congress decided on a knee jerk reaction.
Which may well turn round and make this situation immeasurably worse.
 
If what the House voted for actually becomes law and the Supreme Court does not rule it unconstitutional then maybe next we can Tax Jews for being Jewish...retroactively. I'm using Jew to make a point sink in.


Not only did the house vote for something that is inherently unconstitutional but they also intentionally worded it to sidestep what they know they are violating.


Article I, section 9, clause 3 -

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

That is exactly what they passed.

I'm definatly not one of those who runs around screaming constitutional violations and all that crap. This act by the House though violates the Constitution so badly its appalling.

They are supposed to be the Representatives of the People while upholding the Constitution of the USA.


Did they do this for the People..or to cover their own butts?
IMO clearly the later.

Did they uphold the Constitution?
IMO clearly not.
 
Link
FT.com / Global Economy - Banker fury over tax ?witch-hunt?

This is very much what I feared might happen, when I first read about the proposed punitive taxation of AIG workers, who received the Retention bonus after the US had injected so much cash into AIG, in an attempt to save it from crashing.
However people feel about these guys receiving an apparent reward, especially after their own actions in causing the mess in the first place, a simple fact still remains, these are the only people who can work to undo the mess they created.

If they decide to leave and take their knowledge of AIG with them to another financial institution that has not received US bail out money (and yes there are such Banks) their knowledge can be used against the interests of AIG, such that their new employers may gain profits in the Billions.
Naturally they will also receive bonus for these profits, could Pelosi and her crowd then charge punitive taxation for those bonus's.
I believe (I am not certain) it may be possible under this new Tax law, to limit the amount anyone gets by way of a bonus, retention or otherwise.
I would have wished for Congress to have stepped back a pace and actually thought things through.
But it seems that with such an outpouring of Public (potential voter) indignation, Congress decided on a knee jerk reaction.
Which may well turn round and make this situation immeasurably worse.

Not only is it unconstitutional as Traid pointed out who the hell are any of those idiots to point a finger.

Lets think about this before we go off saying who does and does not deserve a bonus.

What if the majority of the people receiving the bonus' had nothing to do with the financial collapse?

I mean if one of these individuals is a marketing executive, and he/she lead many successful marketing campaigns for the year.

Is this person not "allowed" to receive a bonus?

I hate this nonsensical populous pandering, it does nothing but serve the wealth envy in this country.
 
If what the House voted for actually becomes law and the Supreme Court does not rule it unconstitutional then maybe next we can Tax Jews for being Jewish...retroactively. I'm using Jew to make a point sink in.


Not only did the house vote for something that is inherently unconstitutional but they also intentionally worded it to sidestep what they know they are violating.


Article I, section 9, clause 3 -



The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

That is exactly what they passed.

I'm definatly not one of those who runs around screaming constitutional violations and all that crap. This act by the House though violates the Constitution so badly its appalling.

They are supposed to be the Representatives of the People while upholding the Constitution of the USA.


Did they do this for the People..or to cover their own butts?
IMO clearly the later.

Did they uphold the Constitution?
IMO clearly not.

The Constitution does not mean much if anything to leftists.
Especially this bunch.
For them it's a trivial document.

They don't like America.
They don't understand freedom and its great good.

How can they?

That is what "fundamental" "Change" is about.

But in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, the Statists successfully launched a counterrevolution that radically and fundamentally altered the nature of American society.

President Franklin Roosevelt and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, through an array of federal projects, entitlements, taxes, and regulations known as the New Deal, breached the Constitution's firewalls.
 
Last edited:
I mean if one of these individuals is a marketing executive, and he/she lead many successful marketing campaigns for the year.

Is this person not "allowed" to receive a bonus?

If they lead SUCCESSFUL marketing campaigns AIG wouldn't be in the mess it is in, no they don't deserve a bonus.

The whole company deserved to just fail, not get bailed out for their mistakes.
 
If they lead SUCCESSFUL marketing campaigns AIG wouldn't be in the mess it is in, no they don't deserve a bonus.

Yes and no.

Lets just speculate that the majority of the marketing was for retail products and that those products sales were higher, then that would deserve a bonus.

And to add, that a lot of what was done to cause the failure was out of the hands of most of the people who worked there.

The whole company deserved to just fail, not get bailed out for their mistakes.

I completely agree with this. They should have never received a dime.

Another thing to consider though is that they had to ask the New York state government if they could borrow money from one of their subsidiaries.
It didn't happen though because they got their bailout.

What the hell does the NY state government have to do with the functions of AIG. That is completely none of their business to meddle with the affairs of a private enterprise.
 
What the hell does the NY state government have to do with the functions of AIG. That is completely none of their business to meddle with the affairs of a private enterprise.

Don't you know that Cuomo has an upcoming election?
 
The Constitution does not mean much if anything to leftists.
Especially this bunch.
For them it's a trivial document.

Yeah, does that apply to the Republicans that are supporting this inexcusable nonsense, too? Or the ones that supported the idiotic bailout plan which allowed for this situation to arise?

Both parties showed a great deal of cooperation in their efforts to screw this pooch. It's the finest example of bipartisanship I've ever seen.
 
Yeah, does that apply to the Republicans that are supporting this inexcusable nonsense, too? Or the ones that supported the idiotic bailout plan which allowed for this situation to arise?

Both parties showed a great deal of cooperation in their efforts to screw this pooch. It's the finest example of bipartisanship I've ever seen.

It is the best reason why bipartisan should not even exist in government.

Not only that but it shows that during the next election cycle there should be no more incumbents in the senate or house.
 
Yeah, does that apply to the Republicans that are supporting this inexcusable nonsense, too? Or the ones that supported the idiotic bailout plan which allowed for this situation to arise?
Yes. Republicans (RINO's) too.
Absolutely.

How can they be exempt?
 
It is the best reason why bipartisan should not even exist in government.

I am increasingly of the opinion that the proper solution to our two party system is not the introduction of third parties, but the abolition of political parties altogether. Let candidates for office stand on their own merits, and allow them to operate within the Legislature according to their own ideals and agendas.

Then again, I am also increasingly of the opinion that legislators should not be allowed to vote in favor of any bill that they have not read in its entirety, but I'm not entirely certain how that might be enforced.

Not only that but it shows that during the next election cycle there should be no more incumbents in the senate or house.

Ain't that a pretty dream? Ten percent approval rating, ninety percent retention.
 
I am increasingly of the opinion that the proper solution to our two party system is not the introduction of third parties, but the abolition of political parties altogether. Let candidates for office stand on their own merits, and allow them to operate within the Legislature according to their own ideals and agendas.

Then again, I am also increasingly of the opinion that legislators should not be allowed to vote in favor of any bill that they have not read in its entirety, but I'm not entirely certain how that might be enforced.

Humans are naturally driven to factionalism themselves.

Madison anticipated this, but I don't think he anticipated that there would only be two factions that prevent any other competition from entering the arena.

I agree with that last statement to but I'm not holding my breath.

Ain't that a pretty dream? Ten percent approval rating, ninety percent retention.

A dream is all it is, most people think that their member of congress does a great job and that its the other congresspersons that suck.
 
It is the best reason why bipartisan should not even exist in government.

Not only that but it shows that during the next election cycle there should be no more incumbents in the senate or house.
Can't agree with you on this. We've invested way too much in them so we are assured a spot at the table when UHC is implmented. ;)
 
The Rat posted(I am increasingly of the opinion that the proper solution to our two party system is not the introduction of third parties, but the abolition of political parties altogether. Let candidates for office stand on their own merits, and allow them to operate within the Legislature according to their own ideals and agendas.)

I think that an answer to the problem you pose would or could be a Proportional Representation voting system, this practiced in some Countries within Europe.
In practice what is does mean is that legislators have to band together with others holding similar viewpoints, but at the same time remaining outside the conventional part system.

Quote
(Then again, I am also increasingly of the opinion that legislators should not be allowed to vote in favor of any bill that they have not read in its entirety, but I'm not entirely certain how that might be enforced.)

Like the Rat, I am not certain as to how this could be achieved.

Certainly this nation deserves to have legislators that are relatively honest, I think the only way to get anywhere close to this is, as we already have with Presidential term limitations, do likewise with all elective positions, say a maximum two term limit.

Perhaps that way less time would be spent by legislators consolidating their presence in any particular office and more time would be spent actually doing the job we the electorate vote them into office to do on our behalf.
 
It is the best reason why bipartisan should not even exist in government.

Not only that but it shows that during the next election cycle there should be no more incumbents in the senate or house.

But didn't you know? The Congress is crap --- BUT my rep is good. :rofl
 
Back
Top Bottom