Vote on 90% tax on Bonuses to Happen TODAY

[Gerr]

Quote:

More than knee -jerk it is putting into law the practise of the government penalizing those that have broken no law.

Yeah. The rich & powerful white collar crime violates no law because they set the rules of: Heads I win & tails you lose!

What was the name of that NYSE official that was making over $100 millions (yes, millions) whether it's a bull or bear market?

A bonus, as the word implies, is a reward for doing good, but Wall St. seems to have turned the rules upside down!

[bonnie]

Quote:

More than knee -jerk it is putting into law the practise of the government penalizing those that have broken no law.

Yeah. The rich & powerful white collar crime violates no law because they set the rules of: Heads I win & tails you lose!

What was the name of that NYSE official that was making over $100 millions (yes, millions) whether it's a bull or bear market?

A bonus, as the word implies, is a reward for doing good, but Wall St. seems to have turned the rules upside down!

I have no clue who you are talking about. Do you know he did so illegally?

On the contrary,white collar crimes are crimes. Many are punished. Much of what others wish to see as a penalty for the rich is simply because they are rich and deserve it. Or if they are rich they certainly must be crooks.

In this case the rich that set the rules start with those that drafted the rules and regulations for the mortgage industry. SubPrime lenders did not write the rules. The rules they played by was the rules the politicians set. The notion that everyone deserved and was entitled to own their own home goes to the politicians. Not everyone deserves to be a home owner. There is no right to owning your own home. That is a privilege that comes to those that exercise their rights to pursue home ownership with hard work and within their means.

Nor did subprime lenders go out into the streets and hogtie a perspective borrower and threaten to break their fingers if they didn't sign.

If they are old enough to qualify for a mortgage and can read there is no excuse for not knowing what is in the contract.

If they don't understand maybe 300.00 for an attorney to go over would be smart. If they lack the 300.00 for that they should not be trying to buy a house.

Now we reward them if they lied,they are promised help. The government taking the right away from the lender and setting the terms for the borrower IF the borrower lied.

Maybe not to others but there is something just a little skewed about that.

Maybe you should look up what retention bonuses are all about. If a employer gives a employee a bonus it is no one's business to determine if or how much.

These bonuses were contracted for prior to the bailout. No one's business. After the bailout and it's terms passed the president's approval, Chris Dodd and others it still was no one's business. They knew what the terms of the bailout contract stated. President Obama certainly knew as he promised the american people he would go line by line.Amazing how many people hate the rich. Is it because they aren't?

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

More than knee -jerk it is putting into law the practise of the government penalizing those that have broken no law.

Yeah. The rich & powerful white collar crime violates no law because they set the rules of: Heads I win & tails you lose!

What was the name of that NYSE official that was making over $100 millions (yes, millions) whether it's a bull or bear market?

A bonus, as the word implies, is a reward for doing good, but Wall St. seems to have turned the rules upside down!

What you may not realize is that in the 850 billion stimulus package there was wording to forbid companies that received aid from the federal government to not get any bonuses until the money is paid but BUT President Obama had had that section of the bill REMOVED. So you see by President Obamas own urging receiving those bonuses was not criminal but legal.

Now that there is such a public outcry the VERY congressmen who voted for the bill which did NOT forbid the bonuses now try take it back post facto (After the fact).

I doubt that will stand up in the courts.

[Gerr]

My point, Bonnie & Cyberguy, is that what the rich and powerful have been doing is NOT illegal because there was no law to proscribe what they were doing. They have set the rules themselves. But tell me if there is not something wrong when someone is given a bonus while the company is sinking!!! Tell me if there is not something wrong when someone at the stock exchange receive over $100 mil even in a bear market??? Tell me if that is not tantamount to stealing from the poor investors whose stocks have already depreciated in value!!!

There are many things done in the planet that are not illegal but clearly immoral or unethical, IMHO. For example: Do you ever raise an eyebrow when you hear about the results of a study praising to high heavens the efficacy of a certain drug but the researchers were subsidized by the makers of the drug? I don't know if it has been outlawed, but in the past, pharmaceutical companies could take doctors on junkets if they prescribed certain drugs or to induce them to prescribe certain drugs. Not illegal, but I question the ethics and morality of it.

[Neil D]

In trying to get a bearing on my lostness......

Per NPR, Obama says that using the tax code is not a good idea to punish....

So, the legislature is now looking a bit foolish....using law to vent thier emotional anger.....

....definately not a good idea.....and dangerous....

...fortunately, the senate is a bit more sound/reasonable in it's legislation....

[olger]

The whole thing looks like a dog's breakfast to me..

[phkrause]

Good post Gerry.

pk

[bonnie]

Quote:

My point, Bonnie & Cyberguy, is that what the rich and powerful have been doing is NOT illegal because there was no law to proscribe what they were doing. They have set the rules themselves. But tell me if there is not something wrong when someone is given a bonus while the company is sinking!!! Tell me if there is not something wrong when someone at the stock exchange receive over $100 mil even in a bear market??? Tell me if that is not tantamount to stealing from the poor investors whose stocks have already depreciated in value!!!

I doubt those on Wall Street write the rules they are to operate buy. If that were so people like Martha Stewart would not have gone to jail. Are there those that circumvent the rules?? Of course there is.

The people that were topic of this discussion contracted for a specific bonus before it was anyone's business except the employee and employer. If you don't like the fine print of a company stay away. I have no idea if the man you refer as making millions in a bear market did anything wrong.He may have simply taken advantage of laws that allowed him to do so.

Immoral from a lot of people's viewpoint?? Probably. Many people commit immoral acts every day. Go after your congressmen/women and senator's to close the loop holes. Bet they themselves are not to interested in doing so

Quote:

There are many things done in the planet that are not illegal but clearly immoral or unethical, IMHO. For example: Do you ever raise an eyebrow when you hear about the results of a study praising to high heavens the efficacy of a certain drug but the researchers were subsidized by the makers of the drug? I don't know if it has been outlawed, but in the past, pharmaceutical companies could take doctors on junkets if they prescribed certain drugs or to induce them to prescribe certain drugs. Not illegal, but I question the ethics and morality of it.

Personally,I am very happy the drug companies drop in on our DR. I don't have a problem with researchers being hired by drug companies either. As far as I know the buck stops with the FDA as to safety and the integrity of testing.

Many times I have been grateful for the drug companies that may or may not take our DR on a little junket.

Over the years we have received hundred's if not thousands of dollars in free medication. If my husbands DR is prescribing new and if expensive will give a month or two supply at no cost. If it doesn't work he does not prescribe or push.

What profit would you approve for the drug companies?

Just prior to my husband going on prescription drug insurance he was prescribed a very expensive drug. At the time I didn't know the cost . I thought how expensive can one prescription be. Soon found out. It was 326.00 I called my DR to see if he felt it urgent for my husband to begin and he said a couple of days would not matter. I told the pharmacy I would wait for the insurance to kick in. She offered it to me at the price the pharmacy paid. That was 150.00.

Said no thanks,will wait for the insurance. Is the pharmacy making to much of a profit? How many ways does a pharmacy have to split that profit?

How many years and how much failure do the drug companies have to go thru before bringing a drug to market. How much risk even after approved do they face. Unless prescribing a drug just to be proscribing,I don't see much immoral or unethical. These immoral or illegal drug companies and DR's have saved my husband's life several times

[phkrause]

I look at bonuses this way: a ball player, being it basketball, baseball, football, etc. They sign a contract with bonuses built in. If there performance goes beyond what there contract calls for, like if you get to 50 homers, or 35 touchdowns, or 50 points per game for 10 games in a row, etc. We will give you X amount of dollars. I've always taken bonuses to be paid if your company has made money and can afford to pay them. Not if your company is in the red, than how can they pay if they supposedly have no money. Which from what I heard was the case with AIG. The department that got the bonuses was the department that lost all the money! And even though the other 9 departments made money, the 1 that didn't, lost more than the others made. Obviously we'll have people on either side of this issue for a long time.

pk

[bonnie]

I look at bonuses this way: a ball player, being it basketball, baseball, football, etc. They sign a contract with bonuses built in. If there performance goes beyond what there contract calls for, like if you get to 50 homers, or 35 touchdowns, or 50 points per game for 10 games in a row, etc. We will give you X amount of dollars. I've always taken bonuses to be paid if your company has made money and can afford to pay them. Not if your company is in the red, than how can they pay if they supposedly have no money. Which from what I heard was the case with AIG. The department that got the bonuses was the department that lost all the money! And even though the other 9 departments made money, the 1 that didn't, lost more than the others made. Obviously we'll have people on either side of this issue for a long time.

pk

Does it matter how you or I may look at bonuses or when they should be paid? We don't set the rules for a business paying bonuses. This is about the intent and desire of the federal government from president on down to target and punish those that had a legally binding contract. Making the matter worse was the show that was put on by the "mighty defenders of the taxpayer" Pretending ignorance and shock at what they had already given the go-ahead to.

That made a lot of people happy to hear. Wonder in time when that is another group if SDA's will be as gleeful.

Wonder how happy you would be as a lender that would now be told a judge can now determine how much is fair that I owe you? And as a added bonus for lies give me 1,000.00 a year to pay down the already discounted mortgage. Good deal if you have lied on your mortgage

Not real familiar with sports but do know many times I have heard they are receiving a sign on bonus. Before they have played and shown their worth.

Talk about highly paid. Because I see it as a total waste perhaps they need to quit. Any ball player according to what has been said in various posts should forgo that and play for the love of the game and doing their best.

Fat chance. They will go for what the market will bear

[Neil D]

I look at bonuses this way: a ball player, being it basketball, baseball, football, etc. They sign a contract with bonuses built in. If there performance goes beyond what there contract calls for, like if you get to 50 homers, or 35 touchdowns, or 50 points per game for 10 games in a row, etc. We will give you X amount of dollars. I've always taken bonuses to be paid if your company has made money and can afford to pay them. Not if your company is in the red, than how can they pay if they supposedly have no money. Which from what I heard was the case with AIG. The department that got the bonuses was the department that lost all the money! And even though the other 9 departments made money, the 1 that didn't, lost more than the others made. Obviously we'll have people on either side of this issue for a long time.

pk

If you were working for a company that made profit, your bonuses are valid. You worked to help the company make a profit. Doesn't matter if you, the company, are the baseball company, telephone company, oil company...the employee, who helps make money SHOULD be given a share of the profits. But if you are outsourcing your expenses, if you have more out go than in come, it doesn't matter what the bonuses are....The money isn't there.

Now, if you get an investor who invests about 80% of your company's value and you are losing INCOME, you still don't have INCOME...You just got a temporary fix and have time to correct your companys gapping/hemorraging wound.

If you have complicated contracts that ONE person negotiated, it might be a good idea to pay a bonus for a time, to keep his expertise on board of the company. That is what is this current uproar is over...This is kinda foriegn to me, but apparently a necessary expense.

I still think that these are negotiable, we need to renegotiate these bonuses....The company still doesn't have the money, and these contracts were negotiated under more favorable economic conditions, to which these have worsened at this time.

as for all this conspiracy stuff, I don't think so...Obama and Dodd were given around $100K by AIG, but that's nothing new. McCain was given something near $100K, and Hillery was given $50K, and the list goes on....company hedges thier bets and attempt to buy influence...So far, Obama has continued to remain on his course and said the bonuses are not good. Now, he's saying that the tax laws against these bonuses are PROBABLY unconstitutional. He seems to be asking for this mess to be cleaned up, not bandaged fix, which this is what these recent 90% tax against the bonuses are.

Obama was given a mess, to which he is attempting to clean up...Dodd, and Berneski et al are trying to clean it up and are up front with the dealings...With all the overtheshoulder reading of what's happening by news organizations, no wonder there is another mess reported.. I don't think that there is a conspiracy here.

And you guys are are jumping in here and saying "OMG, look at how much these people/companys are in bed with these politicians."....AWwww, give them time, allow the congress to quit playing politics and mirroring the public's attitude [which makes the situation worse] and let calmer heads prevail. Call your senator and tell him to look at the whole picture and not react to the public's outrage. Fix the problem, which is the culture, and the symmptoms [ie retention bonuses] will disappear.

[phkrause]

You know what I was thinking Neil, had they let these companies just go under, this problem would never have arisen. I think that had they let them go under, they could have or some one else would have taken there place. All this stuff just seems bogus to me!

pk

[Neil D]

You know what I was thinking Neil, had they let these companies just go under, this problem would never have arisen. I think that had they let them go under, they could have or some one else would have taken there place. All this stuff just seems bogus to me!

pk

This this thought thru abit....

What type of company is AIG?

It's an insurance company....IOWs, it insures your home mortgage...you can't pay your mortgage, then these guys step into the gap, and pay off the banks...banks repo your home, and resell it, and return the money to AIG [or a portion there of] and everyone 'cept you is happy...

Now, you default, AIG defaults on your ,mortgage and the bank is left with the bill. It has a big debt, now..Due to rules of banking, it has to have ON HAND, a certain amount of cash per X[debt]. X=a percentage amount....IOWs, for every $1 it loans out, it has to have [say] 30 cents on hand. When AIG defaulted, the amount of debt the banks incurred, went up...without the corresponding amount of cash on hand. The bailout is now a credit to the bank, to offset the amount of cash on hand.

So, AIG folds, and goes under...All the banks now have these debts reversed upon thier accounts, and they now have NO credit available to them. YOu going into the bank to borrow, and they say, sorry, we don't have the cash on hand to loan you the money. This mega company now affects every bank in the country, and credit has dried up....You have to have a loan to pay your employees...guess what, you can't....You have to make cuts in your workforce...or fold yourself...

So, that's roughly how it works.

You see what is happening? Save AIG, and you get to save your employees jobs...

[phkrause]

I do understand what you are saying Neil. I still don't like it!!!!!!!!! OK! Its not just AIG, there are so many people unemployed and not enough jobs to go around. When the economy does get better I think many companies will realize that they don't need some of those they've laid off, and many will still be unemployed.

pk

[bonnie]

I do understand what you are saying Neil. I still don't like it!!!!!!!!! OK! Its not just AIG, there are so many people unemployed and not enough jobs to go around. When the economy does get better I think many companies will realize that they don't need some of those they've laid off, and many will still be unemployed.

pk

If they realize they do not need those they laid off,would you actually expect them to rehire that which they don't need.

They will be doing as people always have. Look for another job where they are needed or create their own.

Just received from congresswoman Michelle Bachman......

Bachmann Questions AIG CEO Edward Liddy about Taxpayer-Funded Bonuses

As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, I had the opportunity to directly question AIG’s Chief Executive Officer last week about the $165 million in retention bonuses that have created such a blizzard of outrage in Washington over the past week. As I noted at that hearing, I am just stunned by the audacity of executives who even as they were able to retain their jobs by the grace of hard-working taxpayers are unwilling to deny their million-dollar bonuses.

And, I was equally stunned by the outrage professed by so many in Washington who were complicit in this situation. First of all, these bonuses were not a surprise. They were public knowledge as far back as May 2008 – long before the U.S. government started to pump taxpayer dollars into this financial giant. The Federal Reserve, led by New York Fed President Timothy Geithner, who is now US Treasury Secretary, was part of an AIG working group established to specifically discuss the bonuses in November 2008. My colleague, Elijah Cummings (D-MD), was writing about them back in November on his Huffington Post blog.

Second of all, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) airdropped language into the “stimulus” bill passed last month that explicitly permitted these bonuses to be paid. And, he says he inserted that language at the behest of the Obama Treasury Department. Simultaneously, a bipartisan amendment to the “stimulus” bill offered by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) that would have blocked these bonuses and others was somehow removed during the backroom conference committee meetings where the final “stimulus” bill was written.

As you’ll recall, I voted against the “stimulus” bill. Aside from my serious concerns about the provisions of the $792-billion package, I also had concerns about the fact that its 1073 pages were only provided to Members of Congress hours before we started debate. Members couldn’t have been expected to read and understand what they were voting on. And, the American people never benefit from such slipshod legislating.

Finally, the circus-like atmosphere in Washington last week about the AIG bonuses is exactly what we should expect when Congress inserts itself into the Board Room and acts as a corporate board of directors. And, when Congress passed – without my support – the $700-billion bailout, that’s exactly what occurred. Given reports that the public debt will surpassed an historic $11 trillion this year, is there any doubt that Congress is singularly unqualified to run a business?

Tomorrow, I hope to have the opportunity as a member of the Financial Services Committee to question Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke about AIG and the TARP. I’m looking forward to this chance to hear directly from them about these very important topics.

[there buster]

Meanwhile, yet another Democrat doesn't pay his fair share (via the LA Times)

Quote:

Oh-oh, looks like more tax troubles for another Democrat in Washington.

California's Rep. Pete Stark, a senior House Democrat who helps write the nation's tax laws, has been claiming a $1.7 million Maryland home as his principal residence in recent years, although he represents the Golden State's 13th District on the east side of San Francisco Bay.

Veteran California Democratic Representative Pete Stark took tax benefits on a Maryland home as his principal residence

The 77-year-old Stark has saved himself nearly $3,900 in state and county taxes by claiming the six-acre waterfront estate as his principal residence, according to an investigation by Bloomberg News.

Maryland law allows the tax break only to those residences used "for the legal purposes of voting, obtaining a driver's license, and filing income tax returns."

Notified of the discovery, a state official said an investigation would be launched.

Stark tells Bloomberg, "Insofar as I know, I'm obeying the law."

Now in his 19th congressional term, the liberal Democrat and one of several Californians in House leadership under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, confirmed that he and his wife Deborah are indeed not registered to vote in Maryland.

He said they use her parents' address in San Lorenzo to maintain their California voting eligibility.

Stark would save another $3,770 under the same claim this year. He is the second-ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. Members of Congress recently allowed their $4,700 pay raises for 2009 to take effect, a total spending increase of $2.5 million a year. They now each earn $174,000 annually.

Although much recent congressional attention has focused on corporate bonuses in New York, taxes seem to be the problem de la saison for Washington Democrats this winter.

Timothy Geithner had to pay thousands in back taxes before his confirmation as President Obama's secretary of the Treasury. Ex-Sen. Tom Daschle withdrew his name as secretary of Health and Human Services after revelations that he had paid $140,000 in back taxes and penalties on unreported benefits.

Nancy Kelleher, who was to be chief performance review officer for the new administration, also withdrew her name over a back-tax issue.

Another California Democrat, Rep. Hilda Solis, was confirmed as Obama's secretary of Labor when her husband paid up some 16 years of back local tax liens.

Earlier this month another Democrat, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, had his similar Maryland state tax disallowed by officials for the same reasons, his home there not really being his principal residence.

They raise taxes, they just don't pay them!

[Woody]

This is terrible. It seems like one after another is doing this. Thanks for posting this Ichabod. And like others have said ... "This is change".

[carolaa]

in the 850 billion stimulus package there was wording to forbid companies that received aid from the federal government to not get any bonuses until the money is paid but BUT President Obama had had that section of the bill REMOVED. So you see by President Obamas own urging receiving those bonuses was not criminal but legal.

Now that there is such a public outcry the VERY congressmen who voted for the bill which did NOT forbid the bonuses now try take it back post facto (After the fact).

I doubt that will stand up in the courts.

No, it will not stand up in the courts. That's the reason Obama took it out in the first place. What they were trying to do was unconstitutional.

[Woody]

Oh. I thought Obama said that he was 'shocked' that it was taken out and that he would do everything in his power to see that the bonuses were taken care of. Which is it?

[bonnie]

Oh. I thought Obama said that he was 'shocked' that it was taken out and that he would do everything in his power to see that the bonuses were taken care of. Which is it?

Another question might be is how the paying of bonuses was made public or maybe why.

They knew it,approved it and then were shocked and appalled and put on a very righteous show.

[Woody]

Ya got that right Bonnie.

[Neil D]

Oooh you guys....

The politicians responded to your anger and to bonnies anger and to every other person who ccalled, wrote email, and snail mail and complained about "bonuses for them money grubbing financiers who let AIG go bust and forced the US TAXPAYER to bail them out!"...Yeah, the politicians responded, knowing full well that they can make political hay out of it.

They knew that there will be a challenge to this law by someone, and they know that it will be struck down....by the Supreme Court....that was loaded up with Republicans....

You guys are so easily manipulated....The republicans get another black eye...

What you guys need to do, is do your job....quit being short sighted for 2010...DO YOUR STUPID JOB, POLITICAINS.

[bonnie]

As I knew nothing about the bonuses till the administration and friends postured and preened in righteous zeal over what they already knew and approved of I was not angry at all. Waste of time but if it were to make me angry it would be at the president,Barny Frank,Chris Dodd and others.

It still would be interesting to know who put the bonus story complete with correct dollar amount out there to make people angry. I doubt many e-mailed or contacted until someone made sure the story was out there.

I think the ones that are easily manipulated may be the ones that see nothing wrong with what was done.