| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject: Give us our bonuses our we'll destroy the economy |
 |
|
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12429
| Quote: |
Some bankers say they turned the conversations into complaints about the antibonus crusade consuming Capitol Hill. Some have begun "slow-walking" the information previously sought by Treasury for stress-testing financial institutions, three bankers say, and considered seeking capital from hedge funds and private-equity funds so they could return federal bailout money, thereby escaping federal restrictions.(...)
Bankers were shell-shocked, especially when Congress moved to heavily tax bonuses. When administration officials began calling them to talk about the next phase of the bailout, the bankers turned the tables. They used the calls to lobby against the antibonus legislation, Wall Street executives say. Several big firms called Treasury and White House officials to urge a more reasonable approach, both sides say. The banks' message: If you want our help to get credit flowing again to consumers and businesses, stop the rush to penalize our bonuses.
...
This should also be a clear sign of the fatal mistake in giving the financial services industry any more money before new regulations and compensation limits are in place. Not only is getting even richer more important to them than helping the country, but the industry as a whole will actively work to bring down the country just to spite attempts to take away their bonuses. There is no way we should deal with institutions like these unless we have legal guarantees beforehand that they won't *beep* us all over in 2009 just as they fucked us all over before 2009. Cries about the sanctity of contracts ring more than a little hollow when any attempt to put legally binding conditions on the money we give them are met with threats to destroy the economy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting development.
Bankers may end up more than 'shell-shocked' if the public starts talking not just about bonuses, but about this:
"Just as in the Gilded Age, a corrupt government and predatory Big Business came together to loot the country. In 2005, the top 1 percent of Americans made almost 22 percent of the nation's reported income, and the top 10 percent made half of it. Things get even more outrageous when you compare the average compensation earned by big executives with that earned by everyone else. In 2007, the average S&P 500 CEO made 344 times what an average worker made. The top 50 investment fund managers made 19,000 times more than the average worker."
Uprising on Mainstreet
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/03/24/american_populism/index1.html
Americans are not generally socialists. We've never wanted to destroy the rich; rather, most want to become rich themselves. But I suspect a solid voting majority would say, "Enough is enough". 19,000 times is waaaay over the line of fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wesharris
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since when is it the right of another citizen to say "You Make to much, give me some? " Aye?
Since when is it the right of the government to take away a person's right
to earn as much as possible in a legal way? IE Selling Drugs doesn't count.
_+_
Wes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wesharris wrote: |
Since when is it the right of another citizen to say "You Make to much, give me some? " Aye?
Since when is it the right of the government to take away a person's right
to earn as much as possible in a legal way? IE Selling Drugs doesn't count.
_+_
Wes |
How about when your bonuses are being paid with tax payer money. The government owns 80% of AIG, shouldnt they have a little say on compensation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You often see Europeans (often France) and various other nations of the world have demonstrations and mini riots espousing labor rights, equality, socialism and the like. Those will be little teddy bear picnics compared to the fury that the American public will unleash if backed far enough into the corner. These bankers dont want any part of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wesharris
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's a freakin' loan. They HAVE to pay back.
Understand, if someone lends you money to buy food, they usually don't tell you what type of food to buy now do they?
_+_
Wes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wesharris wrote: |
It's a freakin' loan. They HAVE to pay back.
Understand, if someone lends you money to buy food, they usually don't tell you what type of food to buy now do they?
_+_
Wes |
If your sister was down and out and she asked you to borrow money to pay for school clothes for her kids and then she spent the money on an expensive dress for herself, she would be a douche bag wouldnt she?
You dont think AIG is really going to pay back all that money do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robot_Teacher
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Location: Robotting Around the World
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They don't intend to ever pay back nor does Uncle Sam ever plan on paying China back as they won't have the means when it's all said and done. It's unsettling when your aging mother tells you your country is not yours, becuase China will take possession when it calls debts due and the US can't service them. I don't know. She's all about radio talk shows.
It's OK to go make a bunch of money if you're earning it by legitmate means through a profitable and ethical process of working for it. But what's not OK, is if you're nothing more than a taker who contributes nothing nor adds value to your line of work and the country.
It's absurd how many higher ups feel entitled to lots of free bonuses, ultra private lifestyle, and excessive pay for non-performance in producing positive results. They remind me of my deadbeat brother who grew up believing everyone owed it to him to have money, nice clothing and electronics, plenty of drugs, and no responsibilities. He ran from his unknown number of kids and has no remorse. Becuase he left his home state to live in another state, his home state can't collect child support. he's the uneducated blue collar version of many executives and politicians we have running the show today. There are so many unjust inequalities due to corruption, collusion, avoidance, and manipulation on all levels of society, but that doesn't make it OK to do wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wesharris wrote: |
It's a freakin' loan. They HAVE to pay back.
Understand, if someone lends you money to buy food, they usually don't tell you what type of food to buy now do they?
_+_
Wes |
None the less, if a person you lend money to so they can purchase food goes and purchases alcohol with it and gets sloppy drunk, loses their job, and as a result ends up unable to pay you back, you might not be too happy about it.
Tax-payer money being lent out certainly warrants said tax-payers being concerned with how it is used, if only out of concern for whether or not those loses will eventually be recouped.
All that said, in response to your original question:
Since when is it the right of the government to take away a person's right to earn as much as possible in a legal way?
the government has had the right to seize money through taxation for quite some time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FUBAR
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: The Y.C.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wesharris wrote: |
It's a freakin' loan. They HAVE to pay back.
Understand, if someone lends you money to buy food, they usually don't tell you what type of food to buy now do they?
_+_
Wes |
Why not? The IMF places restrictions on the loans it gives other countries. Why shouldn't the the government be able to do it.
I think it's quite humorous to hear that these bonuses are needed to retain top senior talent. I call bullshit. Where are these guys going to go? Out of the country? A different industry? Best of luck to them then and I hope they don't mess up their new companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Since when is it the right of another citizen to say "You Make to much, give me some? |
Since about the invention of society. Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society. No one is talking about taking it all. The discussion is about returning the tax code to something similar to the way it was in post-World War II America, when the middle class was the favored group and when (no accident) the economy was at its healthiest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Since when is it the right of another citizen to say "You Make to much, give me some? |
Since about the invention of society. Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society. No one is talking about taking it all. The discussion is about returning the tax code to something similar to the way it was in post-World War II America, when the middle class was the favored group and when (no accident) the economy was at its healthiest. |
You have the sum total of no idea what you are talking about. Traditionally the ONLY people who payed taxes were the rich for instance Tudor England. There were NO income taxes in America until around 1910.
And what do you mean by
| Quote: |
| when the middle class was the favored group |
? sounds like discrimination to me,
| Quote: |
when (no accident) the economy was at its healthiest. |
Correlation doesn't equal cause. Especially with something as complex as an economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Traditionally the ONLY people who payed taxes were the rich for instance Tudor England. There were NO income taxes in America until around 1910. |
Just because there was no direct "income tax" doesn't mean people didn't pay taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Traditionally the ONLY people who payed taxes were the rich for instance Tudor England. There were NO income taxes in America until around 1910. |
Just because there was no direct "income tax" doesn't mean people didn't pay taxes. |
Prior to FDR, the US Federal Government survived on less than 3% of GDP. Now, Obama is poised to take us to 30% for the Federal Govt alone.
The Federal Income Tax began in 1913.
Partial History of
U.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax Rates Since 1913
Applicable Year - Income brackets, First bracket, Top bracket, Source
1913-1915 - 1% 7% IRS
1916 - 2% 15% IRS
1917 - 2% 67% IRS
1918 - 6% 73% IRS
1919-1920 - 4% 73% IRS
1921 - 4% 73% IRS
1922 - 4% 56% IRS
1923 - 3% 56% IRS
1924 - 1.5% 46% IRS
1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% IRS
1929 - 0.375% 24% IRS
1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% IRS
1932-1933 - 4% 63% IRS
1934-1935 - 4% 63% IRS
1936-1939 - 4% 79% IRS
1940 - 4.4% 81.1% IRS
1941 - 10% 81% IRS
1942-1943 - 19% 88% IRS
1944-1945 - 23% 94% IRS
1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% IRS
1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% IRS
1950 - 17.4% 84.36% IRS
1951 - 20.4% 91% IRS
1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% IRS
1954-1963 - 20% 91% IRS
1964 - 16% 77% IRS
1965-1967 - 14% 70% IRS
1968 - 14% 75.25% IRS
1969 - 14% 77% IRS
1970 - 14% 71.75% IRS
1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS
1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 33% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS
1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS
1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS
2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2009 6 brackets 10% 35% Tax Foundation
As the above history shows, the US income tax has ranged from a top marginal rate of 7% to 94%.
Those high brackets came as a result of that architect of the 1st Great Depression, Fascist Democrat Roosevelt.
History of top rates
In 1913, the tax rate was 1% on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7% on incomes above $500,000.
During World War I, the top rate rose to 77%; after the war, the top rate was scaled down to a low of 25%.
During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the top rate was 75%. The top rate reached 94% during the war and remained at 91% until 1964.
In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA).
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets).
During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.
The top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA).
Hauser's Law
Hauser's Law is a theory that states that in the United States, federal tax revenues will always be equal to approximately 19.5% of GDP, regardless of what the top marginal tax rate is. The theory was first suggested in 1993 by Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco investment economist, who wrote at the time, "No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP." In a May 20, 2008 editorial, the Wall St. Journal published a graph showing that even though the top marginal tax rate of federal income tax had varied between a low of 28% to a high of 91% between 1950 and 2007, federal tax revenues had indeed constantly remained at about 19.5% of GDP.[21]
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
AIG bonuses predominately guaranteed payments
| McArdle wrote: |
[T]hese payments were neither retention bonuses in the conventional sense, nor performance bonuses. They were guaranteed payments used to persuade employees from other parts of the Financial Products division to stay and wind down the FP's books, according to Liddy's testimony. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
