Did you know that AIG has a lot more people than just those working at AIG financial, the people who has nothing to do with CDS contracts? To selectively target a group of people for taxation retroactively is idiotic and sets a very dangerous precedent.
Most of the bonuses were related to the financial department, not the insurance wing of the company. As for the others, I agree it's sucks for them. But guess what, many of us have suffered at the poor decision making of the company we work for. You can't say you are just a worked with no power when you are making $250K and getting a nice bonus by the way. Those folks are all at the exec level - and they made a choice to entrust the management of the company and tie their prosperity to it. They gain from it's success, and suffer with it's failure. Thats' capitalism. That's how it works in the corporate world. How about all the people who lost their jobs because of AIG? All the businesses that are suffering - all the millions of workers who didn't know that AIG was about to screw them even though they DID NOT EVEN WORK FOR THEM?
It isn't just the people making over $250k that could be affected by this bill. The bill references family income. You could be making 50k, and have you bonus taxed at 90% because your spouse makes 200k at a company receiving no government funds.
You cannot allow congress to pass these type of draconian tax laws. There is a very bad precedent being set here that will come back to roost in the future.
And if the government didn't provide the bailout, that 50k employee would be looking for work right now. Anyway, I don't believe many non-management types receive a substantial portion of their pay in the form of bonuses. And of those who do, not many have a household income > $250k. You're creating a hypothetical subset with few if any actual members.
165 million comes out to $.55 a person. "I want my 55 cents back!!" Just sacrifice up-sizing your meal at McDonalds next time. Look at the bigger picture and move on.
This would be fine with me if ... 1) This rule was known before companies took any bailout money and 2) If the government didn't try to force companies to take their bailout money like they did Obama and the federal government have overstepped their bounds by a mile.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you there. I am much more angry with Bush than I am with Obama. At least Obama is sticking with his principles and basically doing what everyone knew he would probably do. I voted for Bush and he stabbed me and every other fiscal conservative in the back and that is much worse IMO. That is actually why I stated "Obama and the Federal Government" because its not just democrats that are culpable in this madness.
That would be fair, if this had been a deal at the time the company accepted the funds. This is months after these people have been told by the government that we are bailing this company out, and to not to worry about their jobs. As unhappy as AIG makes me, this is such a ridiculous abuse of power, it upsets me even more.
Exactly. The bailout money should have had more strings attached, that would have solved a lot of this. Or, the government should have just completely taken over AIG and sold it off. And yes, some companies that didn't need or want TARP money were forced to take it anyways. This complicates things further.
I don't know what the "deal" was with regard to the funds, if there was any... I don't know that the people working for AIG who made >$250k had some sort of deal with the government, or that there is some sort of estoppel argument to be made that they were somehow put in a poorer position by the bailout. But it seems to me that if the government now owns 80% of AIG, they should be able to set some limits on employee compensation. No?
No that is not the federal government's responsibility or role if you believe in the free market. The government shouldn't be getting into an ownership position in any of these companies period!
They are able to set limits on employee compensation, and in fact, had their chances to do it, but they didn't. So no matter what people think, the right thing to do is allow these bonuses to be paid since they are contractual obligations and were allowed by the government. This is government allowing it to happen, seeing public outrage that it did happen, grandstand and give the appearance that they're furious about it, deny knowing the fact that they were allowed, and then trying to enact an unconstitutional piece of legislation to get the money back. The government never fails to amuse. The American people never fail to amuse either. The fact that we elect these idiots to office is even sadder than the above sequence of events.
When one party is the overwhelming majority, abuse of power is not only easy but expected. Contracts are no longer valid if Congress says they are not valid. Is this the first step toward the end of democracy as we know it? Only time and the next election will tell. Personally, I think the fix is in so it's time to hunker down and go with the flow.
My bro and I both work for companies (two competitors, amusingly) that were forced to take TARP cash, and our wives work too. And we live in NYC area where salaries are inflated thanks to cost of living. We're completely ****ed if this passes. Maybe I'll be a stay at home dad or something, since my wife's gig is pretty sweet, too, and god forbid we work hard and exceed the government's salary cap. To be honest, $250K cap per family anywhere in Manhattan is like a freaking backpack nuke exploded on Broad and Wall. Let the exodus begin. Jersey's looking pretty sweet right now. I think there should definitely be limits on comp on companies but a little more thought needs to be put into it. This reactive behavior is typical Beltway Bull****.
I would support any measure that allowed companies to give back the TARP cash and make it on their own, without bailout money. Those companies should be free of the new bailout company taxes discussed here. I completely sympathize with the sentiments being stated here, but it's a bit much to claim it's all "Beltway Bull****". There's alot of crap that we put up with from Washington, but it was the banks on Wall Street that put us in this financial mess to begin with.
There is a loophole here. If the company decides to 10x the bonus, then everyone will get the same money as before. Since the money will be footed by the government anyway, it makes financial sense to do that.
Do you realize that some people could end up in the hole from their bonuses? A 90% Fed, 1.45% Medicare, 3.648% Local Rate, 6.85% State, assuming NY City. Obviously different locations could lead to different rates. But it seems very possible that this could happen.
