• 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

Cilogy

Pathetic Douchebag
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
1,587
Reaction score
374
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
Not sure it is the best idea if they really wanted those companies to survive and be able to repay the money, but that is not among their main concerns.

Their main concern is trying to duck any responsibility.
 
Two senators, a Democrat and Republican, proposed a plan to tax the the bonuses given to executives of companies that received bailout money.
This money is already taxed.
 
Two senators, a Democrat and Republican, proposed a plan to tax the the bonuses given to executives of companies that received bailout money.

Read more here:

Senators announce plan to tax bonuses - CNN.com

What do you think?

We shouldn't have bailed these companies out in the first place. It puts our government in a very strange position of trying to control what corporations do when it is none of their business.
 
When the government is forced to take a majority stake in a company in order to advert financial collapse, then for all intents and purposes that company has been temporarily nationalized and its employees are for all intents and purposes are for the time being public employees.

As such, its perfectly appropriate for the government to dictate compensation. In fact, rewarding incompetence with huge bonuses only creates a moral hazard. In the case of AIG, we had to bail the company out because if the company failed, credit markets would have collapsed overnight. Look at what happened when Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. It was nothing compared to what would have happened had AIG failed.

Those derivatives traders at AIG would have gotten nothing had the company not been bailed out. So why on earth should they be allowed to keep millions in "retention bonuses" paid for by the taxpayer?

Think of it this way, if those bonuses are recovered through retroactive taxation, then that penalizes the kind of incompetence that results in the taxpayers having to bail out a firm. Thats what we want, we want these guys to be scared to death of screwing up so bad in the future that the government has to come in and rescue them. That will help prevent this kind of incompetence in the future and provide a greater incentive for self regulation.
 
No, Dodd put the protection for the bonus in there, they gave AIG money they should not have. Now they are contractually obligated and a punitive tax to get it back is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
 
If we allow the government to dictate this nonsense at AIG then we fully have nationalized AIG. Yeah, they're virtually nationalized now. But let politicians start dictating how to actually run the company and there's no avoiding full on nationalization. The bonus money is relatively small compared to the entire bailout. Rather than be mad at AIG folks need to start getting mad at Congress.
 
If we allow the government to dictate this nonsense at AIG then we fully have nationalized AIG. Yeah, they're virtually nationalized now. But let politicians start dictating how to actually run the company and there's no avoiding full on nationalization. The bonus money is relatively small compared to the entire bailout. Rather than be mad at AIG folks need to start getting mad at Congress.

We should have nationalized the company at first, and then once the economy recovers, break it up and sell it off.

Nationalization does not result in congress running the day to day operations of a business. When companies are temporarily nationalized, the government contracts out the management of the company to private firms with relevant expertise.
 
We should have nationalized the company at first, and then once the economy recovers, break it up and sell it off.

Nationalization does not result in congress running the day to day operations of a business. When companies are temporarily nationalized, the government contracts out the management of the company to private firms with relevant expertise.




Please reference the section of the constitution that defines this as a role of government.
 
Please reference the section of the constitution that defines this as a role of government.

The Supreme Court has ruled the wholesale nationalization of the economy is unconstitutional. However, temporary nationalization of companies when it has been in the national interest has never been successfully challenged in the courts. As the federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional, until they rule that temporary nationalization is unconstitutional, it is for all intents and purposes constitutional.
 
The Supreme Court has ruled the wholesale nationalization of the economy is unconstitutional. However, temporary nationalization of companies when it has been in the national interest has never been successfully challenged in the courts. As the federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional, until they rule that temporary nationalization is unconstitutional, it is for all intents and purposes constitutional.




What companies have we "temporailly nationalized" and link to court cases proving your contention.


Still this is not an answer to my question:

Please reference the section of the constitution that defines this as a role of government.
 
As the federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional, until they rule that temporary nationalization is unconstitutional, it is for all intents and purposes constitutional.
There is a distinct difference between "constitutional" and "not yet ruled unconstitional".

The former is a positive, active declaration by a court.
The latter is an excuse to do whatever you want until told you cannot.
 
What companies have we "temporailly nationalized" and link to court cases proving your contention.


Still this is not an answer to my question:

Please reference the section of the constitution that defines this as a role of government.


We have a long history of nationalizing companies:

The truth is that the United States has a long and overlooked history of "nationalization," starting with the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, and then the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Both acts put vast amounts of American territory in the public domain, at a time when land was far more valuable than currency. Even today, a third of all the land in the United States is still publicly owned, as are the continental shelves along our coasts, the airspace above us, not to mention hundreds of thousands of miles of roads and trillions of dollars' worth of other public infrastructure so essential to our private economy.

In World War I, the nations' railroads were successfully nationalized to sustain the war effort. In the 1930s, the Reconstruction Finance Corp. bought millions of shares in over 6,000 banks in order to rescue them. During World War II, government took control of the economy's entire pricing system for consumer goods—a more complex job than taking over several big banks—and did quite well at it, most economists agree. In the 1980s, the Resolution Trust Corp. seized hundreds of failed savings and loans in order to save the system. After 9/11, the government effectively nationalized the private-security firms at airports, and replaced them with the federal TSA.

History: Why Nationalization Isn't Un-American | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com

The only constitutional challenges were with the wholesale nationalization of entire sectors of the economy with FDR's National Recovery Administration and Truman's attempt to completely nationalize the entire steel industry.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. Sawyer.

Schechter Poultry Corporation
V. United States
 
We have a long history of nationalizing companies:



History: Why Nationalization Isn't Un-American | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com

The only constitutional challenges were with the wholesale nationalization of entire sectors of the economy with FDR's National Recovery Administration and Truman's attempt to completely nationalize the entire steel industry.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. Sawyer.

Schechter Poultry Corporation
V. United States


Thanks for the information.

Still does not answer my question though,
 
To cite the Constitution itself:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is nothing that says that a company cannot be nationalized. We just have to compensate the owners properly when doing so. If the U.S. government buys a majority stake in a company, then thats exactly what they did.
 
To cite the Constitution itself:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There is nothing that says that a company cannot be nationalized. We just have to compensate the owners properly when doing so. If the U.S. government buys a majority stake in a company, then thats exactly what they did.



Are you suggesting this is covered under "eminent domain"? :confused:


What "just compensation" will AIG recieve if we own it?
 
Are you suggesting this is covered under "eminent domain"? :confused:


What "just compensation" will AIG recieve if we own it?

Yes, it covers eminent domain and nationalization (which is really just another form of eminent domain).

The "just compensation" was the purchasing of a majority stake in AIG.

We have temporarily nationalized companies when it was in the United States interest since our founding. Its as American and as constitutional as apple pie.
 
Yes, it covers eminent domain and nationalization (which is really just another form of eminent domain).

The "just compensation" was the purchasing of a majority stake in AIG.

We have temporarily nationalized companies when it was in the United States interest since our founding. Its as American and as constitutional as apple pie.



I disagree. I think the role stops at "regulate interstate commerce"....

And since its founding? Purchasing land I argue is not the same as taking over an Ikea.
 
I disagree. I think the role stops at "regulate interstate commerce"....

And since its founding? Purchasing land I argue is not the same as taking over an Ikea.

Property is property. Regardless of whether its land, a railroad, or a bank. In the end, when the government temporarily nationalizes a company, they are putting property to public use.

There is no point in arguing this further as the courts have consistently sided with my argument on this issue, and we have a long history of doing so as I have pointed out in prior posts.

If you don't want the government to be able to temporarily nationalize companies when its in the national interest, then you need to convince enough people to get a constitutional amendment that restricts the governments ability to do so.
 
Property is property. Regardless of whether its land, a railroad, or a bank. In the end, when the government temporarily nationalizes a company, they are putting property to public use.

How is making a purchase of land then selling giving it to people "nationalizing" :confused:

There is no point in arguing this further as the courts have consistently sided with my argument on this issue, and we have a long history of doing so as I have pointed out in prior posts.

If you don't want the government to be able to temporarily nationalize companies when its in the national interest, then you need to convince enough people to get a constitutional amendment that restricts the governments ability to do so.




you have some examples from WWII and so. Still does not make it a function or proper role of the USG.
 
How is making a purchase of land then selling giving it to people "nationalizing" :confused:

How is purchasing property (land), then reselling it in the future any different than purchasing property (a company), then reselling it in the future?

Moreover, we have purchased large amounts of land and held it in the public trust.


you have some examples from WWII and so. Still does not make it a function or proper role of the USG.

World War I as well, and land purchases going back to our founding.

United States

1917: All U.S. railroads were nationalized as the Railroad Administration during World War I as a wartime measure, but were returned to their private owners almost immediately after the war.

1939: Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the facilities of the former Tennessee Electric Power Company.

1971: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a government-owned corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide inter-city passenger rail service. The (primarily) freight railroads had petitioned to abandon passenger service repeatedly in the decades leading up to Amtrak's formation.

1976: The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), another government corporation, was created to take over the operations of six bankrupt rail lines operating primarily in the Northeast; Conrail was privatized in 1987. Initial plans for Conrail would have made it a truly nationalized system like that during World War I, but an alternate proposal by the Association of American Railroads won out.

1980s: Resolution Trust Corporation seized control of hundreds of failed S&L.

2001: In response to the September 11 attacks, the then-private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.
 
They better not nationalize it, I just bought a bunch of stock in it the other day. Those bastards.

As for the taxed bonuses... **** that. We shouldn't have bailed them out to begin with, but to tax contractual bonuses is just flat out wrong. No, I don't think they should be getting bonuses with bailout money, but it IS in their contracts to receive them. So, c'est la vie.
 
They better not nationalize it, I just bought a bunch of stock in it the other day. Those bastards.

As for the taxed bonuses... **** that. We shouldn't have bailed them out to begin with, but to tax contractual bonuses is just flat out wrong. No, I don't think they should be getting bonuses with bailout money, but it IS in their contracts to receive them. So, c'est la vie.




I been buying and selling this crap for a week. :mrgreen:
 
1917: All U.S. railroads were nationalized as the Railroad Administration during World War I as a wartime measure, but were returned to their private owners almost immediately after the war.

That's interesting. Were the commercial rail owners smart enough to know how stupid it was to enter WWI, but not smart enough to know that they'd make a massive profit shipping all that freight...or is it just that the government wanted to play at war without buying a full price ticket? Perhaps the government was afraid the railroad tycoons wouldn't let the government play with their trains? Not likely. The Wilson Administration was just consumed with power lust.

1939: Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the facilities of the former Tennessee Electric Power Company.

Doesn't fit your example. This property was a straight eminent domain takeover and was not returned to it's former owners.

1971: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a government-owned corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide inter-city passenger rail service. The (primarily) freight railroads had petitioned to abandon passenger service repeatedly in the decades leading up to Amtrak's formation.

The correct way to terminate the freight rail companies' legal obligation to provide passenger rail service was to write a law terminating that obligation. If a passenger rail service between any two cities is not commercially viable, then that service should be terminated. People who do not wish to ride the train from Delaware to Washington DC should not be forced to subsidize those who do, like Joe Biden.

1976: The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), another government corporation, was created to take over the operations of six bankrupt rail lines operating primarily in the Northeast; Conrail was privatized in 1987. Initial plans for Conrail would have made it a truly nationalized system like that during World War I, but an alternate proposal by the Association of American Railroads won out.

Again, it's not the government's job to run choo-choo trains. If a freight rail line fails, then it's into the bankruptcy courts. There are these things called "trucks", and private companies run whole fleets of them to service people who don't have a rail road running to their back door.

1980s: Resolution Trust Corporation seized control of hundreds of failed S&L.

Shouldn't have happened. Ballooned the deficit, set the stage for today's Monster Useless Bills.

2001: In response to the September 11 attacks, the then-private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.

And isn't that an amazing example of efficiency?

Not one example you list showed the government taking the proper and constitutional course of action. Clearly whatever the government's doing today along those lines, it's doing it wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom