The AIG 90% Tax Plan

[ReclaimPublicSpace]

What do you guys think of Congress wanting to tax AIG 90% of their bonuses?

Personally, I'm against it. The government threw millions and millions of dollars at companies like this, with no stipulations on how it should be used. What AIG did was deplorable, there's no question about that. But what the fuck was our government thinking, handing them free money with no strings attached? Shit, you'd almost think that it was like companies actually put LOBBYISTS in our government to influence the way they were run...oh wait....

And now that the feds have realized that they've fucked up by letting AIG fuck up, they're mad at AIG! What did they expect? They're a corporation, one of the most evil entities on the planet! They're punishing AIG for something that was completely legal under the guidelines they set (which were, uh, none). What they're doing is "ex post facto" and it's unconstitutional. That's my bitch with it.

[Rocko]

IMO, AIG is owned by the government now so typical "The government can't randomly tax bonuses" law really doesn't apply. Personally, I think it's about damn time the government started managing the business they bought with our money.

Still, they should have fuckin gotten the law right the first time instead of letting Dodd rewrite it because AIG gave him a shitload of money.

[IIIII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnIy...eature=related

Forget about AIG as being at fault and focus your ire on the government that has failed. Did you know that the SEC was told trhyat there was to be no regulatory guidelines for the SEC as it pertained to AIG? SEC had a free hand to do as they saw fit. An absolutely unregulated Pirate based company.

Remember when Bush was all for allowing investments on the market by a person with his social security funds. Could it be that the failure of the economy was known even then and the social security investment was to delay or maybe even to loot the fund but since that failed they are now looting thru the taxes?

[The Better Version]

taxing AIG by 90% isn't unconstitutional. Is it dick? Yes. But did AIG deserve it? Yes. According to the Constitution, congress has the power to lay and collect taxes without the consensus of the public. Now if Congress asked for the money back, then yes, it would be unconstitutional but because they are asking them in the form of a tax, a huge one I might add, then it is in they're power to do so. We're in a very difficult time right now and the money that was used for these bonuses amounts to a huge waste in tax payers money. We can't afford to waste more money so therefore some exceptions THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL are in order.

[Code Of Silence]

Isn't AIG technically now nationally owned? The implication of that would be that the gov't could do what ever it wants to AIG. And to say that the feds "realized they fucked up" is inaccurate. As administration changed, so did political insight.

[Rocko]

Originally Posted by Code Of Silence

Isn't AIG technically now nationally owned? The implication of that would be that the gov't could do what ever it wants to AIG. And to say that the feds "realized they fucked up" is inaccurate. As administration changed, so did political insight.

The government was given an 80% equity stake in AIG in exchange for the bailouts, so yes it is now majority owned by the government. For some reason we allow them to operate as if they were still a privately owned company.

[Code Of Silence]

The bonus payouts can not be rescinded by the federal government, the bonus payouts are tied to faultless contracts "signed in April 2008". Moreover, the entire economy is essentially a house of cards -- dependent on the state of AIG. It seems the is nothing the fed. gov't can legally do.

[Rocko]

Originally Posted by Code Of Silence

The bonus payouts can not be rescinded by the federal government, the bonus payouts are tied to faultless contracts "signed in April 2008". Moreover, the entire economy is essentially a house of cards -- dependent on the state of AIG. It seems the is nothing the fed. gov't can legally do.

Funny thing about the government is that they can make it legal.

[Yggdrasil]

Someone clarify this for me. A teacher of mine went berserk when someone brought this up in class, raving that it was unconstitutional, and mentioning the ex post facto clause several times. I fully know what it is, and now that I mull over the issue, isn't taking the money back violating this?

[Rocko]

According to the paper today, Obama probably isn't going to sign this one into law. It's starting to look like the government is just going to use this as a threat to scare them into giving it back.

[postdiluvium]

Wasn't it something like 90% of the polled American public said they didn't want the bank bailout plan to pass through Congress in the first place? Even congressional members were kind of iffy about letting it pass since their constituents were so against it. But the Congressional Party leaders all claimed Martial Law over Congress until it did pass.

I'd be one to say that they should have just let the banks go bankrupt in the first place. Sure it would be detrimental to our economy and the world economy. But, fuck it. People need to man up sometimes. If people can't handle that, maybe we need to depussify the population through all ranks and classes.