Millionaires to be taxed at 90%?

[Excel]

Whats this rumor saying anybody who makes over 1 million will get taxed at 90%. That cant be true!

 

[BlackestNight]

I think there was suppose to be a 90% tax on bonuses given out by companies that accepted Government bail out money.

 

[SuBe]

Yeah, everyone forgets that those at AIG that were given Bonus made $1 a year salary.

 

[Excel]

I heard they were going to make that a nationwide tax. If it just n those aig bonus's, nvm.

 

[SuBe]

I heard the same thing. Obama had an Interview today were he was denouncing Bonuses. As if it is any of his business how anyone gets paid.

 

[Kelly]

I heard they were going to make that a nationwide tax. If it just n those aig bonus's, nvm.

It's a 90% tax of any bonus of over 1 million....

Which can't actually be done and stand up in court.

But, most have given it back except those in the London offices.

 

[Bathead]

Yeah, everyone forgets that those at AIG that were given Bonus made $1 a year salary.

Do you have a source for that? The only one I know of at AIG that was making one dollar a year was Liddy.

 

[Kelly]

Do you have a source for that? The only one I know of at AIG that was making one dollar a year was Liddy.

It's common knowledge, just google it, there are several news organizations and papers that have reported it.

The top 25 executives at the financial products division had also agreed to reduce their salary for the rest of 2009 to $1. So, even though they are not the ones that screwed all of this up, and even though this bonus was in their contract for 2008, long before the bailout. Most of them have already given back the bonus, and still receiving $1, for their salary in 2009.

 

[SuBe]

Do you have a source for that? The only one I know of at AIG that was making one dollar a year was Liddy.

Just stuff I heard on the Radio. The AIG FP Executive in his letter to Liddy for his resignation said his was a $1 a year, and he claimed others make that amount also. I haven't looked into it too much.

 

[Carcharodon]

Just stuff I heard on the Radio.

 

[Kelly]

It has been reported on NPR, CNN, Fox, etc......I seen, heard and read it in several places. I believe the WSJ, USA Today....etc . It's been widely publicized. Liddy also talked about it in the hearings that I watched on CSPAN.

 

[Carcharodon]

It has been reported on NPR, CNN, Fox, etc......I seen, heard and read it in several places. I believe the WSJ, USA Today....etc . It's been widely publicized. Liddy also talked about it in the hearings that I watched on CSPAN.

You seen? I done seen a right bit cat outside that there window.

But honestly, Kel, come on...it was meant as a bit of humor.

 

[SuBe]

Loves me some Orson Wells.

 

[Kelly]

You seen? I done seen a right bit cat outside that there window.

But honestly, Kel, come on...it was meant as a bit of humor.

lol......."I have seen...." *sighs* I leave out a word, and look what it gets me.........all kinds of grief.....

I know it was in the way of humor......I was just backing SuBe up alittle....

 

[SuBe]

lol......."I have seen...." *sighs* I leave out a word, and look what it gets me.........all kinds of grief.....

I know it was in the way of humor......I was just backing SuBe up alittle....

Thanks Kel. I just don't care enough to "source" it. I heard it. I know I'm right.

 

[Carcharodon]

lol......."I have seen...." *sighs* I leave out a word, and look what it gets me.........all kinds of grief.....

I hold you to a higher standard.

 

[Bathead]

It's common knowledge, just google it, there are several news organizations and papers that have reported it.

The top 25 executives at the financial products division had also agreed to reduce their salary for the rest of 2009 to $1. So, even though they are not the ones that screwed all of this up, and even though this bonus was in their contract for 2008, long before the bailout. Most of them have already given back the bonus, and still receiving $1, for their salary in 2009.

I see. I was just wondering because the only one I had heard that about in all the dozens of news items I had seen about AIG was Liddy. I stand corrected.

 

[voyzovrezon]

I heard the same thing. Obama had an Interview today were he was denouncing Bonuses. As if it is any of his business how anyone gets paid.

The thing is SuBe, if our tax dollars are bailing companies like AIG out, then we need to consider why we are bailing them out. They screwed up! No one was minding the store when the company was selling insurance out on loans that defaulted. From what I understand, the loans were gauranteed. Or so they claimed, until the sh** hit the fan.

I dont' like the idea of my tax dollars going to pay a bonuses on guys that were partly responsible for the economic meltdown in the firstplace. If a company wants to pay bonuses that's fine, but why should we the taxpayers pay them extra, millions of dollars extra, for screwing up?

 

[Bathead]

I was just wondering, if AIG had not gotten a govt. bailout in the first place, would the bonuses have still been awarded? I understand the bonuses had been already contracted for, but considering AIG would likely have gone under without the bailout, would the execs have been forced to give them up or at least asked to give them back voluntarily? Or would those that had left or were about to leave said "Screw you, I've got mine. you're on your own." Or would it have made little to no difference and AIG would have gone under anyway?

 

[Kelly]

I was just wondering, if AIG had not gotten a govt. bailout in the first place, would the bonuses have still been awarded? I understand the bonuses had been already contracted for, but considering AIG would likely have gone under without the bailout, would the execs have been forced to give them up or at least asked to give them back voluntarily? Or would those that had left or were about to leave said "Screw you, I've got mine. you're on your own." Or would it have made little to no difference and AIG would have gone under anyway?

Yes, they were in the contract before the bailout was talked about, as in when they signed their contract for 2008, they were a part of the contract.


Liddy had talked with the lawyers to see what they had to pay and not pay, and the lawyers said they had to pay the bonuses since they were a part of a contract, that took place before the bailout money was given.

 

[SuBe]

The thing is SuBe, if our tax dollars are bailing companies like AIG out, then we need to consider why we are bailing them out. They screwed up! No one was minding the store when the company was selling insurance out on loans that defaulted. From what I understand, the loans were gauranteed. Or so they claimed, until the sh** hit the fan.

I dont' like the idea of my tax dollars going to pay a bonuses on guys that were partly responsible for the economic meltdown in the firstplace. If a company wants to pay bonuses that's fine, but why should we the taxpayers pay them extra, millions of dollars extra, for screwing up?

You don't understand the whole issue of these bonuses. How are they going to get our o their mess, if they can't pay someone to do their job? Those people will go to another company, then all AIG fails because all of their Talent left for another company. These are RETENTION Bonuses. As in, to retain the help of these people to try to pull out of their mess, they get paid.

Imagine you wanted hire someone to paint your house. They tell you it'll take $2000 to paint the entire house, but it'll take 2 weeks. In 1-1/2 you have a dinner party, and need everything cleaned up before then. You offer then an additional $1000 to get everything done in 1 week. That $1000 is a BONUS.

AIG needed to keep people that can do a particular job, and some finished their jobs early, then left. They still deserve their extra money for doing their job on time, or under budget or whatever their agreed to terms where. Some might have been wonderful at their jobs, but could easily go to another company rather than stick with a possibly sinking ship. So, to keep some talent there, you say "Hey, instead of going to a successful company, stay here, help us out, and because I know you can help us out, I'm going to offer you some extra money if you stay an additional year."

You don't know the reasons each and every dollar was spent, other than you can guarantee that it was to help the company as best as it can.

Now, what is more dangerous, a company that tries to get out of a mess, or a Government with the power to claim the money you earned?

 

[voyzovrezon]

The bonuses were under contract before the bailout. Therefore, they were not promised under the condition that those getting them were to help the company out of a mess.

But now that the company IS in mess, the government should have agreed to a bailout with the condition that our tax dollars be paid back and NO bonuses. It's like rewarding bad behavior.

 

[The Overlord]

Yeah, everyone forgets that those at AIG that were given Bonus made $1 a year salary.

Considering that company's performance, that's still paying them too much. They should get no bonus, no dollar and be fired.

This proof that our economy is corrupt, its not the people who the most talent that get to the top, its the people with the best connections that succeed.

Look at George W. Bush he had no business skill what so ever, every business he ran failed, but daddy and his friends kept on bailing him out, giving his him new jobs and more money. That's how he had the money to run for governor and then President, because his family, not because he was talented.

Being a CEO doesn't instantly make you more talented then everyone else.

I heard the same thing. Obama had an Interview today were he was denouncing Bonuses. As if it is any of his business how anyone gets paid.

It is his business if they are taking bail out money. If someone cheats at welfare and spends it all on luxury items they don't need, that's the government's business. Likewise AIG is on corporate welfare, so therefore it is the government's business how they spend the money they get from the government

 

[Kelly]

I hold you to a higher standard.

Oh god, I'm in trouble....

 

[SuBe]

TO, who are you to determine what someone needs?