¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 hahaha FUCK YEAH!!!! http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/bonus.bill/index.html WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday to try to recoup bonuses paid to Wall Street executives with taxpayer money. The measure passed, 328-93; most Democrats supported the measure, while Republicans were sharply divided. A two-thirds majority among all members voting was required for passage. The measure would tax individuals on any bonuses received in 2009 from companies getting $5 billion or more in money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Bonuses for people with incomes over $250,000 would be taxed at a 90 percent rate. The measure now moves to the Senate for further consideration. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-New York, told reporters Wednesday, "We can't have any concept of we're getting even, but we must have a concept that we're trying to show that Congress ... cannot tolerate that." The vote comes one day after AIG chief executive Edward Liddy testified before Congress that he has asked employees of the bailed-out insurer who took home more than $100,000 in bonuses to return at least half. Liddy, saying he knew that the public's patience is "wearing thin," said some employees have decided on their own to return their entire bonuses to the company. More than $165 million has been slated for bonuses to AIG's senior executives; the federal government rescued the company from financial ruin with more than $170 billion in taxpayer assistance. Referring to the AIG executives who received bonuses, Rangel said, "I don't think these are the type of people to [whom you can] make an appeal to equity and justice. I don't think they really know the difference. I don't really think they've had life experience to allow them to believe the pain that they've caused for millions of Americans." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said the bill was necessitated by the poor judgment shown by firms receiving bailout money. "We must stabilize the financial system in order to strengthen our economy and create jobs," she said. "We must also protect the American taxpayer from executives who would use their companies' second chances as opportunities for private gain. "Because they could not use sound judgment in the use of taxpayer funds, these AIG executives will pay the Treasury in the form of this tax." A similar proposal in the Senate would attempt to recoup bonuses by taxing both individuals and companies, but Rangel said House leaders decided against penalizing companies because they could simply ask for more taxpayer money. Earlier Wednesday, President Obama also lashed out at the bonuses given to AIG executives, calling them "outrageous." "People are right to be angry. I am angry. ... People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses," he said. "But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of, that [has] existed for far too long; a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante3000 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Taxes aren't meant to be a weapon. This is a little extreme. Besides, with everything we have going on in the country why are we devoting hours of nightly news to 1/1,000 of the AIG bail out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I think AIG is being used as an example for all companies that do this. Kind of to show what can happen to your company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stranaspank Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 This is good. I like that they're really going after the executives and not the company itself. Congress is growing some balls! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Taxes aren't meant to be a weapon. This is a little extreme. Besides, with everything we have going on in the country why are we devoting hours of nightly news to 1/1,000 of the AIG bail out? so you don't have a problem with AIG giving their Executives BONUSES of tax payer money? The same executives who CRASHED the company into the ground? 165 MILLION dollars. Sure, maybe its not that much out of 170 BILLION, but its the principle of the point. The government is trying to help them stay out of complete failure, and they are taking their execs on spa retreats and giving them $1+ million EACH. thats fucked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I'm with dantee. This guys should be shot, but tax shouldn't be a weapon. It just makes people like Oakland right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkrudeboy Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Last time I checked executives usually got bonuses when they MADE the company money. These CEO clowns drove the company into the ground and they got their bonuses anyway. How the fuck does that make any sense? Personally I think the money should of gone toward employee pensions to keep 1000's out of the unemployment line and then just let AIG burn. <3 Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante3000 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Just so everyone knows these were not performance bonuses, they were retention bonuses. These people were part of the division that basically caused AIG to bottom out. However, they are not the people responsible. They are basically, "winding down" the books in their department and getting rid of the toxic assets and putting themselves out of a job. They know a great deal about this system and these bonuses were designed to keep them in these jobs while they made themselves unemployed. That said, I think they are still a little bullshit but it's not the job of our tax system to right this wrong, especially in such a reactionary fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Taxes aren't meant to be a weapon. This is a little extreme. Besides, with everything we have going on in the country why are we devoting hours of nightly news to 1/1,000 of the AIG bail out? Agreed. $160 million compared to a trillion isn't really significant. Not to mention, AIG didn't really have a choice. You can't just not pay contractual bonuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommytumult Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kylewilliam Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 still, in this time 165 million shouldn't be wasted. that can do a lot of good, regardless of the overall total of the bailout is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 still, in this time 165 million shouldn't be wasted. that can do a lot of good, regardless of the overall total of the bailout is. Really though, from an economic standpoint, either one stimulates the economy just the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xlovecolouredx Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 i'm okay with tax rate in this country except tax rate for import vinyl.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamlikesmusic Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Taxes aren't meant to be a weapon. This is a little extreme. Besides, with everything we have going on in the country why are we devoting hours of nightly news to 1/1,000 of the AIG bail out? Agreed. $160 million compared to a trillion isn't really significant. Not to mention, AIG didn't really have a choice. You can't just not pay contractual bonuses. Had the government not stepped in, and AIG went over, would these people have received their bonuses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorbike Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 ya, i dont see this being a good thing. first off, like dante said, these are retention bonuses. these guys were given these bonuses to fix all the shit they messed up, this is their pay to keepp them there working. besides that, i dont like the government having the power to tax like this. if you think for a second that soon as all this blows over that law will be forgotten, your crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Agreed. $160 million compared to a trillion isn't really significant. Not to mention, AIG didn't really have a choice. You can't just not pay contractual bonuses. Had the government not stepped in, and AIG went over, would these people have received their bonuses? So? They did. I wish they hadn't. Doesn't matter. Contracts are contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamlikesmusic Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Had the government not stepped in, and AIG went over, would these people have received their bonuses? So? They did. I wish they hadn't. Doesn't matter. Contracts are contracts. It was a simple yes or no question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 It was a dumb question. So I didn't answer it in the binary. The point is, if the business had gone out the contracts would be void. It didn't so they aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.