RW Media Having It Both Ways - Article "Bonus Tax - Way To Destroy Economy"

[Median Democrat]

The Americna people and DUers are getting manipulated by bonus gate. With Republicans and the media cheering them on, we have been worked into a frenzied outrage about the payment of bonuses despite the fact that Republicans opposed ANY caps on executive compensation for bailed out companies. I posted a separate OP noting this hypocrisy.

So, the House passes the bonus tax. Guess what happens? The RW media and Republicans now raise the same complaints they did to any cap:

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/213670/90-Bonus-Tax--Way-to-Destroy-Our-Economy?tickers=AIG,%5EDJI,%5EGSPC,C,BAC,GM?sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=TBD&ccode=TBD

/snip

The frantic passage of the Populist Rage Tax was a new low in the US government's response to this crisis. It shows just how likely we are to doom ourselves to a decade or more of misery--by choking our markets, closing our borders, turning our banks into tools of social policy, and wrecking what's left of our economy.

In case you've been too outraged by AIG (justifiably) to notice what happened, here's a recap:

If the "TARP bonus" bill the House passed yesterday becomes law, any of the hundreds of thousands of people who work for Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, and nine other major US corporations will have to fork over 90 cents of every bonus dollar that puts their household income over $250,000.

That's household income, not individual income. If you're married and filing singly, you'll have to surrender anything over $125,000. Indefinitely.

Is $250,000 per household a lot of money? Sure. But it's not a lot of money for two moderately successful corporate executives. Or a corporate secretary married to a lawyer. (If you're a $40,000 a year telemarketer at a TARP company married to a $210,000 lawyer, any bonus will be taxed). So this tax will be felt by a lot more than the handful of execs at AIG and Merrill who ran off with several million dollars apiece.

But that's not the really distressing part. The really distressing part is what this tax will do to the corporations that we now own and are supposedly trying to save.

(Remember? That's the reason we bailed Citigroup, AIG, GM, and the rest of them out--to save them. Because we convinced ourselves that civilization would end if we didn't.)

Thanks to our stupidity bailouts, we now own major stakes in these firms--at mind-boggling expense. So it's not clear why we want to destroy them. But that's what we seem determined to do.

Believe it or not, hidden inside these companies are thousands of decent, competent people whose households bring in more than $250,000 a year. Many of these folks had NOTHING to do with the gambling addiction that bankrupted their firms. Many of them still have a choice where to work. And now that they've learned that their family's pay will be capped at $250,000 indefinitely, many of them will quickly decide that now is a good time to pursue their careers elsewhere. (That is, unless their firm takes the easy and obvious step of just paying them a fatter salary, which just renders the whole thing a farce.)

/snip

Face it DUers. We can't win. The Republicans and the RW media are going to beat you, and whip the people into a frenzied outrage regarding what you do.

If you cap pay, you are a socialist.

If you don't cap pay, you are giving taxpayer dollars to fatcats.

If you tax that pay, you are a socialist.

See? Heads the Republicans win. Tails the Democrats lose.

[T Wolf]

1. WHich is exactly why the Obama administration should never have agreed to the corporate-centric

bailout strategy.

If it had taken a more "liberal" approach, it (and we) could have defended the actions from a populist perspective which would have gotten the majority of the population on our side.

By trying to "split the difference" and elicit the repuke and DLC-Dem support, they have cut off any defensible position they might have had.

[Median Democrat]

2. The AIG Bailout Took Place In September 2008 Under Bush

Also, Obama's toxic asset plan won't be announced until April. I am aware of:

1. Obama's stimulus.
2. Obama's Budget.
3. Obama's mortgage plan.
4. Obama's small business credit extension.

What "corporate-centric" policy are you referring to?

[Hello_Kitty]

3. This is such bullshit

Is $250,000 per household a lot of money? Sure. But it's not a lot of money for two moderately successful corporate executives. Or a corporate secretary married to a lawyer. (If you're a $40,000 a year telemarketer at a TARP company married to a $210,000 lawyer, any bonus will be taxed). So this tax will be felt by a lot more than the handful of execs at AIG and Merrill who ran off with several million dollars apiece.

First of all, bonuses are taxed already. I used to get them at my previous job and Uncle Sam took almost 50% off the top. It's standard practice. Second, how big of a bonus is a $40K telemarketer going to get, anyway? They should be giving him/her a bigger salary. At lower wage levels bonuses are used as a justification for keeping base salaries low and paying people less when times are lean.

[Median Democrat]

6. Articles Like This Just Show How The RW Media Spins Against Obama

If Congress and Obama did try to nullify bonus contracts that were executed prior to the legislation, can you imagine the uproar? Yet, the RW media and Republicans act as if this was a no-brainer and demand investigations into what was said between Dodd and Geithner even though Republicans OPPOSED ANY CAPS.

Yet, when Democrats essentially say "Fine, we'll tax the fuck out of the bonuses," Republicans and the RW media also attack these efforts.

Will anyone call the Republicans and the RW media on their hypocrisy?

[busymom]

4. But

Let's call it what it is. Capping salaries is...you know...bordering on iffy.

My husband is far from a fat cat. He does earn a bonus for seeing patients in a timely manner, positive pAtient reviews,
And other quality measures. Before you get outraged that doctors earn decent money and won't miss it consider that
He works well over 60 hours/week for his patients, comes k. On days off, sees the I insured for no charge and does volunteer outreach. Did I also mention that the pricetag forvthis privilege is upwards of 150,000 in America and that liability and overhead costs are not insignificant? He has to sit the boards every 10 years in general and specialty areas too.

He voted for Obama. Here is the deal though. If this goes through we will leave. My husband can practice in a few
Other countries where even though we will pay a lot in taxes we too will benefit.

I don't mind paying taxes but I am also tired of being villified. We both started out with nothing and
Worked and sacrificed for many years. Takecaway bonuses for people who didn't screw you
And a Lot of good will be lost. You can forgetcabout keeping good doctors or being seen by your doc when
You are sick. Hate long waits and rude/crabby service? Well, buckle up.

This has been discussed at length here and many docs feel the same way. They will cut back on their practices
And be more selective about patients.

Btw, we use our bonus to send our son to a special school because his
Needs were not accompdated by our public school. All of our other kids
Go to public school. This hurts him.

Wait. It hurts the economy too. We were going to have blinds installed in our house 2 weeks ago but we
Canceled due to the financial uncertainty. The owner of the blind company here called and begged us
To reconsider because business is down. We can't do it. Our son's special needs come first and since my
Husband dares to earn a nice wage we pay 42% in fed and state taxes and don't qualify for help for our
Son from the money we pay into the system because we earn above the minimum threshold.

Sorry for type errors. iPhone. Thanks for letting me chat from the exercise bike at the gym v

[Aloha Spirit]

5. It won't tax your family since neither of you received bonuses from banks that were bailed out. nt

[MercutioATC]

7. There were sensible ways to limit bonuses. Congress, AGAIN, blew it.

Basing it on household income was just stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Why not just tax all bonuses over $100k...or $200k...or whatever would specifically target excessive executive bonuses while leaving the workers alone?

[Median Democrat]

9. They Do - Tax Only Applies To Bonus Dollars, Not Salary

The article states:

"the "TARP bonus" bill the House passed yesterday becomes law, any of the hundreds of thousands of people who work for Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, and nine other major US corporations will have to fork over 90 cents of every bonus dollar that puts their household income over $250,000."

You could argue that the limits should have been adjusted, but if the goal is to wipe out most bonuses, the legislation essentially does that.

So, according to the article, the tax is not on salaries, but bonuses.

[MercutioATC]

10. Understood, but if household income is at, say, $240k, and somebody gets a $15k bonus...

The last $5k is taxed at 90%.

That's NOT what this legislation was meant to do.


It's not that difficult to target legislation to a specific group. Why do people who have been doing this for decades seem incapable of doing it?

[Median Democrat]

11. Depends On The Nature Of The Outrage - Is It At The Rich Or The Bonuses?

Listening to the folks from Congress, the anger is at the idea that anyone at AIG was recieving a bonus given that AIG would be BK without federal assistance.

It is not targeted specifically at the rich as you suggest, because how could the Republicans express outrage at their core constitency?

[MercutioATC]

12. That's exactly the point...it's not SUPPOSED to be targeted at "the rich".

It's supposed to deal with huge bonuses given to executives at companies that took TARP money.

This legislation targets any family making over $250k/yr who got any bonus and happened to work for a company that took government money.

Congress exceeded its mandate and screwed up.....AGAIN.

[GOTV]

8. Easy to answer ....

.... How much bonus would they get if the taxpayer didn't bail out the company and let it fail? We're saving their company and thus saving their job. I'm afraid they'll just have to wait until the company gets on its feet before the bonuses start to flow again. That's the way it works in 99% of the businesses that give bonuses.

If they would prefer we not save their company we can keep the money but to complain that we're not giving them their bonuses on top of saving their jobs is a little like bitching to the firemen that pulled you from the burning building that they didn't save your hummel figurines too.