RkFast Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Who are they kidding....who the !@#$ ARE THEY KIDDING????!!!!!!????? http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig...uses/index.html Senate Democrats, meanwhile, want to tax the controversial bonuses doled out to AIG employees who work for the division that led to the company's downfall. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on the Senate floor Tuesday that the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee will pursue a legislative fix in such a way that the "recipients of those bonuses will not be able to keep all their money -- and that's an understatement." Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, will propose a special tax within the next 24 hours, Reid said. "I don't think those bonuses should be paid," Baucus said Tuesday. The special-tax idea was first floated Monday by Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. "We have a right to tax," the Connecticut Democrat told CNN. "You could write a tax provision that's narrowly crafted only to the people receiving bonuses." Watch why Americans have a right to be angry » At an unrelated hearing Tuesday at which IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman was testifying, Baucus asked the nation's top tax official, "What's the highest excise tax we can impose that's sustainable in court?" And then theres this..... http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/be...payouts-we.html Over time, AIG hasn't shown an especially partisan streak, splitting evenly the $9.3 million it has contributed since 1989. In the last election cycle, though, 68 percent of contributions associated with the company went to Democrats. Two senators who chair committees charged with overseeing AIG and the insurance industry, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are among the top recipients of AIG contributions. Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee and has collected more money from AIG in his congressional career than from any other company--$91,000. And with more than $280,000, AIG has been the fourth largest contributor to Dodd, who chairs the Senate's banking committee. And here is the cherry on the !@#$ing sundae... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html The administration official said the Treasury Department did its own legal analysis and concluded that those contracts could not be broken. The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place. On edit...PLEASE dont puke up some bull sh-- that Im just "attacking democrats." Im not. And if you cant figure out that is not what this post is about, you have a few windows waiting for you to lick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I just don't like the precident here. Now I don't agree with the bonuses but when the government can make a decision whether or not a bonus has been earned and if they determine that the person who recieved the bonus didn't earn it they have the right to tax the bejesus out of it just scares the hell out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I just don't like the precident here. Now I don't agree with the bonuses but when the government can make a decision whether or not a bonus has been earned and if they determine that the person who recieved the bonus didn't earn it they have the right to tax the bejesus out of it just scares the hell out of me. Even bigger issue, to me, of contract law: between this and "renegotiating" mortgage terms, the government wants to set the precedent that they can void any contract between private parties simply based on moral outrage? Where the hell does that begin to be a good idea? Moral outrage is a piss-poor excuse for government action - as the PATRIOT Act and invasion of Iraq demonstrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I just don't like the precident here. Now I don't agree with the bonuses but when the government can make a decision whether or not a bonus has been earned and if they determine that the person who recieved the bonus didn't earn it they have the right to tax the bejesus out of it just scares the hell out of me. No sh--. If they were so concerned about how the money needed to be spent, they should have been specific when handing it out, and put oversight in place. Taking it back after they so freely doled it out does nothing but but puts more power into their hands. Besides, the gov't did so well passing out the money the first time, why don't I think they'd do an equally great job taking the money back, and passing it out a second time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I just don't like the precident here. Now I don't agree with the bonuses but when the government can make a decision whether or not a bonus has been earned and if they determine that the person who recieved the bonus didn't earn it they have the right to tax the bejesus out of it just scares the hell out of me. For me it is also a way to say that companies who do not perform while receiving funding should not receive bonuses. Earn your bonus. However, I also agree about the government being unchecked on their decisions to give or rather to revoke bonuses... that could be easily skewed/manipulated in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 For me it is also a way to say that companies who do not perform while receiving funding should not receive bonuses. Earn your bonus. However, I also agree about the government being unchecked on their decisions to give or rather to revoke bonuses... that could be easily skewed/manipulated in DC. Another thing that occurs to me...these particular AIG bonuses: does anyone even know if they're cash bonuses, or options? Because I haven't heard either way...and although I know companies are supposed to report options-as-bonuses at a cash value on their books, as a practical matter I can't see "Here's your million-dollar bonus...in 2011 calls with a 20 strike price" to be that much of a reward. Exactly how accurate is that $165M number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Another thing that occurs to me...these particular AIG bonuses: does anyone even know if they're cash bonuses, or options? Because I haven't heard either way...and although I know companies are supposed to report options-as-bonuses at a cash value on their books, as a practical matter I can't see "Here's your million-dollar bonus...in 2011 calls with a 20 strike price" to be that much of a reward. Exactly how accurate is that $165M number? It's close enough for gov't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Another thing that occurs to me...these particular AIG bonuses: does anyone even know if they're cash bonuses, or options? Because I haven't heard either way...and although I know companies are supposed to report options-as-bonuses at a cash value on their books, as a practical matter I can't see "Here's your million-dollar bonus...in 2011 calls with a 20 strike price" to be that much of a reward. Exactly how accurate is that $165M number? I believe it's all cash. But here's the kicker - it was retention bonuses. I'm guessing someone thought that perhaps it would be a good thing that these guys stuck around to ensure that the government received some of its money back. Apparently throwing $172 billion into a sinkhole is good enough for the politicians, as long as they have some villains to fry. Who really cares if the money is never paid back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 You'd think that these ijits would know that every knee-jerk reaction they have results in a train wreck. Anyone who knows anything about the industry understands the bonus system and should have anticipated this. Did they really think that AIG would "do the right thing" in terms of the situation? Stupid and stupider. So while I love the idea of taking away the bonuses via a special tax or whatever (why shouldn't these greedy pigs have the rugs pulled out from under them like so many Americans who have done nothing wrong)...it's just another knee-jerk reaction that will probably likewise blow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 Even bigger issue, to me, of contract law: between this and "renegotiating" mortgage terms, the government wants to set the precedent that they can void any contract between private parties simply based on moral outrage? Where the hell does that begin to be a good idea? Moral outrage is a piss-poor excuse for government action - as the PATRIOT Act and invasion of Iraq demonstrate. And even better is when the same lying POS politico that is going on about "taking back these bonuses for the taxpayers" is the SAME !@#$TURD who a few weeks ago was minimizing GOVERNMENT spending on pork in the Omnibus and calling those who were concerned about the pork the "chattering classes." These people are !@#$ed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Even bigger issue, to me, of contract law: between this and "renegotiating" mortgage terms, the government wants to set the precedent that they can void any contract between private parties simply based on moral outrage? Where the hell does that begin to be a good idea? Moral outrage is a piss-poor excuse for government action - as the PATRIOT Act and invasion of Iraq demonstrate. You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. It's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I just don't like the precident here. Now I don't agree with the bonuses but when the government can make a decision whether or not a bonus has been earned and if they determine that the person who recieved the bonus didn't earn it they have the right to tax the bejesus out of it just scares the hell out of me. They should just call the "loan" due and let AIG go under, so the bums will get fired, as they should have been, when they go their first "loan" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 They should just call the "loan" due and let AIG go under, so the bums will get fired, as they should have been, when they go their first "loan" I believe that would be equivalent of trying to sell the equity stake back to AIG...which I'm pretty sure AIG could ust say no to. The government should try a private placement of the equity with China, instead. Although normally you'd need an investment bank to broker that deal...and there aren't any left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax. !@#$ing retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. It's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. {high five} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Wall Street Bonuses are even really bonuses. A large portion of these people get 75% of their salary from "bonuses". Are we advocating not paying employees now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 {high five} Why would you celebrate stupidity. It was a dumb quote to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Why would you celebrate stupidity. It was a dumb quote to begin with. But it goes to the heart of what Rahm/Obama are thinking right now. Maybe this is a great time to start pushing some new tax codes on corporate bonuses that won't stop with AIG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Why would you celebrate stupidity. It was a dumb quote to begin with. No, it's a pretty good quote. Bi-partisanly good, too...both sides of the aisle work that way. Don't think it was worth a virtual "high five", myself...but Rk has issues. Wall Street Bonuses are even really bonuses. A large portion of these people get 75% of their salary from "bonuses". Are we advocating not paying employees now? Yes. And just in case that wasn't clear: yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Further to this issue, I watched the Robert Gibbs press conference today, and aside from the general fun I have watching Gibbs stumble at the mic (he was particularly good at trying to explain why Caterpillar is laying off 2500 people after they said they'd hire people if the stimulus bill was passed), I was surprised to hear so many questions about WHEN Obama and his staff knew about these bonuses. Gibbs said he had no idea, and he was pressed about the idea that Obama and his staff KNEW the money would go to bonuses when they gave it to AIG. Gibbs was pressed hard to ensure he returns with an answer. This is uber-juicy like a double-double with grilled onions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts