Congress threatens to tax AIG executives' bonuses

Mar 17, 2009 Full story: news.yahoo.com 49
Congressional Democrats vowed Tuesday to all but strip AIG executives of their $165 million in bonuses as expressions of outrage swelled in Congress over eye-catching extra income for employees of a firm that has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds. Full Story
Seeking Truth

Dearborn Heights, MI

#24 Mar 17, 2009
There's no rest for the wicked.
lynnette

Lamoni, IA

#25 Mar 17, 2009
Danny_Livewire wrote:
The AIG executives are playing into the excuse needed for Obama to push through the tax increase on the extremely wealthy.....
Do it!
Agreed! It might be unconstitutional discrimination to tax folks who make over a cerain amount only if they worke for a corporation or financial institution that got tARP funds or some sort-of government bailout. so the answer is a steeply progressive tax on everyone making over - way $700,00 per couple. and a progressive - but not too steep - tax for incomes from $300,000 -$700,000 per couple. That would allow for the expense of living in certain areas, and would not be over-taxing the upper middle class. Byt tghe various echelons of the rich should be taxed more on income, on inheritance, on capital gainst, etc, etc, etc! Luxury jewelry, luxury cars and boats (especially imported ones - if we could get by with it!), and expensive jewelry and clothing (yes, go get Hollywood!) Maybe even wine and brandy - though the europeans would get angry and WTO might not like it! I do not favor unnecessary protectionism, violating agreements, that would start a protectionist trade war. That will hurt. But fair trade is needed.
lynnette

Lamoni, IA

#26 Mar 17, 2009
Scarlett wrote:
<quoted text>Sure you can. Just as there are "targeted" tax cuts to encourage a certain outcome, like for education....there can be "targeted" taxation...to encourage a certain outcome. The government has always given with one hand and taken with the other. These bonuses were undeserved because a failing company apparently did not earn enough money to pay bonuses. I dare to bet there are car salesmen out here who are still waiting on a commission check for cars they sold before the dealership closed the door. Why should these AIG people be protected with taxpayer money, when many people who worked for smaller businesses that failed did not get the same benefit?
Again, I understand your anger. But it may be slightly more complex. Some folks at AIG might not have been in the sections that did all the crooked 9but maybe not criminal) financial manipulations. If they were underpaid by industry standards, without the bonuses, and did their jobs properly, then they are not the ones who shold be penalized. Better to tax folks over a certain income -$700,000, O suggest, at a very steeply progressive rate. I doubt that only employees of corporations and institutions that get government subsidies can be taxed at the higher rate, without taxing others who earn that much, at least in the same way, from bonuses + base salary. It would be silly to do something unConstitutional, just to feel good! A legal and Constitutional course must be found. the contracts were negotiated when Paulson ws Secretay of treasury, and he did not protect us against them. Congress did attempt to put several restrictions and requirements on the bill, and Paulson did not obey them. In fact, he asked for the money to buy toxic assets, and did not spend it that way, even though by the time Congress got around to passing the bill, he had changed his mind already and had a different way i mind, for spending the funds. The law provided for $350 billion at that time -late Sept. or early October, I think, for Paulson (and later Kashkari) to spend, and $350 after it was requested and not blocked by both houses of Congress. I think Bush requested it, also. and the Senate did not block it. Both democras and repubicans voted for the Tarp funds, and both voted against it. some folks like to lie and say Democrats supported it - as if they all did. Democratic leaders did, and the populists did not. republican leaders did too - Boehner, Blunt, and Putnam. Boehner and Putnam even spoke in favor of it, saying it had to be done. But Putnam and Blunt were thrown out of the GOP Houise leadership (Boehner survived, he is very smooth) and were replaced with Pence (A slender rush Limbaugh!) and Cantor (Lantor?), who is also smooth and looks deceptively Mr. Nice guy fresh faced enthusiastic cheerleader type. I think Kantor is too ambitious to be evil. But it was nasty to Putnam and Blunt to ditch them for supporting Bush and Paulson. No loyalty among House Republicans - except to Rush maybe! Even some of the silly Democats were more loyal to Clinton when he was in trouble than Republicans were to Bush when he got into trouble in the public opinion polls.(Since I am from Iowa and supported Tom Harkin in l992, and not Clinton, for the Democratic nomination - I just voted for Clinton to oppose the worse Republican, and laughed the entire way through his Presidency, as if it were all theatre, a comedy of errors, at times! The idea of being loyal to such a man - why bother? He's a better actor than RR was, however, and I enjoy the entertainment, can't deny it!)
partisan blindness

United States

#27 Mar 17, 2009
lynnette wrote:
<quoted text> Agreed! It might be unconstitutional discrimination to tax folks who make over a cerain amount only if they worke for a corporation or financial institution that got tARP funds or some sort-of government bailout. so the answer is a steeply progressive tax on everyone making over - way $700,00 per couple. and a progressive - but not too steep - tax for incomes from $300,000 -$700,000 per couple. That would allow for the expense of living in certain areas, and would not be over-taxing the upper middle class. Byt tghe various echelons of the rich should be taxed more on income, on inheritance, on capital gainst, etc, etc, etc! Luxury jewelry, luxury cars and boats (especially imported ones - if we could get by with it!), and expensive jewelry and clothing (yes, go get Hollywood!) Maybe even wine and brandy - though the europeans would get angry and WTO might not like it! I do not favor unnecessary protectionism, violating agreements, that would start a protectionist trade war. That will hurt. But fair trade is needed.
Bill Clinton tried a sur tax on yachts and that didn't go over well.

The result was layoffs for those employeed to build them.

Are you advocating unemployment for those who build, make or sell the items you mentioned?
Scarlett

Lithonia, GA

#28 Mar 17, 2009
lynnette wrote:
<quoted text> Again, I understand your anger. But it may be slightly more complex. Some folks at AIG might not have been in the sections that did all the crooked 9but maybe not criminal) financial manipulations. If they were underpaid by industry standards, without the bonuses, and did their jobs properly, then they are not the ones who shold be penalized. Better to tax folks over a certain income -$700,000, O suggest, at a very steeply progressive rate. I doubt that only employees of corporations and institutions that get government subsidies can be taxed at the higher rate, without taxing others who earn that much, at least in the same way, from bonuses + base salary. It would be silly to do something unConstitutional, just to feel good! A legal and Constitutional course must be found. the contracts were negotiated when Paulson ws Secretay of treasury, and he did not protect us against them. Congress did attempt to put several restrictions and requirements on the bill, and Paulson did not obey them. In fact, he asked for the money to buy toxic assets, and did not spend it that way, even though by the time Congress got around to passing the bill, he had changed his mind already and had a different way i mind, for spending the funds. The law provided for $350 billion at that time -late Sept. or early October, I think, for Paulson (and later Kashkari) to spend, and $350 after it was requested and not blocked by both houses of Congress. I think Bush requested it, also. and the Senate did not block it. Both democras and repubicans voted for the Tarp funds, and both voted against it. some folks like to lie and say Democrats supported it - as if they all did. Democratic leaders did, and the populists did not. republican leaders did too - Boehner, Blunt, and Putnam. Boehner and Putnam even spoke in favor of it, saying it had to be done. But Putnam and Blunt were thrown out of the GOP Houise leadership (Boehner survived, he is very smooth) and were replaced with Pence (A slender rush Limbaugh!) and Cantor (Lantor?), who is also smooth and looks deceptively Mr. Nice guy fresh faced enthusiastic cheerleader type. I think Kantor is too ambitious to be evil. But it was nasty to Putnam and Blunt to ditch them for supporting Bush and Paulson. No loyalty among House Republicans - except to Rush maybe! Even some of the silly Democats were more loyal to Clinton when he was in trouble than Republicans were to Bush when he got into trouble in the public opinion polls.(Since I am from Iowa and supported Tom Harkin in l992, and not Clinton, for the Democratic nomination - I just voted for Clinton to oppose the worse Republican, and laughed the entire way through his Presidency, as if it were all theatre, a comedy of errors, at times! The idea of being loyal to such a man - why bother? He's a better actor than RR was, however, and I enjoy the entertainment, can't deny it!)
If a company files for bankruptcy or closes the doors due to insolvency...as AIG should have technically done...everyone who works there or under that umbrella has to go down with the ship. Sad but true, despite the fact, many of the employees could have been doing wonderful jobs and even making the company money...just not enough to keep it afloat. This happens in all businesses...from Bear Sterns to GM to T.G.I.Fridays to Pops corner store. Good people get hurt.

I guess I fall into that category. I supported TARP. I still support it in principal IF it is effective. It has proved to be ineffective in handling AIG.

It occurred to me a minute ago. It is not that AIG is too big to fail, it is that they are too big to succeed, especially in these economic times.

We need to cut our losses and get a new plan to handle their situation quickly, before they suck the very life out of this economy. I think we are just prolonging the inevitable with them.
Scarlett

Lithonia, GA

#29 Mar 17, 2009
lynnette wrote:
<quoted text> Again, I understand your anger. But it may be slightly more complex. Some folks at AIG might not have been in the sections that did all the crooked 9but maybe not criminal) financial manipulations. If they were underpaid by industry standards, without the bonuses, and did their jobs properly, then they are not the ones who shold be penalized.....
If a company files for bankruptcy or closes the doors due to insolvency...as AIG should have technically done...everyone who works there or under that umbrella has to go down with the ship. Sad but true, despite the fact, many of the employees could have been doing wonderful jobs and even making the company money...just not enough to keep it afloat. This happens in all businesses...from Bear Sterns to GM to T.G.I.Fridays to Pops corner store. Good people get hurt.

I guess I fall into that category. I supported TARP. I still support it in principal IF it is effective. It has proved to be ineffective in handling AIG.

It occurred to me a minute ago. It is not that AIG is too big to fail, it is that they are too big to succeed, especially in these economic times.

We need to cut our losses and get a new plan to handle their situation quickly, before they suck the very life out of this economy. I think we are just prolonging the inevitable with them. I will not comment on Mr. Paulson except to say regardless of what anyone says, he was an idiot where this crisis was concerned and I can not believe he is still around.
Scarlett

Lithonia, GA

#30 Mar 17, 2009
SORRY for the double posts. Something jammed up while I was posting and there was a delay in it showing up.
JusticeShouldRul e

Niceville, FL

#31 Mar 18, 2009
Has anyone here ever got a Bonus that you didn"t have to pay taxes on? I haven"t. Why should those AH"s get away with it?
ho hum

Milledgeville, GA

#32 Mar 18, 2009
Scarlett wrote:
<quoted text>If a company files for bankruptcy or closes the doors due to insolvency...as AIG should have technically done...
AIG has done neither one. Instead of letting them sink, the privately owned Federal Reserve has bought 80% of their stock.

Furthermore, Geithner and Obama KNEW these bonuses were coming up months ago.

IN FACT, Chris Dodd wrote the amendment to the bailout bill that allowed them:

Chris Dodd Amendment Permitted AIG to Hand Out Millions of Bailout Dollars in Bonuses
http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/03/17/chri...

You are being taken for a sucker. You are being used.
fanclub

Sudbury, MA

#34 Mar 18, 2009
I'm sure the invisible hand will sort all this out and we'll all end up winners! Capitalism is the solution. Government needs to step out of the way. Yeah, right.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Floresville, TX

#35 Mar 18, 2009
jon wrote:
geitner is looking more and more awkward.
Geithner = Overworked, Overpaid, & In Over his head.

Obama will have to fire him soon since this scandal is closing in on his sorry arse.
mayo420

Baltimore, MD

#36 Mar 18, 2009
Scarlett wrote:
<quoted text>Sure you can. Just as there are "targeted" tax cuts to encourage a certain outcome, like for education....there can be "targeted" taxation...to encourage a certain outcome. The government has always given with one hand and taken with the other. These bonuses were undeserved because a failing company apparently did not earn enough money to pay bonuses. I dare to bet there are car salesmen out here who are still waiting on a commission check for cars they sold before the dealership closed the door. Why should these AIG people be protected with taxpayer money, when many people who worked for smaller businesses that failed did not get the same benefit?
The basis is simple. When these execs signed on they were provided a contract. If it wasn't ethical then somebody should have researched that BEFORE the contracts were signed. The contracts are both vague and specific, but fully enforcable until someone can prove a criminal act took place.

The bail-out was provided, by congress, with the provision that all contracts before about Feb.11 would be honored. These executives did not steal their bonus money(not that we know of yet), they were graciously given exactly what they asked for and was promised.

Unscrupulous scoundrels? Makes no difference, both parties signed on the line. Pay the 165 mil and don't let it happen again.
Scarlett

Lithonia, GA

#37 Mar 18, 2009
ho hum wrote:
<quoted text>
AIG has done neither one. Instead of letting them sink, the privately owned Federal Reserve has bought 80% of their stock.
Furthermore, Geithner and Obama KNEW these bonuses were coming up months ago.
IN FACT, Chris Dodd wrote the amendment to the bailout bill that allowed them:
Chris Dodd Amendment Permitted AIG to Hand Out Millions of Bailout Dollars in Bonuses
http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/03/17/chri...
You are being taken for a sucker. You are being used.
Firstly,I am not coming at this issue from any political persuasion. I could care less who from what party did what. If it is right, I call it. If it is wrong, I call it. I knew these bonuses were coming too. I am frustrated that nothing was done to stop it before they were handed out. There should have been specific stipulations handed down with ALL of the TARP money.

One thing is certain, you don't pay a "bonus" (which is usually based on positive performance) to employees when a company is in the tank. AIG could have refused to pay and waited for the suits to come. I strongly believe they would have won because of the economic circumstances and the TARP money.

And while we are debating over 165 million dollars, we are not addressing the core issues. Congress should be having hearings about TARP money stipulations and "immediate" oversight changes.

Ackerman pointed out that in truth this company was taking premiums but did not have the capital to back of the claims for these policies for credit swaps. How was this allowed to happen? And should a company that deals in "snake oil" as he put it, really be allowed to stay in business.

They have proved dangerous to our national economic security. They need to be broken up, not with a hammer, but with a surgical knife...to do the least damage.
Scarlett

Lithonia, GA

#38 Mar 18, 2009
BREAKING NEWS: AIG WILL breakup in 4 years! per AIG CEO via CNN
ho hum

Hardwick, GA

#39 Mar 18, 2009
Scarlett wrote:
<quoted text>Firstly,I am not coming at this issue from any political persuasion. I could care less who from what party did what. If it is right, I call it. If it is wrong, I call it. I knew these bonuses were coming too. I am frustrated that nothing was done to stop it before they were handed out. There should have been specific stipulations handed down with ALL of the TARP money.
One thing is certain, you don't pay a "bonus" (which is usually based on positive performance) to employees when a company is in the tank. AIG could have refused to pay and waited for the suits to come. I strongly believe they would have won because of the economic circumstances and the TARP money.
And while we are debating over 165 million dollars, we are not addressing the core issues. Congress should be having hearings about TARP money stipulations and "immediate" oversight changes.
Ackerman pointed out that in truth this company was taking premiums but did not have the capital to back of the claims for these policies for credit swaps. How was this allowed to happen? And should a company that deals in "snake oil" as he put it, really be allowed to stay in business.
They have proved dangerous to our national economic security. They need to be broken up, not with a hammer, but with a surgical knife...to do the least damage.
It's a diversion. While you are mad at a corporation over 165,000,000 in legitimate bonuses, you are oblivious to the 93,000,000,000 - that's BILLION - that was passed THRU AIG and into the coffers of 3 European banks AND GOLDMAN SACHS.

And if you think it is not a political matter, you are dangerously out of touch.
No One Important

United States

#40 Mar 18, 2009
Welllllllllll welllllllllllllllllllllll..... ..

Democrats are NOW yelling it was the ADMINISTRATION, OBAMA with Rahm Emanual that WROTE THE LANGUAGE TO PROTECT THOSE AIG BONUSES, when it was in committee.

The SAME Obama who took over 100K from AIG for his CAMPAIGN.

Welllllllllll welllllllllllllll welllllllllllllllllll.....

Again, so much for the bullsh*t that Obama has been blathering to the nation about his fake outrage, huh?

THEY were the ones that STEPPED IN and PUT that language in. And other democrats are RUNNING FOR THE HILLS to get away from Obama.

Much as it pains me to let DODD off the hook, I guess we REALLY know who the scum bag is....

And when they did that? THEY CLEARLY KNEW ABOUT THE BONUSES...while he claims to all of you out there that HES as shocked as YOU are......

Sayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bye bye to those approvals Obama-spend-o-rama
Scarlett

Lithonia, GA

#41 Mar 18, 2009
ho hum wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a diversion. While you are mad at a corporation over 165,000,000 in legitimate bonuses, you are oblivious to the 93,000,000,000 - that's BILLION - that was passed THRU AIG and into the coffers of 3 European banks AND GOLDMAN SACHS.
And if you think it is not a political matter, you are dangerously out of touch.
Read my post again. I addressed the issue that 165 million in bonuses was not the core problem with this issue. Ho hum, at some point, the truth will be revealed. Just like the case with Dodd being the one who put the bonus clause in. He said he didn't on Thursday (adamantly) and today, when the heat was on, fessed up. I think the issues you raise ARE important and WILL be addressed, especially as AIG dismantles. CNN just reported the CEO said AIG will breakup within 4 years. We just need to make certain we follow that money. But unlike you, I am not going to play politics with it. My only concern is the American people and that they are being told the truth and being treated fairly.
Scarlett

Lithonia, GA

#42 Mar 18, 2009
I suspect..maybe unfairly...but based on his obliviousness to the circumstances of our economic collapse...that Paulson is the rat behind all of this, from the bonus fiasco to the money wrangling with AIG. I could be wrong...but I feel it.
ho hum

Hardwick, GA

#43 Mar 18, 2009
Scarlett wrote:
<quoted text>Read my post again. I addressed the issue that 165 million in bonuses was not the core problem with this issue. Ho hum, at some point, the truth will be revealed. Just like the case with Dodd being the one who put the bonus clause in. He said he didn't on Thursday (adamantly) and today, when the heat was on, fessed up. I think the issues you raise ARE important and WILL be addressed, especially as AIG dismantles. CNN just reported the CEO said AIG will breakup within 4 years. We just need to make certain we follow that money. But unlike you, I am not going to play politics with it. My only concern is the American people and that they are being told the truth and being treated fairly.
We need to demand an end to the trillions of dollars the government is spending - PERIOD.

Every dollar we spend must be borrowed.

Every new dollar we put into circulation devalues our currency even more.

Every dollar we borrow puts us further at the mercy of our lender, mainly China and European Bankers.

watch this:
ho hum

Hardwick, GA

#44 Mar 18, 2009
Scarlett wrote:
I suspect..maybe unfairly...but based on his obliviousness to the circumstances of our economic collapse...that Paulson is the rat behind all of this, from the bonus fiasco to the money wrangling with AIG. I could be wrong...but I feel it.
You are too superficial. It is MUCH deeper than one person - or even one party.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

American International Group Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
American General Finance Layoffs (Nov '08) Mar 4 Springleaf 5,667
Ten Most Excellent XviD WMV to MOV Converter Ar... (Mar '09) Dec '14 gallagherrobby 3
Paulson Distances Himself From A.I.G. Payments (Jan '10) Dec '14 Swedenforever 13
Bank bailout plans loosen credit markets a bit;... (Sep '08) Sep '14 hubertfields00 8
AIG Prepares to Pay About $100 Million in Bonuses (Feb '10) Jun '14 swedenforever 4
Aig Ceo's Son Was Paid $102,549 From September ... (Apr '14) Jun '14 kateysmith 2
Paulson defends Merrill Lynch deal (Jul '09) Jun '14 swedenforever 5
More from around the web