Congress threatens to tax AIG executi...

Congress threatens to tax AIG executives' bonuses

There are 49 comments on the story from Mar 17, 2009, titled Congress threatens to tax AIG executives' bonuses. In it, reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
ho hum

Jasper, GA

#45 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.
The one thing a fish is least likely to understand, is the water in which it swims.

United States

#46 Mar 18, 2009
ho hum wrote:
<quoted text>
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: =jeYscnFpEyAXX
Okay...those points you make may be true. What is the alternative? We have been broke, as someone pointed out, since the 1930's. We already owe foreign debts to China and parts unknown, as you pointed out. However, without capital to keep this market rolling, we come to a standstill. So what do we do? Cry mercy and have these banks and China call in their chips or try to parlay those loans into investments, jobs, education, and everything we need to continue to compete in the global market? Or let's forget global, without those loans, how does small business on our main streets manufacture, sell, employ, pay, and insure? To allow us to have a roof over our head, food to eat, and schools for our children to attend? What can we do to assure we have these necessities without stimulating the economy? I have not yet heard an alternative from anyone. This is where I see Republicans standing in a state of deniability of what is really going on. I am keenly aware of the debts and risks...but unlike many Republicans, I am also aware of the costs and risks if we don't stimulate the economy.

United States

#47 Mar 18, 2009
ho hum wrote:
<quoted text>
You are too superficial. It is MUCH deeper than one person - or even one party.
No not superficial...just short on time and space. We can not touch each facet of this situation. It is like a spider web...with many "which came first, the chicken or the egg" scenarios going on.

It would be like...there's a hole in the bottom of the sea,... there's a log in the hole in the bottom of the sea...there's a frog, on the log, in the hole at the bottom of the sea.

We would have to sit here and evaluate all of US and world history to get to where we are today. We would have to discuss all of the different facets of economics, foreign policy, foreign and domestic trade, banking, energy, immigration, education, politics, corporate and personal taxation, etc....

Each of these issues has a direct impact on yet another issue...all bringing us to where we are today.

I understand many of the complexities...and some I do not ...and some I am probably not even aware of. No one fully understands or knows "how" we got here. Many just "think" they do. I am smart enough to know I don't.

But ultimately, we are where we are "today" and we have to work with what we have "today".
No One Important

Berrien Center, MI

#48 Mar 18, 2009
Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.
From CNN
Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language.

Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies.

"The administration had expressed reservations," Dodd said. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely."
Sooooooooooooo, we’ve gone from Obama NOT knowing about the bonuses and the protection for any of these bonuses and being OUTRAGED! He’s just OUTRAGED. They can’t JUSTIFY this, this is just OUTRAGEOUS.......



How much more are you guys gonna swallow? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Annnnnnnnnnnd, how much more of Obama’s bullsh*t does he think WE’RE going to swallow.

He’s been lying to us for a week about what he knew and when he knew it. Dodd and a treasury department person who DOESN’T WANT TO BE NAMED are clear, it was the administration.

Gotta love a scum bag in a new suit, huh?

Nonantum, MA

#49 Mar 19, 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.
Absolutely true. Also note that GOLDMAN SACHS pushed some papers around and became a bank late last year, so that they could take TARP money directly. There are a lot of very rich and connected people with money in GOLDMAN SACHS, and they're making damn sure that no matter what the economy does, they get their money back.
partisan blindness

Bloomington, IN

#50 Mar 19, 2009
JusticeShouldRule wrote:
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?
They wouldn't be getting away with not paying taxes on their bonuses. They would be required to pay taxes just as everyone is.

Have you ever paid a federal tax rate of 90% on your bonus? You may need to in the future. If congress can tax one group at 90% for their bonus, then they can tax anyone and everyone at 90% for a bonus.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#51 Mar 19, 2009
Scarlett wrote:
BREAKING NEWS: AIG WILL breakup in 4 years! per AIG CEO via CNN
Not new news.

The gov replaced the current CEO specifically for that purpose. To sell them off in pieces.

Seattle, WA

#52 Mar 19, 2009
partisan blindness wrote:
<quoted text>
They wouldn't be getting away with not paying taxes on their bonuses. They would be required to pay taxes just as everyone is.
Have you ever paid a federal tax rate of 90% on your bonus? You may need to in the future. If congress can tax one group at 90% for their bonus, then they can tax anyone and everyone at 90% for a bonus.
Should this go through, anyone who gets any benefit from the government should be very fearful.

What if in a couple of years (regardless of the state of the economy) Congress decides to go back and tax extra all those who got stimulus money?

Like these AIG execs, you got money from the government, so shouldn't you pay it back?

A dangerous precedent.

“Love of $ is the Root of Evil”

Since: Sep 08

Gotham City

#53 Apr 6, 2009
Technically, I think the government could do it as owners of the company....

Then it will be a compensation issue instead of a taxation issue.

I am sure the lawyers are on top of it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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) Jul '16 canread 5,680
News Paulson defends Merrill Lynch deal (Jul '09) Jun '16 Swedenforever 6
Why I was not on a Loan note (Mar '11) May '16 Margaret 3
News From Member of the Bar to Piano Bar: AIG's Russ... May '16 SINGER Hedge Para... 1
News Obama opposes 90% tax on bonuses at bailouts (Mar '09) Apr '16 FancyButtPirate 14
News Paulson Distances Himself From A.I.G. Payments (Jan '10) Feb '16 Bailouts 14
News Bush Super PAC Fundraising Plummeted in Past Si... (Feb '16) Feb '16 Card Carrying Zio... 1
More from around the web