90% tax on US AIG bonuses

[Glaucus]

Read on another site all bonuses on earnings above $250k would be taxed at this rate, sounds ok to me. If they have had to receive government funding to the level they have their earnings should be capped until they return the money.

Please explain why. Think about it. You are condoning the government to pass laws based on knee jerk reaction. Or by themselves to penalise specific groups. is that a route you want to go down. Why do you think this is right or even fair.

 

[Dolph]

Read on another site all bonuses on earnings above $250k would be taxed at this rate, sounds ok to me. If they have had to receive government funding to the level they have their earnings should be capped until they return the money.

It's a great way to ensure the government never gets their money back by brain draining all the best talent away from the company, that's for sure...

 

[clv101]

The government should never introduce knee jerk laws to satisfy public opinion.

It is also stupid changing a law to specifically target one group. It is nothing bar extreme discrimination...

The bailouts have already violated your arguments! The bail outs are knee jerk, are specifically targeted etc... Your 'do nothing' approach to the bonus would have seen these companies fail in dramatic fashion.

I'll all for the bailouts having major strings attached from the beginning - such as basic salaries all around.

 

[Glaucus]

The bailouts have already violated your arguments! The bail outs are knee jerk, are specifically targeted etc... Your 'do nothing' approach to the bonus would have seen these companies fail in dramatic fashion.

How are the bail outs knee jerk? if the banks were left to fail. then you could kiss good but to the total economy.
"specifically targeted" how is that the same? two totally different situations.
My do nothing approach, what are you one. did you miss the bit where I said they should have had strings attached. Or even better just leave it as it is.

I'll all for the bailouts having major strings attached from the beginning - such as basic salaries all around.

Then you have not thought it though, the bank would fail. Do you think anyone apart from basic employees would stay, you must be kidding.

 

[Dolph]

The bailouts have already violated your arguments! The bail outs are knee jerk, are specifically targeted etc... Your 'do nothing' approach to the bonus would have seen these companies fail in dramatic fashion.

I'll all for the bailouts having major strings attached from the beginning - such as basic salaries all around.

The issue is the changing of the rules after the terms of the bailouts have been agreed. Applying penalities later on that were not part of the original agreement is pretty foul.

The bill is also borderline unconstituational, as it's an ex post facto penality

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST

This bill is roughly the equivilent of me giving you money, then turning up a month later and demanding that as I gave you money, I can sleep with your wife, and I've got this policeman with me to ensure it happens...

 

[JAzz]

Please explain why. Think about it. You are condoning the government to pass laws based on knee jerk reaction. Or by themselves to penalise specific groups. is that a route you want to go down. Why do you think this is right or even fair.

If they need government money to survive they go by the government rules, simple as that really. The main executives at these companies is where the buck stops, if they are doing very well I have no problem whatsoever with them taking whatever they want for bonuses as they have in the past. That company is one of the biggest corporate failures in history and there is no way any of their employees should be receiving excessive bonuses. Obviously some employees have very basic salaries which are then topped up by bonuses fair enough but they will have to make do $250k or so a year, cut back on the luxury holidays, caviare and champagne for a few years I'm sure they will survive....

Lets not try to portray these executives as saints here who are being robbed, the bosses at General Motors flew in private jets to the Senate to basically beg for money so their company could to be saved. Citigroup another institution which has failed is spending $10mill fitting out their CEO's office. They tried to buy a private jet as well which I think in turn they had to cancel. The days of them living it up and spending money like it is going out of fashion are well over, they have to dance to the government and public tune now.

Sometimes I sit back and think maybe the governments should have just let these companies go down but as we saw with Lehmann Brothers the effect on the economy could have been irrevocable so they had to be helped. I have no issue with that but I do have a pretty big issue if their silly spending habits do not change while they are being saved by government money.

You just need to look at my posts in the past and I am not bitter about what they have earned in the past or their lifestyles, if a person has done well and their company has done well they should be rewarded but this obviously isn't the case right now.

It's a great way to ensure the government never gets their money back by brain draining all the best talent away from the company, that's for sure...

With the way things are going even if they do leave there is a good chance they might end up at another company which the government will have to bail out

 

[Glaucus]

The issue is the changing of the rules after the terms of the bailouts have been agreed. Applying penalities later on that were not part of the original agreement is pretty foul.
..

But it's ok, it's not happening to any of us in this thread. So it's ok to strip peoples basic rights away and make any law you wish.

 

[Glaucus]

If they need government money to survive they go by the government rules, simple as that really. .

they are going by the government rules. The government has now changed though rules after the contract has been signed. You have no clue do you.

 

[Dolph]

But it's ok, it's not happening to any of us in this thread. So it's ok to strip peoples basic rights away and make any law you wish.

Indeed, it's a well known fact that taking rights away from other people is perfectly acceptable, especially if they are people you are jealous of.

 

[Glaucus]

Indeed, it's a well known fact that taking rights away from other people is perfectly acceptable, especially if they are people you are jealous of.

and no one could see the council and other agencies using these terrorist laws on innocent people either.

 

[JAzz]

they are going by the government rules. The government has now changed though rules after the contract has been signed. You have no clue do you.

Well now they have to go by their new rules, they can give the government money back if they really disagree with it. Barclays didn't agree with the terms they had to borrow money from so they went elsewhere, I couldn't give a monkeys how much they pay their executives. Why should I care? I don't know why you are getting so worked up about it. I've borrowed money in commercial loans and banks have decided to change their terms so I gave their money back and got it elsewhere at better rates and terms. Now if this law was being put in place for everyone I'd be outraged as well, would be completely unfair. For me the rich are taxed too much as it is and people in this world are penalised for doing well. However if the companies are taking government money to survive their salaries should be capped until they pay that money back.

Resorting to petty little comments as well, unless someone agrees with you they are being jealous right? Then have the audacity to talk about other people not having a clue....

 

[Glaucus]

Well now they have to go by their new rules, they can give the government money back if they really disagree with it. Barclays didn't agree with the terms they had to borrow money from so they went elsewhere, I couldn't give a monkeys how much they pay their executives. Why should I care? I don't know why you are getting so worked up about it. ..

perhaps because the government is penalising certain groups of people. It is not good however you look at it. They should not have to go by the "new" rules. I really don't get how you think this is fine.

 

[Dolph]

Well now they have to go by their new rules, they can give the government money back if they really disagree with it. Barclays didn't agree with the terms they had to borrow money from so they went elsewhere, I couldn't give a monkeys how much they pay their executives. Why should I care? I don't know why you are getting so worked up about it. I've borrowed money in commercial loans and banks have decided to change their terms so I gave their money back and got it elsewhere at better rates and terms. Now if this law was being put in place for everyone I'd be outraged as well, would be completely unfair. For me the rich are taxed too much as it is and people in this world are penalised for doing well. However if the companies are taking government money to survive their salaries should be capped until they pay that money back.

Resorting to petty little comments as well, unless someone agrees with you they are being jealous right? Then have the audacity to talk about other people not having a clue....

Tomorrow the government is going to tax your earnings for last year by an additional 40%.

You will be expected to pay even if you have already spent all the money.

Still think it's fair?

 

[Glaucus]

Resorting to petty little comments as well, unless someone agrees with you they are being jealous right? Then have the audacity to talk about other people not having a clue....

Then argue the proper points, not just state it's fine. say why you think it's fine and how this does not set a dangerous precedent. Something other posters haven't hence the silly comments. it's not as if my posts are centred around these.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

This'll get overturned in the courts.

 

[JAzz]

Tomorrow the government is going to tax your earnings for last year by an additional 40%.

You will be expected to pay even if you have already spent all the money.

Still think it's fair?

If my company was surviving thanks to government money I'm not really in a position to say what is fair or not, having something is better than nothing.

I do understand where you are coming from, this is indeed a dodgy thing and the way this law seems to have come out of nowhere (or maybe I've not been following things) does make you think but there are too many people there who have done a terrible job but will still find a way to reward themselves and I simply can not agree with that.

perhaps because the government is penalising certain groups of people. It is not good however you look at it. They should not have to go by the "new" rules. I really don't get how you think this is fine.

You are right for some people this is unfair and I do feel for them as I'm sure there are some who have performed well but their work has been undone by those who have messed up big times. However like the examples I've listed before there still are too many for my liking are not curbing their silly spending habits despite the situation they are in and I don't agree with that and I personally think the governments should have a degree of control in these firms as well to make sure they get their act together.

 

[Mr C]

Surely if these bonuses are based on performance and they are taxed heavily because the government has a share in the company, wouldn't that increase the incentive for the people who are getting taxed to leave the company and find another where their bonus isn't ruined.

Since by getting a bonus they would have to of met targets that also shows that they are likely to be a good employee and as such make it easier for them to be snapped up by another company.

So basically wouldn't this just move all the good talent out of the government controlled companies into the ones aren't bailed out leaving the government with a bunch of shares in a company left with only poor performers, as such then having to wait longer to recover the debt. Assuming that the company would ever recover to make profits after all its talent had left, especially seeing that it would also turn away potential employees for applying at the company too due to having no incentive to go there over any other company. Of course that would be assuming perfect movement in the job market, which it is far from right now.

 

[Glaucus]

If my company was surviving thanks to government money I'm not really in a position to say what is fair or not, having something is better than nothing.

I do understand where you are coming from, this is indeed a dodgy thing and the way this law seems to have come out of nowhere (or maybe I've not been following things) does make you think but there are too many people there who have done a terrible job but will still find a way to reward themselves and I simply can not agree with that.

.

what? I really am baffled. So you would accept paying anything to the government if they decided to make it law.

 

[Dolph]

If my company was surviving thanks to government money I'm not really in a position to say what is fair or not, having something is better than nothing.

This now has little to do with the company, and everything to do with the abuse of government power.

I do understand where you are coming from, this is indeed a dodgy thing and the way this law seems to have come out of nowhere (or maybe I've not been following things) does make you think but there are too many people there who have done a terrible job but will still find a way to reward themselves and I simply can not agree with that.

We can't advocate just tearing up contractual agreements randomly, or randomly attaching retrospective clauses on to already completed agreements, no matter how much we may or may not agree with them.

If this had been a condition of the bailout cash from the start, this would be different, but it's not, and that is what makes this move so unacceptable in my eyes.

 

[Glaucus]

We can't advocate just tearing up contractual agreements randomly, or randomly attaching retrospective clauses on to already completed agreements, no matter how much we may or may not agree with them.

If this had been a condition of the bailout cash from the start, this would be different, but it's not, and that is what makes this move so unacceptable in my eyes.

+1