House proposes top income tax rate of 90%

[pocketfullofshells]

Seems to me that this could have all been avoided if the Democrats did not put the language promising it would be upheld in the stimulus. I think Dodd is going to lose his Senate seat for this one.

Bush could have as well.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The House is scheduling a vote on a new top tax rate for the highest-paid employees, presently to be applied only to employees of companies that get big Federal bailout packages.

The new tax rate is supposedly for people getting bonuses, but seems to be worded in such a way that it will be levied on ANYONE in the company whose income exceeds $250,000.

Joe the Plumber raised the issue of Obama raising taxes for people like himself, who might purchase a business whose receipts could be legally interpreted by the IRS as "income" above that level. But no one dreamed the increase would be so draconian.

There's even a quote from Charlie Rangel, who seems happy that state governments can tax away the other 10% of people's incomes.

Not since the depths of World War 2 have tax rates been so high.

Elections have consequences. And when you elect a bunch of extreme leftists to the national government, as we did last November, tax increases are one of those consequences. Even shockingly high ones.

As mentioned, some of the leftists are assuring us that these 90% tax rates are presently only for people getting bonuses the leftists don't approve of. The fact that this sets an ominous precedent, is to be dismissed.

Can I have a show of hands, of those who honestly believe that tax rates for the rest of us will NOT start heading in that direction pretty soon? After a 90% tax rate like this, hiking rates on the rest of us to a mere 50% or 60% should be much less shocking.

BTW, the Senate is currently considering similar taxes up to 70% (35% for the employer and 35% for the employee).

----------------------------------

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=457634

House to vote on 90 percent tax for AIG bonuses

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 2 mins ago

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.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

you know what, tell the damn Plumer not to get so screwed up it has to take millions or billions in Federal money just to say in business....then he does nto have to worry.

Why is it so hard to grasp...you want Federal money ...you have choice, do what we say you have to do to get it, or just shut up and let your company die...Guess what the bonus program is for AIG with no bail out....its unemployment.

Cry me a river. Besides I doubt this will pass into law anway

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Undeserved? If the contract says they should get it, if they could sue and win against the government for it, then clearly they did deserve it. Sorry, but I'm willing to bet on what the contract says over what some one on the net says.

Even if the contracts are basicly Fraud? As many have suggested they are, as they signed the bonus knowing they could only pay them if they got bailed out.

 

[Andy]

Even if the contracts are basicly Fraud? As many have suggested they are, as they signed the bonus knowing they could only pay them if they got bailed out.

You are not convincing me you understand what happened at AIG.

Edward Liddy, along with most of the administration of AIG, agreed as part of the bailout, to work for $1 a year. As in, none of them have earned a penny since the bailout began in Sept 17th 2008. The only reason they had bothered to stay and work, while being paid nothing, was the bonus.

The bonus was an central part of the bailout, and was agreed to by the employees, only after the bailout began. Moreover, it was in exchange for a lack of any actual paycheck.

So you tell me if this is a fraud. AIG is about to go bankrupt, but instead the federal government offers a bailout, and allows you to keep your job provided you agree to take a $1 a year salary, but allows you to get a bonus.
Then after you work six months for one dollar, as you agreed to, the government changes it's mind and tries to revoke the bonuses you are contractually due. Now who's the fraud here?

This whole thing was setup by the government, the federal reserve, and Andrew Cuomo who ousted the last CEO before the bailout. Now, they are spinning the bonuses they themselves agreed to, in order to keep the hapless employees on the job, as being some great evil AIG spawned on their own. And the ignorant dumb'd down Americans are sitting around talking about how wrong AIG is, while the politicians laugh about how the pulled a fast one.

 

[Andy]

you know what, tell the damn Plumer not to get so screwed up it has to take millions or billions in Federal money just to say in business....then he does nto have to worry.

Why is it so hard to grasp...you want Federal money ...you have choice, do what we say you have to do to get it, or just shut up and let your company die...Guess what the bonus program is for AIG with no bail out....its unemployment.

Cry me a river. Besides I doubt this will pass into law anway

You are still missing the point that was should never have bailed them out. No, it wouldn't necessarily been unemployment. The company would likely have been bought up by another bank, and life would have gone on. Bear Sterns was simply bought up by JPMorgan Chase. The people who worked there, now work for JPMorgan Chase, and life goes on.

But because of this stupid attempt to keep bailing out this dumb company, our government is blowing more and more money, and instead of getting angry at them, here we have people all whiny about dumb bonuses that the government itself agreed to.

The government just spent the last 3 months blowing $170 Billion on AIG, not to mention one trillion is other spending, that YOU are going to have to repay in taxes, and your worried about a few million in bonuses?

That's like getting bent about a too much salt on your fries is unhealthy, when your eating a triple whooper with extra cheese.

This is why the government will trample it's citizens, because they are too stupid to figure out what's important.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You are not convincing me you understand what happened at AIG.

Edward Liddy, along with most of the administration of AIG, agreed as part of the bailout, to work for $1 a year. As in, none of them have earned a penny since the bailout began in Sept 17th 2008. The only reason they had bothered to stay and work, while being paid nothing, was the bonus.

The bonus was an central part of the bailout, and was agreed to by the employees, only after the bailout began. Moreover, it was in exchange for a lack of any actual paycheck.

So you tell me if this is a fraud. AIG is about to go bankrupt, but instead the federal government offers a bailout, and allows you to keep your job provided you agree to take a $1 a year salary, but allows you to get a bonus.
Then after you work six months for one dollar, as you agreed to, the government changes it's mind and tries to revoke the bonuses you are contractually due. Now who's the fraud here?

This whole thing was setup by the government, the federal reserve, and Andrew Cuomo who ousted the last CEO before the bailout. Now, they are spinning the bonuses they themselves agreed to, in order to keep the hapless employees on the job, as being some great evil AIG spawned on their own. And the ignorant dumb'd down Americans are sitting around talking about how wrong AIG is, while the politicians laugh about how the pulled a fast one.

your talking about 1 guy ( maybe a few) who worked for "1" buck ...but thats not who was getting the bonus was it? no it was many many others. Bonus written up with no means to be paid, unless it was out of the goverments pocketbook. Not evry single one was bad, but many of them where written that way, and should be investigated.

Regardless I am against taxing it as I dont think its legal, it was dumb to let them do it, but thats the fault of no one stopping them. Obama I believe will veto it anyway if it passed as stated.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

your talking about 1 guy ( maybe a few) who worked for "1" buck ...but thats not who was getting the bonus was it? no it was many many others. Bonus written up with no means to be paid, unless it was out of the goverments pocketbook. Not evry single one was bad, but many of them where written that way, and should be investigated.

Regardless I am against taxing it as I dont think its legal, it was dumb to let them do it, but thats the fault of no one stopping them. Obama I believe will veto it anyway if it passed as stated.

All the more reason why we should not have "bailed" them out. By the way the government has no pocketbook, but rather they have several million people they take money from. Lately the money they have been taking is from our children.