Well, you arguements are nothing but "won't SOMEBODY think of the poor millionaires" but here goes:
|
1. It purports to tax 90% of bonuses received by certain TARP-receiving institutions. Have you considered that many states have income tax rates that are higher than 10%? For example, NY State taxes more than $250K earners at about 6% effective, and is about to increase it to around 10% because of the state's budget shortfall. In addition, NYC taxes the highest rate at around 5%. As you know, all of these % rates are on taxable income pre-federal tax. So does this mean that someone receiving TARP bonuses not only has to pay it basically *all* back (to the Feds and to NY/NYC) but then will still owe money *out of pocket*? I'm very confused, would you please explain?
See my point...fuck em...they extorted taxpayer money for their work in 2008...work which caused the collapse of AIG...who the fuck has the balls to claim that they DESERVE a $4million bonus for their work when that work required tax payers to basically buy the company to keep it in business. If these were executives in a section that actually made money, and didn't damage the company, possibly staved off the crisis...they would have a point...but these people did the damage, they created the system that failed...they extorted the taxpayer money by threatening to sue if they didnt' get it...well, most criminals when caught end up paying back more in fines that they got in their crimes...so here we go.
2. Under provision (c)(1)(C) of your proposed Bill, you included all entities in an "affiliated group" as targets of the tax, should one of the entities in the group have received TARP money. Plainly then, this means that employees of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. banks receiving TARP money would be hit with the tax. The Bill of course discounts from the 90% any tax already paid by the recipient on such bonus, but of course foreigners pay no tax on their salaries from foreign subsidiaries of U.S. banks. So, for example, if AIG London or Citi Chile paid its employees a bonus in 2009, presumably the IRS would seek to collect 90% of it from them. Have you alerted the administration that Hillary is going to need to make some pretty awkward phone calls to several heads of state?
Ummm, yeah, read about what's going on and do just post out of your ass...many of these crooks don't live in the US...without this, they slip by with all our money.
3. Because your bill exempts institutions that return the TARP money, have you considered that many of the institutions that got TARP money got relatively little of it, compared to the separate infusions you gave them in other individualized aid packages? Therefore, it is likely that institutions like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, US Bancorp, PNC Financial, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan will return the TARP money rather than pay these taxes? Have you considered that this will dry up credit markets again, the sole problem at the center of this economic/financial crisis?
Ummm, hello, McFly, if they return the TARP money, it's not taxpayer money being wasted so it's a moot point...duh. And those that keep the money were supposed to be spent on opeing credit markets, not rewarding failure.
4. In relation to number 1, above, have you considered that the bill is probably unconstitutional and invites litigation? After all, if the recipient has to pay more than 100% of the bonus, arguably we are into punitive territory, triggering the ex-post facto clause. There are also strong concerns about whether these actions violate the contract clause, the takings clause, or the excessive fines clause.
I don't doubt they will try to sue...they treatened before...but we shouldn't just let people screw us over just cause they threaten to sue...fuck them...bring it on!
|