Comments:US lawmakers approve bill taxing executive bonuses

NOPE,THE GOVERMENT SHOULD NOT BILL TO MUCH ON COMPANIES BECAUSE IN NDOING SO ITS AFFECTING PEOPLES JOB POSSESSION TO BE UNEMPLOYED OR BE PAYED LESS


 * But. They're not billing the companies. They're placing a higher income tax on the individual executives receiving pay bonuses.
 * The companies already made their decision to throw that money away rather than spend it stabilizing their businesses.
 * Nice CAPSLOCK uninformed opinion.


 * I think that they are doing the right thing. Why should these executives receives huge bonuses for running their company in the group and asking for a bailout??? These executives keep making stupid decisions all over.


 * Honestly, if you want the US to get out of this recession. Remove bad CEOs, Executives, etc... that keep making these stupid moves.


 * It's a bit more tricky than that. These CEOs had these bonuses written into their contracts regardless of their poor performance running their companies and the whole economy into the ground. The government is in a difficult legal position with trying to place conditions on companies like AIG. The idea of a new income tax law nicely sidesteps the legal gray area, it sounds pretty smart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.113.4 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bailoutrage
About 4 days ago, we "coined" the term "Bailoutrage" (The American Political Handbook, 3/15/2009) to describe the emotions experienced by some of the public over the AIG Bonus Payouts. A poll was posted alongside the term and its definition. The small response has so far been negative and the public seems to identify with this "new" emotion (strongly, in at least one case).

We identify with it strongly, but believe that we must temper our "Bailoutrage" against falling into AIG Hysteria (as one online news source described it). Further, it seems that some of these bonuses may have been repaid and the "Bailoutrage" should be lessened. Had the Obama administration truly expected this level of public outcry, we expect that they may have tried to more forcefully stop the AIG bailouts - which, it now appears, must be stopped at all costs. Had the previous administration been expecting this level of public outcry, we expect they would have went ahead anyway with allowing the bonus payments to proceed.

Punishment and penury seems unfair at this point, however. As some elected officials have pointed out that punishment ex post facto and Bills of Attainder are unconstitutional. The apparent equation is unconstitutional = unfair. But, is it fair to all?

No, it is not. Because some of us that were scheduled to receive monies through the omnibus spending plan are now finding that those monies have been stopped. For example, those disqualified from receiving unemployment payments will not receive their meager stimulus funds. (Meager being defined as a payment of some $ 25 per week). While some of us believe that the stoppage of those stimulus payments through a state-run apparatus is unfair, it may still be constitutional. What may be constitutional, may not have the appearance of fairness to all concerned. —66.51.146.94 16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not talking about the same thing anymore. --167.6.245.98 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent Bill
I love this. Company Executives have always been using bailout money to pad their own pockets instead of re-investing in their business. You only get taxed if it's a bonus, and if your company was bailed out. Seems perfectly logical to me. It's a good thing congress is looking out for the proletariat these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.6.245.98 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good god, yes. The very fact that the government gave money to companies with horrible management with no expectation that said management be replaced or the companies be accountable for the money they were given is ridiculous enough, but for the companies to then reward that management with millions and millions of taxpayer money? Those bonuses should be taxed 100% (maybe 100% less a dollar).

Chris Dodd personally removed the original provision to block the retention contracts at the will of T. Geintner. You cannot have the government breaking the sanctity of contracts. Perfectly legal binding contracts that the government doesn't like can be taken away from you at any time. Precedence is set.

Terrible Bill
This is going to get torn to shreds in the courts, a case of bad lawmaking at it's very worst. --Malleovic

The real outrage...
The problem here is NOT that people at AIG are getting retention bonuses. These bonus are part of a normal compensation package. The outrage is that anyone, and particularly Obama, CARES! Frankly, the issue makes me think Obama is trying to hide something else so he says "look what they are doing".

At this point, a number of people have pledged to return or returned bonuses. The pledges should be waived, and the returned retention bonuses re-offered.

As for taxing the retention bonuses: what that does is encourage the experienced senior personnel to leave AIG, thus hurting the company. Is this really what they want to do?

Having said all this, allow me to say that if these were performance bonuses, it would be a completely different matter.

--Divad271812 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)