Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Oh good lord. Can you really not see the difference of somebody putting in a year's worth of work and then having their contract invalidated after the fact and revoking an illegal law passed by Congress?
fyi, $700000 is approx 10 yrs worth of work for me I'm also on call 24 hrs a day(IT). i'm not gonna pay this guy 10 times my salary with my tax money without just cause.
Then we shouldn't have given them the bailout money. We knew, when we did it, that they were under contract for these salaries. We don't get to pick and choose what parts of the company we bought, which obligations of the company we live up to.
The bailout was a huge fuckup idea. However, once you're in, you're in. You don't get to rewrite laws for your own convenience.
the bailout was a good idea,
to save ourselves from financial market collapse which may very well have lead to another depression.
but i do not support bailing out rich/overpaid exec.
fyi, they are writing laws to get money back... you need to just get over it.
Are you a home owner? On an adjustable rate mortgage? (Not suggesting you are, just asking.)
I can guarantee that target taxing these bonuses is going to lead to a whole lot of problems, and you will still maintain all the while that this was a good idea.
Cause: Homeowner takes out an adjustable rate mortgage
Effect: Homeowner can't make payments any more; homeowner claims that it still originally was a good idea but that the mortgage company should do something to make it possible for them to keep their house!
Cause: Company shuffles around debt to cover more defaulting homeowners than they should
Effect: Homeowner keeps their house but company is now unstable and liable to fail; company claims that shuffling debt was still a good idea but the government needs to help RIGHT NOW to prevent bankruptcy
Cause: Government issues a bailout with few restrictions or provisions, enable company to keep running
Effect: Since bankruptcy was avoided, the bailed out company still owes on original retention bonus contracts and since there were no earmarks for the bailout money, it legally can and must be used to pay those contracts; government claims the bailout was still a good idea but that Congress should do something to prevent the bonuses from being paid
Cause: Government can't keep bonuses from being paid without changing the fundamentals of contract law so they decide to target tax these bonuses at 90%
Effect: Execs lose their bonuses, feel cheated, and quit, and the company continues to tank due to lack of leadership. Company begs Congress for more help.
Cause: Congress, now that there is a precedent of target taxing, decides to target tax several other specific groups of people and give the money to the company. Rinse and repeat until even cash infusions can't save the company
Effect: AIG and other related companies go under, taking billions in taxpayer dollars with them
Cause: Not only does the original homeowner in the scenario lose their house but now so do a lot of other people who were not originally at risk of losing their homes but are now over-taxed, out of work and unable to find more jobs.
Effect: Government takes more and more control over individual funds and redestributes them to try to support the out of work populace.
I'm clearly extrapolating in my last two examples and the effect right before that, since those are in the future, but I'm sure you get my point. You cannot save us from ourselves.
Anytime government gets into the "I know better than you (individual) how to manage your money" they start having to get into the little details. Since government is run by people motivated by re-election they often take the popular route rather than the long-term right move. Our US government was not constructed for this type of administration and when it focuses on trying to fully control the economic situation and keep people in jobs and homes without regard for the economic realities, it will inevitable both fail and make the situation worse.
You're right, they probably will target tax these execs. You view this as a good thing that will somehow solve a problem. I view this as another time the government is doing a short-sighted fix that is going to spawn a whole mess of new problems. They didn't stop a depression; they postponed it and made it significantly worse than it otherwise would have been.