• 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!

Executive Bonuses Taxed?

Should the government tax bonuses paid to executives of bailed-out companies?

  • Total voters
    19
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I been buying and selling this crap for a week. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

**** yeah. The bottom dropped out and I went, 'buy buy buy'!!! :lol: Citibank, AIG, and a couple others. Put in what I could, even sold other stock at a loss to free up the funds.

Only thing that could really screw me over would be if they nationalize it. I presume, anyway, that would mean it was no long a publicly traded company.
 
rivrrat said:
**** yeah. The bottom dropped out and I went, 'buy buy buy'!!! :lol: Citibank, AIG, and a couple others. Put in what I could, even sold other stock at a loss to free up the funds.

Only thing that could really screw me over would be if they nationalize it. I presume, anyway, that would mean it was no long a publicly traded company.
Click to expand...




I bought AIG at .50

GM at 1

Ford at 1.5


Sold em all for at least double, and rebuying with the proceeds.... :mrgreen:



I dunno though about being a traded still. I would think it would.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I bought AIG at .50

GM at 1

Ford at 1.5


Sold em all for at least double, and rebuying with the proceeds.... :mrgreen:



I dunno though about being a traded still. I would think it would.
Click to expand...

I got AIG at .80, and Citi at 2.0. Bought a crapload in a penny stock too. Hell, if it goes up to a $1, I'll make a damn bundle. I was considering selling and rebuying with the current proceeds, but they charge me like $20 for each transaction, those bastards.
 
rivrrat said:
I got AIG at .80, and Citi at 2.0. Bought a crapload in a penny stock too. Hell, if it goes up to a $1, I'll make a damn bundle. I was considering selling and rebuying with the current proceeds, but they charge me like $20 for each transaction, those bastards.
Click to expand...




:lol: i get charged like 10 bucks..... TDAmeritrade. ;)
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: i get charged like 10 bucks..... TDAmeritrade. ;)
Click to expand...

Bah... I've been trading on my IRA account. I may throw some money into my etrade account though. Trying to convince my BF to toss some money in too. Hell, it would have doubled at this point. And triple, quadruple, etc soon enough.
 
I know that the bonuses are already taxed, the point of the article was that the Congressmen are wanting to place an even BIGGER tax on these bonuses paid out.

Also, just so everyone knows, my question does not ask whether the bailout was necessary, it asks whether the bonuses should be taxed more or not.
 
Cilogy said:
I know that the bonuses are already taxed, the point of the article was that the Congressmen are wanting to place an even BIGGER tax on these bonuses paid out.

Also, just so everyone knows, my question does not ask whether the bailout was necessary, it asks whether the bonuses should be taxed more or not.
Click to expand...

No. The idea of creating absurd additional taxes pulled out of your ass for a particular group of people in order to hijack money you gave them outright would be just more obscenity. The time to deal with the bonuses would have been before any bailout money was handed over. Congress knows and understands this. All the outrage by members of congress on tv and the radio currently is completely fabricated for our benefit.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No.

The government shouldn't bail the companies out.

Resolving issues of executive compensation....let the bankruptcy courts do that.

It's what they're for.
Click to expand...

I agree; however, in this case it is too late.

The taxpayers shouldn't be paying $1,000,000 bonuses to douchbag AIG executives.

17 AIG executives got $1,000,000 bonuses; 11 quit as soon as they received these bonuses.

These people basically stole from the taxpayers who funded the bailout.

They need to be punished for thier dishonesty and greed.
 
talloulou said:
No. The idea of creating absurd additional taxes pulled out of your ass for a particular group of people in order to hijack money you gave them outright would be just more obscenity. The time to deal with the bonuses would have been before any bailout money was handed over. Congress knows and understands this. All the outrage by members of congress on tv and the radio currently is completely fabricated for our benefit.
Click to expand...

That bailout money was not intended to pay $1,000,000 bonuses to the very people who got us into this mess.

That money was intended to stilmulate the economy and help make it possible for loads to be made.

Those 17 executives had no business getting a bonus from taxpayer money.
 
Vader said:
That bailout money was not intended to pay $1,000,000 bonuses to the very people who got us into this mess.

That money was intended to stilmulate the economy and help make it possible for loads to be made.

Those 17 executives had no business getting a bonus from taxpayer money.
Click to expand...

Whose responsibility should it have been to decide whether or not AIG should be bailed out? Whose responsibility was it to come up with a $$$ figure for this bail out? Whose responsibility was it to ensure that Congress knew exactly how each dollar of all that $$$ was going to be spent??

You don't grant a wide open loan/gift and then go back and place conditions upon it. You do that up front.

If Congress is so surprised about the bonuses -they're not, they're liars and fakers- then what are we as the tax payer supposed to think about all the bail out money in its entirety? These bonuses are a teeny tiny portion of the monstrous bail out. Now congress is claiming to have been lost as to where this teeny tiny portion of the bail out was going.

WHAT ABOUT THE FREAKING REST OF IT????

Congress concerns me far more than AIG at the moment.
 
talloulou said:
Whose responsibility should it have been to decide whether or not AIG should be bailed out? Whose responsibility was it to come up with a $$$ figure for this bail out? Whose responsibility was it to ensure that Congress knew exactly how each dollar of all that $$$ was going to be spent??

You don't grant a wide open loan/gift and then go back and place conditions upon it. You do that up front.

If Congress is so surprised about the bonuses -they're not, they're liars and fakers- then what are we as the tax payer supposed to think about all the bail out money in its entirety? These bonuses are a teeny tiny portion of the monstrous bail out. Now congress is claiming to have been lost as to where this teeny tiny portion of the bail out was going.

WHAT ABOUT THE FREAKING REST OF IT????

Congress concerns me far more than AIG at the moment.
Click to expand...

It was the Bush administration that handed AIG the keys to the treasury, as usual we now have to clean up their mess.
 
WillRockwell said:
It was the Bush administration that handed AIG the keys to the treasury, as usual we now have to clean up their mess.
Click to expand...
More drivel.

Tell us about Senator Dodd's removal of the specific clause of the contract that forbade bonuses to AIG execs.
 
talloulou said:
Whose responsibility should it have been to decide whether or not AIG should be bailed out? Whose responsibility was it to come up with a $$$ figure for this bail out? Whose responsibility was it to ensure that Congress knew exactly how each dollar of all that $$$ was going to be spent??

You don't grant a wide open loan/gift and then go back and place conditions upon it. You do that up front.

If Congress is so surprised about the bonuses -they're not, they're liars and fakers- then what are we as the tax payer supposed to think about all the bail out money in its entirety? These bonuses are a teeny tiny portion of the monstrous bail out. Now congress is claiming to have been lost as to where this teeny tiny portion of the bail out was going.

WHAT ABOUT THE FREAKING REST OF IT????

Congress concerns me far more than AIG at the moment.
Click to expand...

I still don't think the taxpayers need to be funding outrageous bonuses for a collection of corporate scumbags.

That is NOT what that money is supposed to be used for.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
More drivel.

Tell us about Senator Dodd's removal of the specific clause of the contract that forbade bonuses to AIG execs.
Click to expand...

If that is true, then Senator Dodd needs to be relieved of his duties.
 
Vader said:
I still don't think the taxpayers need to be funding outrageous bonuses to corporate scumbags.
Click to expand...

Nor do I. But your anger is pointed at the wrong people. The issue is congress. Obama is trying to make the issue these different people who received bonuses despite their company failing. Well AIG also gave money to Obama. Why doesn't he give that back???? See how stupid it gets.

The problem isn't a corporation giving bonuses to it's employees. The bonuses were contractually agreed upon. If Congress didn't want the AIG people to get their bonuses they should have placed explicit conditions on the bail out funds.

The truth is they knew, they didn't care, and now they are using AIG bonuses as a scapegoat to distract from the larger issues. Their aim is to point your anger in another direction vs where it should be; on them. Their defense is absurd. Basically, "We're stupid and we gave them lots of money and we didn't read the fine print cause we're morons so be mad at the big mean corporation, not us."

Either way Congress is at fault. I don't see the benefit in their pretending to be outraged and fooled. How exactly is, "We're dumb and dumber," better than we're "lying crooks who don't give a rats ass about the American people as much as we care about completely re-organizing America to suit our agenda.?"

You got me. :confused:
 
talloulou said:
No. The idea of creating absurd additional taxes pulled out of your ass for a particular group of people in order to hijack money you gave them outright would be just more obscenity. The time to deal with the bonuses would have been before any bailout money was handed over. Congress knows and understands this. All the outrage by members of congress on tv and the radio currently is completely fabricated for our benefit.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it was the Bush Administration and his Treasury Department that were vehemently opposed to any sort of caps on executive pay as a condition of receiving government bailouts.

The argument out of the treasury department at the time was that salary caps would dissuade companies in need of assistance from getting it.
 
Goobieman said:
More drivel.

Tell us about Senator Dodd's removal of the specific clause of the contract that forbade bonuses to AIG execs.
Click to expand...

Better yet, since you seem to know so much about it, why don't YOU tell us all about it?

Oh wait, you mean Dodd wasn't the one who removed it? Better luck next time.
 
talloulou said:
Nor do I. But your anger is pointed at the wrong people.
Click to expand...
So we shouldn't be pissed that the people in the branch that caused AIG's problems, needing taxpayer bail out money, instead we should give them their performance or retention bonus or whatever they are trying to call it today, and be angry with Congress instead... How about we get angry at both?



The issue is congress. Obama is trying to make the issue these different people who received bonuses despite their company failing. Well AIG also gave money to Obama. Why doesn't he give that back???? See how stupid it gets.
Click to expand...
No, not really, do you have a link proving that AIG gave money to the Presidents CAMPAIGN?

The problem isn't a corporation giving bonuses to it's employees. The bonuses were contractually agreed upon. If Congress didn't want the AIG people to get their bonuses they should have placed explicit conditions on the bail out funds.
Click to expand...
So you don't think the UAW should have re-negotiated it's contracts either huh?

The truth is they knew, they didn't care, and now they are using AIG bonuses as a scapegoat to distract from the larger issues. Their aim is to point your anger in another direction vs where it should be; on them. Their defense is absurd. Basically, "We're stupid and we gave them lots of money and we didn't read the fine print cause we're morons so be mad at the big mean corporation, not us."
Click to expand...
The truth is, another big mean company stole a ****load of money, couldn't pay it back, begged for the gov. to bail them out, took the money and paid down their debts to foreign companies, gave million dollar bonuses to the very shmucks that caused the problem and wants more money.

I remember seeing the jerkoff who founded AIG on Charlie Rose the day before he was going to go to Congress and beg them to bail out AIG (the first time) and he swore up and down that AIG was perfectly solvent and that all they needed was a little cash to get them over a hump and then everything would be fine, that was 4 bailouts ago. More bull**** from the corporatists.

Either way Congress is at fault. I don't see the benefit in their pretending to be outraged and fooled. How exactly is, "We're dumb and dumber," better than we're "lying crooks who don't give a rats ass about the American people as much as we care about completely re-organizing America to suit our agenda.?"
Click to expand...
Do you hold these ****ing corporate cheats responsible for anything?
 
Slippery Slope said:
Better yet, since you seem to know so much about it, why don't YOU tell us all about it?

Oh wait, you mean Dodd wasn't the one who removed it?
Click to expand...

Suuuure it wasn't.

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.
Click to expand...

Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections in the 'Dodd Amendment' Rules - FOXBusiness.com

And then:

"Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org."
Click to expand...

The bulk of Dodd's AIG money during the just completed campaign season came from about a dozen AIG executives.
Click to expand...

If Dodd had an (R) next to his name, you;d be frothing at the mouth for his head.

Oh and hey, look at this:

AIG's contributions to Dodd outpace the financial firm's $101,000 contribution to President Barack Obama's election bid.
Click to expand...

Dodd to give back AIG contributions - The Connecticut Post Online

Oh, but none of -that- means anything. Right?
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
So we shouldn't be pissed that the people in the branch that caused AIG's problems, needing taxpayer bail out money, instead we should give them their performance or retention bonus or whatever they are trying to call it today, and be angry with Congress instead... How about we get angry at both?
Click to expand...
You should be angry at both. But you should also realize congress sold you down the river knowingly and they are now feigning outrage for your benefit. And you should keep in perspective the fact that this bonus money in question is a tiny piece of the monstrous blank check. The real question is, given this, what's happening with the rest of it? It just pains me to see people falling for the distraction tactics.

No, not really, do you have a link proving that AIG gave money to the Presidents CAMPAIGN?
Click to expand...

ABC News: Will Obama, McCain, Dodd Return Contributions From AIG Employees?

So you don't think the UAW should have re-negotiated it's contracts either huh?
Click to expand...

I think the question would be why does the UAW have to when AIG did not? Why did the government just hand AIG a big check and only pretend after wards to be flabbergasted about how it was spent?

The truth is, another big mean company stole a ****load of money, couldn't pay it back, begged for the gov. to bail them out, took the money and paid down their debts to foreign companies, gave million dollar bonuses to the very shmucks that caused the problem and wants more money.
Click to expand...

Right, but who has the power to give your money away? And how quickly did they sell you down the river without conditions? And how stupid is it that they are now playing dumb?

I remember seeing the jerkoff who founded AIG on Charlie Rose the day before he was going to go to Congress and beg them to bail out AIG (the first time) and he swore up and down that AIG was perfectly solvent and that all they needed was a little cash to get them over a hump and then everything would be fine, that was 4 bailouts ago. More bull**** from the corporatists.
Click to expand...

Ultimately it is our government that is responsible for this mess. Doesn't matter how much you hate corporations; the hatred is ineffective if the anger is targeted at the wrong people.

Let's say you know a scumbag. Let's say you elect John Doe to take care of your money and spend it wisely. Let's say John Doe gives the money to the scumbag you hate with no conditions? Then you get pissed and John Doe claims, "Yes, that greedy scumbag fooled me. I hadn't a clue what he was going to do with your money when I gave it to him."

Who are you gonna be mad at? Who is most responsible? Is the problem that the scumbag is a scumbag or is the problem that you entrusted John Doe with your money and John Doe is clearly either a liar or an idiot?

Do you hold these ****ing corporate cheats responsible for anything?
Click to expand...

Sure. But the duty of the protection and lawful efficient use of my tax payer dollars is Congress. I have zero power, nor do I want it, to go in and start mandating how corporations run their business. However I do have some power over who sits in Congress and who doesn't. So in order for my anger to be constructive it has to be targeted in the right direction.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Better yet, since you seem to know so much about it, why don't YOU tell us all about it?

Oh wait, you mean Dodd wasn't the one who removed it? Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

Oh wait! What's this??

Chris Dodd AIG admission: Senator says he helped adjust bill to allow bonuses
March 19, 2009
HARTFORD, Conn. — Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) suffered a political blow Wednesday with the admission that he had been involved in key legislative changes that helped pave the way for AIG to pay controversial bonuses.

In a retreat from earlier statements, Dodd said Treasury Department officials had come to him last month urging him to modify an amendment to the stimulus bill that capped bonuses for firms receiving aid.
Click to expand...

Chris Dodd AIG admission: Senator says he helped adjust bill to allow bonuses -- chicagotribune.com

That's OK, Slippery -- I don't expect you to admit that I was right.

Better luck next time.
 
As for those that want to tax these bonuses...

Bill of attainder:
An act of the legislature that inflicts punishment on an individual or group without a judicial trial.

Seems to me the Constitution says something about this.
 
No. As others have stated, if the government did not make a mistake(bailouts) in the first place, there would be no need to attempt to fix anything(executive bonuses).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom