Bonus? Tax 90%

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
OriginalWheelman
Posts: 5668
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:38 am
Car: '15 Ford Focus Electric
Location: Portland, OR (or what?)

Post

I'm not in favor of the bonuses. Let me state that first. However, This is a bit excessive. Punitive taxes?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7953869.stm
BBC wrote:US lawmakers in the House of Representatives have voted in favour of a bill to levy a 90% tax on big bonuses from firms bailed out by taxpayers.

The move follows outrage over the decision by AIG to award its employees $165m (£113m) in bonuses after taking $170bn in aid from the government.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "We want our money back and we want our money back now for the taxpayers."

President Barack Obama welcomed the result of the vote.

"Now this legislation moves to the Senate, and I look forward to receiving a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated," Mr Obama said.

Members of the house voted 328-93 in favour of the legislation.
Get in line and do as the state says... or else!


User avatar
bobotech
Posts: 4886
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:26 pm

Post

The bonsues shoudl have never happened.

However taxing them at 90 percent smacks of socialism.

User avatar
Urabus GodofTraction
Posts: 6178
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:36 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX Wagon
2004 Suzuki SV650
1988 Toyota Land Cruiser
1994 Honda XR600R

Post

bobotech wrote:However taxing them at 90 percent smacks of socialism.
Where have you been for two months?

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 26254
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

Obama's freinds already got theirs, don't worry.

Must have been Republicans protecting the bonuses. Wait, Dodd is a Democrat, my world view is shaken!

http://online.wsj.com/article/....html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....html

Good old chris Dodd, always good for a kickback.

Thank you countrywide!http://online.wsj.com/article/....html


User avatar
480sx
Posts: 4085
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:27 pm
Car: 1996 Pearl White 240sx

Post

I believe this 90 percent tax on the bonuses only effect people with an income of 250k or greater. Just throwing that out there.

I too think the bonuses are, enraging.. to say the least. The idea that a failing company just HAS to give out those promised bonuses after receiving 170B from tax payers. You think they would have kept that promise if they hadnt of received the bailout? f*** no. They would have scaled down, run a skeleton ship till they got their footing straitened out, or they would have failed, liquidated, and we could say buh bye to some Wall Street big rollers.

I really dont know where i stand on this. It basically makes it so those bonuses go right back into the countries pockets where they belong so, idk. On the other hand, 90 percent tax income tax?! FFS, and you think capital gains is bad..

At this point, if the execs had half a brain they would bail on their bonus idea, and scale it wayy down. That would appease everyone(except a small portion of AIG employees) , and in their shoes, the execs really need to S some D.

User avatar
dusred
Posts: 3856
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 3:23 pm
Car: Previous Q45 owner, 09 Corolla, Ford F250 Diesel truck

Post

I'll take it one step further; the bailouts should have never happened. Technically, the bonuses are totally legal since the government doesn't get to decide what private companies do with their money. In the case of the bailout the government NEVER told them that they couldn't give the money away in bonuses. It is the governments fault that they gave that damn much money to a company who has already proven they can't manage money correctly.

The 90% tax is 100% total bulls***!


DJ Raijin
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:26 pm
Car: 1992 300ZX 2+0 T Top NA

Post

so....90% of that bonus is getting taxed or 90% of their income? Either way they can afford it.

It's not like they'll go hungry anytime soon. They might have to trade down from their mercedes to a lexus though. they got it soooooo rough

User avatar
Armelius
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:49 am
Car: 95 Maxima, 01 Pathfinder and 1987 Pathfinder 4x4
Contact:

Post

I was looking through the tax brackets and only saw the NCAA basketball teams.

I am thinking the domino theory worked. We lost and the commies won. Ben Bernake's people came here after WWII. And he is super smart. Hold on, that doesn't explain anything.

My commie handlers are telling me not to post this unless I have something better to say.

Well, I remember those damn AIG commercials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VvGW98D3XA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyN8HrsAFk8

But let me dig up the AIG history from glorious Wikipedia.

AIG's history dates back to 1919, when Cornelius Vander Starr established an insurance agency in Shanghai, China. Starr was the first Westerner in Shanghai to sell insurance to the Chinese, which he continued to do until AIG left China in early 1949—as Mao Zedong led the advance of the Communist People's Liberation Army on Shanghai.[3][4] Starr then moved the company headquarters to its current home in New York City.[5] The company went on to expand, often through subsidiaries, into other markets, including other parts of Asia, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East.[6]

In 1962, Starr gave management of the company's lagging U.S. holdings to Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, who shifted its focus from personal insurance to high-margin corporate coverage. Greenberg focused on selling insurance through independent brokers rather than agents to eliminate agent salaries. Using brokers, AIG could price insurance according to its potential return even if it suffered decreased sales of certain products for great lengths of time with very little extra expense. In 1968, Starr named Greenberg his successor. The company went public in 1969.[7]

In the mid-2000s AIG became embroiled in a series of fraud investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Justice Department, and New York State Attorney General's Office. Greenberg was ousted amid an accounting scandal in February 2005; he is still fighting civil charges being pursued by New York state.[8][9] The New York Attorney General's investigation led to a $1.6 billion fine for AIG and criminal charges for some of its executives.[10] Greenberg was succeeded as CEO by Martin J. Sullivan, who had begun his career at AIG as a clerk in its London office in 1970.[11]

On June 15, 2008, under intense pressure due to financial losses and a falling stock price, Sullivan resigned and was replaced by Robert B. Willumstad, Chairman of the AIG Board of Directors since 2006. Willumstad was forced to step down and was replaced by Edward M. Liddy on September 17, 2008.[12]

Praise the state.

User avatar
marlin29311
Posts: 8342
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:21 pm
Car: 2008 Infiniti G35x

Post

Quote from email that all employees got this morning from our CEO:

"In the face of disappointing earnings, many financial service companies have elected, or been required, to reduce or eliminate entirely incentive compensation. That is as it should be. At XXX, we also have embraced a culture of pay for performance. What differentiate us obviously are your exemplary efforts and the Company’s outstanding performance. They have allowed us to continue to reward performance with merit based salary increases, a generous profit sharing payout for certain of our employees and incentive compensation. You will be receiving your personal information over the next several days."

Note "Pay for performance" - that's what a BONUS is. We shouldn't be even discussing the 90% tax because they should have never gotten the bonuses in the first place!

User avatar
HashiriyaS14
Posts: 14298
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:02 pm
Car: '95 Nissan 240SX
'08 Honda Accord
'08 Honda NPS50
'03 Kawasaki Ninja 250
'60 Honda Super Cub
Location: DC Metro Area
Contact:

Post

marlin29311 wrote:Note "Pay for performance" - that's what a BONUS is. We shouldn't be even discussing the 90% tax because they should have never gotten the bonuses in the first place!
Yes and no.

In finance, at least certain kinds of finance (private equity, investment banking, hedge funds, etc), bonuses are 90% of the compensation of certain employees.

A 28 year old Associate might make $150k in salary and a 50 year old Managing Director might make $200k in salary. The difference is that the Associate may get a $50k bonus and the MD probably gets a $3 million bonus.

Bonuses tend to be given in ranges, provided in contracts. Thus, the MD might have a bonus range of $1 million to $5 million. If he does a crappy job, he still gets his million bucks. That said, anyone in "high finance" who's only getting their bare minimum bonus is probably just about to get fired, but until they actually fire him, the firm is contractually obligated to pay out that $1 million bonus.

I know this all sounds nuts, but in a good market, a good MD at a PE firm or I-Bank can be personally responsible for $100 million +++ in revenue annually to the firm. These people make TONS of money for their companies, and so their compensation is very much in line with their value. Bringing this compensation down will happen over time in a bad market, but you have to wait for those "good market" contracts to play out and then re-write them more conservatively for the next year.

User avatar
Cold_Zero
Posts: 6714
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder

Post

Should we start to call for Congress to work for $1 a year, now that we are going through unusually tough financial times?

If it is good enough for Corporate CEO's, it should be good enough for Public CEO's (Politicians).

User avatar
HashiriyaS14
Posts: 14298
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:02 pm
Car: '95 Nissan 240SX
'08 Honda Accord
'08 Honda NPS50
'03 Kawasaki Ninja 250
'60 Honda Super Cub
Location: DC Metro Area
Contact:

Post

Cold_Zero wrote:Should we start to call for Congress to work for $1 a year, now that we are going through unusually tough financial times?

If it is good enough for Corporate CEO's, it should be good enough for Public CEO's (Politicians).
That would work if we had been paying our politicians $20 million per year.

CEO's can work for $1 because it is assumed that they have millions in the bank to fall back on. We aren't actually jeopardizing their financial security, just forcing them to hold off on further gains until conditions improve.

In most cases, politicians aren't independently wealthy. Forcing them to work for a dollar per year would simply make politics infeasible as an occupation to all but those who ARE independently wealthy. Unfortunately, this means that we'd probably keep a lot of intelligent, capable people from being in politics, and that probably isn't a good thing.

No one goes into politics for the money because the money isn't very good, at least not for the money that they earn while actually in office. Maybe the money they earn later as a lobbyist, but cutting their salaries in office isn't going to change that.

It is a funny thought, though.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 15983
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

Personally, since the entire bailout was a total waste of my friggin taxes to begin with, I'm glad they're taxing the bonus's at 90%. And only for companies that took over 5 billion and only people that make over 250k.

Being upset at this is kinda retarded. AIG should have gone under...along with GM and any other POS business that's been run into failure. Chop up the stimulus and give every tax payer 12.7K each. Let us decide where it goes...sure aint AIG.

But taxing them for paying people bonus's is AWSOME. Give me back my taxes you SOB's. You don't need to keep those people people employed that are so called experts. There are thousands in that line of work with no friggin job at all right now. Hire some of them at basically no pay...If those people whinign about no bonus's threaten to leave...let them go. Screw them...where are they gonna find work?

Screw AIG...

I'm glad this Administration is taxing them. Lets lable it stupid decision tax.

User avatar
HashiriyaS14
Posts: 14298
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:02 pm
Car: '95 Nissan 240SX
'08 Honda Accord
'08 Honda NPS50
'03 Kawasaki Ninja 250
'60 Honda Super Cub
Location: DC Metro Area
Contact:

Post

WDRacing wrote:Chop up the stimulus and give every tax payer 12.7K each. Let us decide where it goes...sure aint AIG.
From my math, $750 billion divided by 290 million US citizens is $2,586 per person, not $12,700.

I could be wrong, just did a quick calc in Excel.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 15983
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

I used the TOTAL stimulus given as a figure, not the 750 billion. I also only used the 2008 total returns filed from the IRS page...so only tax payers would get stimulus.

I'd have to look up all the numbers again, but I did the math a few times. 12.7K is accurate. Do you think it would be better to give us all 12.7k to stimulate the economy or give it to big business instead?

User avatar
Cold_Zero
Posts: 6714
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder

Post

HashiriyaS14 wrote:
CEO's can work for $1 because it is assumed that they have millions in the bank to fall back on. We aren't actually jeopardizing their financial security, just forcing them to hold off on further gains until conditions improve.
I thought that these execs took the decrease to $1 voluntarily. Unless something changed with this past Stimulus Spending Bill, We (The People) didn't force anyone to take a pay cut. But I could be wrong. I think it is noble that Vikram Pandit, Edward Liddy and John Stumpf are working for $1 a year while their companies take Public Bailout Dollars.

User avatar
HashiriyaS14
Posts: 14298
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:02 pm
Car: '95 Nissan 240SX
'08 Honda Accord
'08 Honda NPS50
'03 Kawasaki Ninja 250
'60 Honda Super Cub
Location: DC Metro Area
Contact:

Post

Cold_Zero wrote:I thought that these execs took the decrease to $1 voluntarily. Unless something changed with this past Stimulus Spending Bill, We (The People) didn't force anyone to take a pay cut. But I could be wrong. I think it is noble that Vikram Pandit, Edward Liddy and John Stumpf are working for $1 a year while their companies take Public Bailout Dollars.
Yes. Okay. Fine.

My point still stands. CEO's can do this while politicians, by and large, cannot afford it.

You're the one who was trying to "start a call for Congress to work for $1".

Hell, I'm pretty sure you were joking, but I was trying to point out to everyone else that when F500 CEO's do this, it's more symbolic than a material financial sacrifice.

User avatar
Urabus GodofTraction
Posts: 6178
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:36 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX Wagon
2004 Suzuki SV650
1988 Toyota Land Cruiser
1994 Honda XR600R

Post

WDRacing wrote:I'd have to look up all the numbers again, but I did the math a few times. 12.7K is accurate. Do you think it would be better to give us all 12.7k to stimulate the economy or give it to big business instead?
I would prefer for it to have never been taken from our, our children, and our grandchildren's pockets in the first place.

And I do not like the precedent set by a 90% tax, taxpayer money or no...

First, they came for the AIG executives, but I am not an AIG executive... etc etc.

User avatar
480sx
Posts: 4085
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:27 pm
Car: 1996 Pearl White 240sx

Post

charlieo wrote:First, they came for the AIG executives, but I am not an AIG executive... etc etc.
Ehh that doesnt really fit this situation. This is a one of situation, punitive(for lack of a better word) tax thats basically saying dont piss away the money that America has given you.

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 26254
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

I love to follow the slippery slope but I don't see it here. to reward execs who failed miserably is indefensible. The new guy there collecting a crisp $1.00 for his efforts is setting the kind of example that needs to be followed right now. those bastards screwed up big time, in most situations they would be fired but here they get bonuses, that's BS.

User avatar
Cold_Zero
Posts: 6714
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder

Post

HashiriyaS14 wrote:You're the one who was trying to "start a call for Congress to work for $1".
Nah, but I do find it ironic that they (Congress) keep voting themselves pay raises when the country is going to hell and then have the balls to get indignant when others in 'failing' companies take bonuses.

What you said about prospective politicians being weeded out by politicians only being paid $1 does hold merit. Don't get me wrong. Unfortunately, with the current crop of 'talent' that we have had, I am not sure it is going to make much of a difference either way. I guess after being represented by two 'less than fortunate' Congresspeople, I can truly say that I have been under-served.

Quote »Hell, I'm pretty sure you were joking, but I was trying to point out to everyone else that when F500 CEO's do this, it's more symbolic than a material financial sacrifice.[/quote]While it may seem symbolic, when you an employee of a Fortune 500 that is being asked to sacrifice for the good of the company by:Giving up some of your benefitsHaving your coworkers severedBeing asked to do more with less (increased work load) Seeing your stock in the can and knowing your stocks/options are worth next to nothingNot having a pay raise in a few years

it does help the morale of the troops and it sets a good example to see your leaders sacrifice as you are being asked to sacrifice for the good of the company. Looking outside, in it may seem trivial and I understand that. Having gone through it for the past year and a half now, it means a lot.

User avatar
Cold_Zero
Posts: 6714
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder

Post

480sx wrote:
Ehh that doesnt really fit this situation.
While I agree with you in principal, what worries me about this current situation is the mob mentality. How easily the dems and the republicans can whip people into righteous indignation over these bonuses.

User avatar
480sx
Posts: 4085
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:27 pm
Car: 1996 Pearl White 240sx

Post

Its the same foolishness we saw after 9/11. Same goes for the original bailouts. The climate of fear that the government has pushed since 9/11. The climate that has, and is currently leading to some horrible decisions and legislation to be made/passed.

Terror alert level? Impending economic doom? Give it a fvking rest. Were still gona be here tomorrow, well, most of us.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

So if a good friend of yours asked you for $10,000 to buy a car and you loaned him the money and come to find out that he blew it on drugs, alcohol, strippers and what not for a huge party. Wouldn't you be pissed and want your money back immediately?

The tax isn't going towards the people who were paid the bonus, it's going to be a tax on AIG, from what I understood.

The government gave AIG money, it got pissed at it, and now it wants it back. Well, since it's already been handed out and it can't ask for it back, the government will just tax it to get it back. I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's not communism. Once you receive government money like AIG and Citi have, you can no longer run the company like you had in the past. Government intervention introduces a whole new game.

I find it comical that all of the people on here have been complaining about these bailouts and it's their money and they don't want their money going into this and wah wah wah and they want it back. Now, the government does something about it to get it back and we hear wah wah wah. Pick a side and stick with it.

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 26254
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

smockers83 wrote:I find it comical that all of the people on here have been complaining about these bailouts and it's their money and they don't want their money going into this and wah wah wah and they want it back. Now, the government does something about it to get it back and we hear wah wah wah. Pick a side and stick with it.
Awesome stuff

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 15983
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

smockers83 wrote:So if a good friend of yours asked you for $10,000 to buy a car and you loaned him the money and come to find out that he blew it on drugs, alcohol, strippers and what not for a huge party. Wouldn't you be pissed and want your money back immediately?

The tax isn't going towards the people who were paid the bonus, it's going to be a tax on AIG, from what I understood.

The government gave AIG money, it got pissed at it, and now it wants it back. Well, since it's already been handed out and it can't ask for it back, the government will just tax it to get it back. I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's not communism. Once you receive government money like AIG and Citi have, you can no longer run the company like you had in the past. Government intervention introduces a whole new game.

I find it comical that all of the people on here have been complaining about these bailouts and it's their money and they don't want their money going into this and wah wah wah and they want it back. Now, the government does something about it to get it back and we hear wah wah wah. Pick a side and stick with it.
Exactly my thoughts...well said sir.

User avatar
Cold_Zero
Posts: 6714
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder

Post

smockers83 wrote:So if a good friend of yours asked you for $10,000 to buy a car and you loaned him the money and come to find out that he blew it on drugs, alcohol, strippers and what not for a huge party. Wouldn't you be pissed and want your money back immediately?
Depends on the terms of your deal. I am sure that most people if they give their friend 10k they were smart enough to pen some terms to paper to make sure you have recourse.

Quote »I find it comical that all of the people on here have been complaining about these bailouts and it's their money and they don't want their money going into this and wah wah wah and they want it back. Now, the government does something about it to get it back and we hear wah wah wah. Pick a side and stick with it.[/quote]You do have a point, but I would go even further. This wasn't our money to begin with. We incurred debt (borrowed) in order to pay for the bailout and now it is used in this manner. To be honest, at this point 165million doesnt piss me off like the trillions (GAO says we will incur 1.7 trillion dollars in debt this year), but I am in agreement with Hash here. It looks really really bad that they took the money and handed out bonuses. Especially when employees from other financial companies that did not receive a bailout (this style) and the Autoworkers Union members are being asked to sacrifice for the good of the company (and the country).

My questions would be:1. If they were contractually obligated to pay these bonuses what would be the legal ramifications for not paying the bonuses? Would they break New York state employment laws and incur a huge fine? I know in Indiana if you do not pay a worker 14 days after services are rendered an employer has to pay the worker's wages, a $1000 penalty, 3% of the workers wages as a penalty and the workers lawyer's fees. I know because we are going through this with my wife's work, her employer is playing games with their paychecks.2. When AIG took money from the bailout, why weren't those funds allocated and kept separate from the normal day to day operations? I remember when were bailed out, we have to keep all the funding sources in separate facilities to make sure they are separated from our and everyone else's loans. Would it be simple enough for Liddy to show that none of the bonuses paid by AIG came from bailout money? Probably not.

User avatar
Urabus GodofTraction
Posts: 6178
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:36 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX Wagon
2004 Suzuki SV650
1988 Toyota Land Cruiser
1994 Honda XR600R

Post

480sx wrote:
Ehh that doesnt really fit this situation. This is a one of situation, punitive(for lack of a better word) tax thats basically saying dont piss away the money that America has given you.
And I do not like the precedent set by a 90% tax, taxpayer money or no...

My paycheck is money that America has given me, as is the paycheck of every other government employee. Should I now be expected to be taxed if I spend my money in a way the government doesn't approve?
themadscientist wrote:I love to follow the slippery slope but I don't see it here. to reward execs who failed miserably is indefensible. The new guy there collecting a crisp $1.00 for his efforts is setting the kind of example that needs to be followed right now. those bastards screwed up big time, in most situations they would be fired but here they get bonuses, that's BS.
They were not reward bonuses, they were contracted bonuses. Bonuses, for better or for worse, the shareholders of AIG agreed to give them.

Give them no bonuses at all (and keep the money as retained earnings in the company), or give them the bonuses. The government should not be taking 90% of any kind of money.

User avatar
480sx
Posts: 4085
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:27 pm
Car: 1996 Pearl White 240sx

Post

charlieo wrote:
I do not like the precedent set by a 90% tax, taxpayer money or no...
You made that clear already. I didnt counter that, im not a big fan of it either.
charlieo wrote:
My paycheck is money that America has given me, as is the paycheck of every other government employee. Should I now be expected to be taxed if I spend my money in a way the government doesn't approve?
Yea, nice try.
charlieo wrote:
They were not reward bonuses, they were contracted bonuses. Bonuses, for better or for worse, the shareholders of AIG agreed to give them.
TS. The vast majority of this company now belongs to the US. If the US feels that a contract AIG made back when it wasnt owned by the US is BS, and decides to invalidate that contract, thats OUR right as the majority share holder.
charlieo wrote:
Give them no bonuses at all (and keep the money as retained earnings in the company), or give them the bonuses.
No bonuses at works best.
charlieo wrote:
The government should not be taking 90% of any kind of money.
While i tend to agree with you, AGAIN, this is a one of a kind situation. An exception to that 'rule'.

User avatar
Armelius
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:49 am
Car: 95 Maxima, 01 Pathfinder and 1987 Pathfinder 4x4
Contact:

Post

smockers83 wrote:So if a good friend of yours asked you for $10,000 to buy a car and you loaned him the money and come to find out that he blew it on drugs, alcohol, strippers and what not for a huge party. Wouldn't you be pissed and want your money back immediately?

The tax isn't going towards the people who were paid the bonus, it's going to be a tax on AIG, from what I understood.

The government gave AIG money, it got pissed at it, and now it wants it back. Well, since it's already been handed out and it can't ask for it back, the government will just tax it to get it back. I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's not communism. Once you receive government money like AIG and Citi have, you can no longer run the company like you had in the past. Government intervention introduces a whole new game.

I find it comical that all of the people on here have been complaining about these bailouts and it's their money and they don't want their money going into this and wah wah wah and they want it back. Now, the government does something about it to get it back and we hear wah wah wah. Pick a side and stick with it.
The thing is that those execs didn't buy a car nor did they have to. The government didn't give each executive a paycheck. It was handed down to them through the company.

It's as if you gave us all a debit card (not really) and we thought it was from our employer. Then you come around and want it back because you thought we were going to spend it on anything we wanted.

Well, who the hell are you to want it back if we are working for the company and did what we have always been doing?

It is communism when the state gives and takes away.


Return to “Politics Etc.”