Log in

View Full Version : 90% Tax Increase on AIG bonuses being voted on today



Vteckidd
03-19-2009, 10:54 AM
* American International Group Slideshow:American International Group
* George's Bottom Line on AIG Play Video Video:George's Bottom Line on AIG ABC News

Related Quotes Symbol Price Change
AIG 1.76 +0.38
FNM 1.10 +0.30
FRE 1.15 +0.33
AIG Chairman Edward Liddy testifies before the House Financial Services AP – AIG Chairman Edward Liddy testifies before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capitol Markets, …

WASHINGTON – The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

"We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent," said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel said the bill would apply to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money.

House Democratic leaders unveiled the bill as the head of embattled American International Group Inc., which has received $182 billion in bailout money, testified about $165 million in bonuses paid out in the past week to about 400 employees in its Financial Products unit.

Edward Liddy, who was brought in last year by the government to run AIG, told a House subcommittee Wednesday that the company was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses but that some of the recipients have begun returning all or part of them.

Liddy said that on Tuesday, he had "asked those who have received retention payments in excess of $100,000 or more to return at least half of those payments." Some have "already stepped forward and returned 100 percent," he added.

Lawmakers rushed to the microphones after word of the bonuses was leaked out by the government over the weekend. Bills were quickly drawn up in both the House and Senate to impose heavy new taxes on them.

The top two members of the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday announced a bill that would impose a 35 percent excise tax on the companies paying the bonuses and a 35 percent excise tax on the employees receiving them. The taxes would apply to all companies receiving government bailout money, but they are clearly geared toward AIG.

President Barack Obama, who took office just under two months ago, told reporters Wednesday that his administration was not responsible for a lack of federal supervision of AIG that preceded the company's demise.

But Obama added, "The buck stops with me."

Obama said his administration was consulting with Congress on creating a new "resolution authority" to seize giant institutions like AIG — including all their toxic assets — whose collapse in normal bankruptcy could cause calamity in the financial markets.

Republicans have pointed their criticism at Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, questioning how much he know about the bonuses in advance and efforts by the administration to stop them. And they complained anew about being locked out of discussions earlier this year when Democrats decided to jettison a provision in the economic stimulus bill that would have revoked the payments.

"The fact is that the bill the president signed, which protected the AIG bonuses and others, was written behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate. There was no transparency," said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.



THis just outright PISSES me off. COngress is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They KNEW ABOUT THE BONUSES ALL ALONG and now are trying to act like it wasnt their fault an point fingers at other people.

They are attempting to void legal binding contracts that they and the treasurey secretary KNEW WERE IN PLACE ALL ALONG.

i mean its less than 1% of the money we have even given AIG. 8 Billion in pork in the Omnibus bill, no problem, 165 million, OMG SOUND THE ALARM.

The gestapo tactics are SCARY

SL65AMG
03-19-2009, 10:59 AM
ya its bullshit.... i dont think they should get their bonuses but now it just seems like they set this up so that they could fuck everyone down the road..... use this as an excuse to get this bill passed and then tax the shit out of EVERYONE who makes more than 250k and gets a bonus...


BONE-US!


what a fuckin scam...

Paul
03-19-2009, 11:53 AM
^ ya i agree they shouldn't got bonuses in the first place but something like this could be the catalyst to screw those of us who do make good money and base our income off of contractional bonus options.

Total_Blender
03-19-2009, 12:47 PM
Hopefully this will at least spell the end of contractual bonuses for big CEO's. Bonuses should be performance based, especially when companies are failing and asking for federal money like AIG.

SampaGuy
03-19-2009, 01:14 PM
THis just outright PISSES me off. COngress is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They KNEW ABOUT THE BONUSES ALL ALONG and now are trying to act like it wasnt their fault an point fingers at other people.

They are attempting to void legal binding contracts that they and the treasurey secretary KNEW WERE IN PLACE ALL ALONG.

i mean its less than 1% of the money we have even given AIG. 8 Billion in pork in the Omnibus bill, no problem, 165 million, OMG SOUND THE ALARM.

The gestapo tactics are SCARY


I completely agree. What pisses me off the most is that everyone is siding with the government.

ahabion
03-19-2009, 11:50 PM
You have to admit, the Obama camp is playing their cards right when it comes to trying to appease the mob. Reminds me of "Gladiator" when Prince Gay brought back the coliseum.

preferredduck
03-20-2009, 02:21 AM
they knew of all this along time ago, its an act, just like the tarrifs mexico are talking about, it's just one more step to open the borders which they amke pretty obvious these day, and the acadamy award goes to the us gov't for best BS act in history.

Frög
03-20-2009, 02:27 AM
(didn't read any responses yet, might repeat what ppl said)

The Bonuses are contractual and were done a year ago, LONG before the bail out..

The fact that they are called "bonuses" is what pisses people off, but they were only called that (back a year ago) because they didn't want their base pay to be that high..

Yes, they should of been performance based bonuses, but they are not..

All these companies are in a really bad situation, but for those that are outraged by this, you have to understand that if AIG doesn't pay the bonuses, they are breaking their contract and are legally liable..

Just went over this today in class.. :D

AirMax95
03-20-2009, 09:44 AM
(didn't read any responses yet, might repeat what ppl said)

The Bonuses are contractual and were done a year ago, LONG before the bail out..

The fact that they are called "bonuses" is what pisses people off, but they were only called that (back a year ago) because they didn't want their base pay to be that high..

Yes, they should of been performance based bonuses, but they are not..

All these companies are in a really bad situation, but for those that are outraged by this, you have to understand that if AIG doesn't pay the bonuses, they are breaking their contract and are legally liable..

Just went over this today in class.. :D

Good point, I said this in another thread. Many job positions are guaranteed a bonus via their contract. For AIG not to uphold that would open a whole new issue for AIG. Even the current chief executive did not know about many of the contractual bonuses. Most of them were written before he took the reigns.

The media is awesome, lol! They tell it like it is :rolleyes:

Vteckidd
03-20-2009, 10:49 AM
I love how COngress says, hey we dont like you, so we are going to tax you 90%. I cannot WAIT for AIG to file suit

AirMax95
03-20-2009, 11:01 AM
Yes, that is complete BS.

I say pay the bonuses owed, do not tax the shit out of them, then pwn AIG. They need restructuring if they are receiving gov't money. They could manage their own damn money.

They were not performance based bonuses IIRC. Most bonus structures now have a clause that combine employee performance with company performance. Someone wrote a few stupid contracts. Gotta love corporate noobage.

AznTraitor
03-20-2009, 04:42 PM
You think they should change the title of "bonus" to "retention incentives"?