The House passes a punitive tax

The House passes a punitive tax (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slvemike4u -> The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 8:09:43 AM)
The House approved on Thursday a near total tax on bonuses paid this year to AIG exec's.Is this legal? Is this right? Should the tax code be used in this fashion ie: punitive after the fact?Is it even legal to pass a retroactive tax?Opinions please,on this measure.

rulemylife -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 8:16:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The House approved on Thursday a near total tax on bonuses paid this year to AIG exec's.Is this legal? Is this right? Should the tax code be used in this fashion ie: punitive after the fact?Is it even legal to pass a retroactive tax?Opinions please,on this measure. Well, considering we own 80% of AIG now is it really a tax or is it just an employer restraining employee greed?

slvemike4u -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 8:19:54 AM)
Well Rule ,once the money changes hands....and we try to get it back thru the tax code....yes it would really be a tax,and a punitive one at that.

DesFIP -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 8:50:32 AM)
It's the smartest way of getting the money back. And it's being written very carefully so it only applies to these bonuses. I imagine once the money has been retrieved, the law will be revoked.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 8:57:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP It's the smartest way of getting the money back. And it's being written very carefully so it only applies to these bonuses. I imagine once the money has been retrieved, the law will be revoked. But a precedent will have been set. Firm

Owner59 -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 9:03:37 AM)
Where were you for torture, illegal invasions and suspension of habeas corpus? Oh,that`s right.You like the precedents they set .....

FirmhandKY -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 9:09:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Where were you for torture, illegal invasions and suspension of habeas corpus? Oh,that`s right.You like the precedents they set ..... Short post, so I could actually just glance and read it. Good attempt to deflect, and change the subject. So ... where do you stand on the issue under discussion? Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 9:12:37 AM)
Well Owner I didn't like any of those precedents and I don't think this one is a good idea either.Forget the illegality of it,the morality of it sucks too.Using the tax code as a punitive weapon is a dangerous road to go down. As a side note there is an organization called The Connecticut Working Families Party which has scheduled a bus tour of A.I.G. executive's homes on Saturday....do we really need to demonize these people's families too.It would seem the need for scapegoats is leading us down a shitty road.These people may be emblematic of the problem.....but they are not,and these bonuses are not the root cause of the problem.For some it seems they will do...till some other group can be identified.

Archer -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 10:11:54 AM)
Not to mention the fact that not all those bonuses are going to employees who are in any way involved in the departments that handled the sub prime real estate part of the business. Some of these folks work in other departments of AIG that were profitable.

rulemylife -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 10:43:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Not to mention the fact that not all those bonuses are going to employees who are in any way involved in the departments that handled the sub prime real estate part of the business. Some of these folks work in other departments of AIG that were profitable. The Real Harm Caused By the AIG Bonuses - Rick Newman (usnews.com) A bonus is no longer something you earn for a job well done. It’s legalized theft. AIG, one of the most reckless corporations of all time, is now paying out $165 million in executive bonuses for 2008, the year it almost collapsed and took half the financial industry with it. But that’s just garden-variety chutzpah. The crowner, according to the New York Times and others, is that AIG is paying those bonuses to the very executives whose division singlehandedly destroyed more than $100 billion in shareholder value. You heard that right. The bonuses go to AIG’s London-based financial-products division, where hotshots sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of derivatives that AIG couldn’t back up once its fortunes turned sour last fall. The result nearly turned into an industrial-strength bank run, with parties that held the AIG derivatives suddenly asking for more and more collateral, which AIG couldn't produce.

Archer -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 10:49:32 AM)
rulemylife, so the fact that some of the bonuses are crap and going to the folks who created the problem automaticly means that other departments bonuses are equally undeserved?????????? Really???? You don't see the problem with the fact that some of those bonuses are also to folks in divisions that are not the sub prime Real Estate involved ones? The guy that works for say their Aircraft Services Division who met his goals, does he deserved to be penalized and have his contract nulified by law?

slvemike4u -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 10:51:48 AM)
Knee jerk reactions like this allways make for bad law.This would be no exception to that rule.

rulemylife -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 10:52:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Well Owner I didn't like any of those precedents and I don't think this one is a good idea either.Forget the illegality of it,the morality of it sucks too.Using the tax code as a punitive weapon is a dangerous road to go down. As a side note there is an organization called The Connecticut Working Families Party which has scheduled a bus tour of A.I.G. executive's homes on Saturday....do we really need to demonize these people's families too.It would seem the need for scapegoats is leading us down a shitty road.These people may be emblematic of the problem.....but they are not,and these bonuses are not the root cause of the problem.For some it seems they will do...till some other group can be identified. Illegal and immoral? Considering the government is in the unique position of owning this company its only leverage is the tax code. I would think it more immoral that these clowns who bankrupted their own company and created an economic crisis in this country should receive any type of financial reward.

slvemike4u -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 10:54:27 AM)
The illegality and immorality come from using the tax code as a retalitory weapon.It is a bad precedent in my opinion.

rulemylife -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 10:57:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer rulemylife, so the fact that some of the bonuses are crap and going to the folks who created the problem automaticly means that other departments bonuses are equally undeserved?????????? Really???? You don't see the problem with the fact that some of those bonuses are also to folks in divisions that are not the sub prime Real Estate involved ones? The guy that works for say their Aircraft Services Division who met his goals, does he deserved to be penalized and have his contract nulified by law? It was my understanding, and the reason I posted the above article, was that as the article says, almost all the bonuses went to the financial services division. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's also a NY Times link in the post that says the same thing.

Archer -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 10:57:55 AM)
The Tax code use violates the constitution blatantly and the first attempt will put it before a judge who will no doubt put the egg right on the face of congress where it belongs. Bills of Attainder and Post Facto law passage to punish acts not previously illegal are prohibited by the US Constitution. This basic legal concept goes back to the Magna Carta.

Archer -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 11:01:33 AM)
But ALMOST exclusively does not make the law fair to those others who were not. My point being the law was ill conceived and ill written and don't we have a legal concept of fairness that says if 100 guilty men go free in order to prevent one innocent man from wrongfull punishment.....

rulemylife -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 11:02:22 AM)
Maybe so, but again, we as the taxpayers with government as our representative basically own this company now. Do we not have the right to have a say in its operations? Using tax law was the only recourse to rectify this.

Archer -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 11:07:55 AM)
Article 1 section 9 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder. In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase: 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html So the question is, does a tax that is specifically designed to punish those employees who accept their legally earned bonuses, meet the definition of either or both of these provisions?

rulemylife -> RE: The House passes a punitive tax (3/20/2009 11:10:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer But ALMOST exclusively does not make the law fair to those others who were not. My point being the law was ill conceived and ill written and don't we have a legal concept of fairness that says if 100 guilty men go free in order to prevent one innocent man from wrongfull punishment..... Nice in theory, but we both know it rarely works that way. And really, why should we be obligated to any AIG employee for their bonuses? Are we not demanding pay cuts and other concessions from the UAW to support their failing companies? Why is this any different?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02