The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
AIG bonus tax
bluefoxicy
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
What's your thoughts on the AIG bonus taxes? Obama wishes to pass a law stating that any companies who received bail-out money will have a special excise tax levied on any bonuses paid out to any employees: all such bonuses over $100,000 will be taxed. At 100%.
In one argument, this is government money, loaned or granted (in the case of AIG, granted). It's tax payer money, and paying it as a salary pay-out to executives is kind of silly. On the other, this is done to satisfy pre-arranged contracts; an easy way around this would be to just not pay, and be sued for compensatory damages, in which case the damages aren't taxed and you evade the excise tax. Yes, that's right, they're legally contracted for the huge bonuses they pay out to the board.
Mind you, "huge" is relative. $170 billion for a company AIG's size, with $165 million going to executive bonuses. Those bonuses could be distributed between all employees for a salary raise of a few pennies per year. Actually even contract work on AIG's level is pretty hard to pull off, but external consultants may pull off several-million-dollar contracts and you could wind up with anywhere between 10 and 50 contracts for examining and analyzing their business to make business process recommendations.
Still though. I can't imagine how, but I'm sure those executives have assets that demand cash flow. Like maintaining the property tax or rent on their private jets and wherever they park it. Depriving them of money may deprive them of real assets, which in itself isn't fair.
Still. A 100% tax on all bonuses paid out over $100,000? What happens if Obama decides that those people over $250k can be taxed more... and more... until 100% over $250k is taxed, and nobody makes over $250k? (that's a genuine slippery slope fallacy at this point; but if and when it starts to bleed over into reality, it becomes a projection based on a trend and known factors, and no longer a fallacy).
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_president_Obama,_congress_call_for_blocking_of_executive_bonuses_at_AIG_insurance_company
In one argument, this is government money, loaned or granted (in the case of AIG, granted). It's tax payer money, and paying it as a salary pay-out to executives is kind of silly. On the other, this is done to satisfy pre-arranged contracts; an easy way around this would be to just not pay, and be sued for compensatory damages, in which case the damages aren't taxed and you evade the excise tax. Yes, that's right, they're legally contracted for the huge bonuses they pay out to the board.
Mind you, "huge" is relative. $170 billion for a company AIG's size, with $165 million going to executive bonuses. Those bonuses could be distributed between all employees for a salary raise of a few pennies per year. Actually even contract work on AIG's level is pretty hard to pull off, but external consultants may pull off several-million-dollar contracts and you could wind up with anywhere between 10 and 50 contracts for examining and analyzing their business to make business process recommendations.
Still though. I can't imagine how, but I'm sure those executives have assets that demand cash flow. Like maintaining the property tax or rent on their private jets and wherever they park it. Depriving them of money may deprive them of real assets, which in itself isn't fair.
Still. A 100% tax on all bonuses paid out over $100,000? What happens if Obama decides that those people over $250k can be taxed more... and more... until 100% over $250k is taxed, and nobody makes over $250k? (that's a genuine slippery slope fallacy at this point; but if and when it starts to bleed over into reality, it becomes a projection based on a trend and known factors, and no longer a fallacy).
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_president_Obama,_congress_call_for_blocking_of_executive_bonuses_at_AIG_insurance_company
People call me Wood Man, 'cause I always got wood.
bluefoxicy on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
So basically you're lying.
Hmm interesting.
Somehow I equated congress with president when they're both doing the same thing.
*shrug* Same question.
* Never mind, just saw your reply.
Situation excellent. I am attacking.
- General Ferdinand Foch
Taxation is not a crime.
Although, ex post facto laws might be.
Can you answer that?
Don't *shrug* when you come here with blatant misinformation.
Wouldn't it only be ex post facto if the law was passed after these bonuses had been handed out?
When will the bonuses be handed out
I thought the bonuses have already been handed out, as of March 11th?
Then this would in fact be ex post facto if they went back and took those bonuses wouldn't it?
So basically you're biting off someone's head over nothing. Don't be an asshole when you post here while blatantly uninformed.
BY COMPANIES THAT RECEIVE MORE THAN $5B IN GOVERNMENT BAILOUT FUNDS
It doesn't specifically target AIG, nor does it target wealthy people. It targets those companies which see fit to receive MORE THAN FIVE BILLION DOLLARS of government assistance.
Here's the New York Times link, too.
It's not just ex post facto. It's a tax that is designed for the sole intention of targeting a very specific group of people. Even some Democrats are saying that this bill is likely illegal and even though it passed the House, it's probably going to die or simply disappear in the Senate.
It's murky, that's why I brought it up. The law, as I understand it, isn't a law that says "we are taking away your monies." It's a revision to the tax code, which states that for businesses who received $5 billion or more in bailouts from the government since September, bonuses will be taxed at 90% - it refers to a date that has already passed, but it wouldn't be ex post facto if it came into effect for the next fiscal year. It might in fact be ex post facto if it comes into effect immediately.
But now that that's out of the way, we can talk about the proposed legislation, and realize that this isn't Obama's initiative nor is it as simple as taxing all bonuses.
Incentive based pay is what got us into this mess--they fudged numbers and made bad investments for a quick payoff. A move like this would force a salary based pay structure rather.
This whole issue is a distraction from real problems, and enough people are pissed about these bonuses, so legal or not, the bonuses aught to be blocked or taxed the shit out of them.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
God damnit.
I haven't misrepresented anything, and you called a guy a liar for confusing the proposed tax rate by 10%. Just sayin'.
This is ONLY for firms which failed and are being propped up by American taxpayers. It is essentially a decision NOT to reward failure, which, as long as I knew, was as American as it gets.
Using this statement as an argument automatically makes you a douchebag.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Because some people are smart and driven. They realize that they can make far more in certain fields that what any salary would pay.
You sure? I don't see it.
Guess which one a tax increase is?
But thats not what you said now was it?
Not if they tax them next year. And since these companies are OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT DUE TO THE INCOMPETENCE AND UTTER FAILURE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES I don't think any of them really deserve a bonus this year, do you?
Commission is not a bonus.
If the government is giving your company money, there are rules to follow with that money. If you don't want to follow those rules, then don't request a government bailout.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
A.I.G. Sues U.S. for Return of $306 Million in Tax Payments
If this makes it to the talking heads it's over.
If things get much worse...laws are going to mean squat
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
I don't agree with the tax (because its a retroactive tax AND it taxes a specific group of people, both actions are illegal), but this lawsuit is just insane.
They got 2 bailouts, handed out bonuses for what..."exceptional management"?...and now are suing the entity that gave them the bailout.
Let them burn to the ground. This is just getting utterly insane.
No man should have that kind of power.(Twitter)