Bonus Tax
Krieg
Posts: 5,188 ✭✭✭
I wonder if the House of Rep ever has read the Constitution. Does anyone realize up there that this bill that was passed is 100% against the Constitution. Here's why:
That would be because of one pesky little clause found in our (once) supreme law of the land.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 - United States Constitution
"No bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
Do you know what that means? The key is the word "attainder." Let's go to Websters: It's a 15th century word meaning "extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry usually after a conviction of treason." A definition, this one from the Catholic Encyclopedia, describes "bill of attainder" thusly: "A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial."
They are trying to deprive some individuals of property that is rightfully and lawfully theirs without accusing them of a crime and without the benefit of any trial ... except, that is, for this trial that has been taking place in the media for the last week.
According to the Constitution, an individual can not be deprived of life, liberty or property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. This isn't about whether or not those people deserved those bonuses. Perhaps not. But the bonuses were paid pursuant to a legally enforceable contract. The property is there's. Now we have politicians who are trying to take it away just because they're unhappy and embarrassed because they didn't take care of this little problem before the bailout money was paid.
That would be because of one pesky little clause found in our (once) supreme law of the land.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 - United States Constitution
"No bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
Do you know what that means? The key is the word "attainder." Let's go to Websters: It's a 15th century word meaning "extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry usually after a conviction of treason." A definition, this one from the Catholic Encyclopedia, describes "bill of attainder" thusly: "A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial."
They are trying to deprive some individuals of property that is rightfully and lawfully theirs without accusing them of a crime and without the benefit of any trial ... except, that is, for this trial that has been taking place in the media for the last week.
According to the Constitution, an individual can not be deprived of life, liberty or property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. This isn't about whether or not those people deserved those bonuses. Perhaps not. But the bonuses were paid pursuant to a legally enforceable contract. The property is there's. Now we have politicians who are trying to take it away just because they're unhappy and embarrassed because they didn't take care of this little problem before the bailout money was paid.
"Long ashes my friends."
0
Comments
If the government had not stepped in and granted some of the bail out money to AIG, what would have happened ? AIG would have eventually defaulted and would cease to exist ? I hope I am right on that because that is how I understand it. That would mean not only would an AIG employee not get a bonus they would be looking for work.
So now along comes the government and offers this bailout to AIG so they can continue in business.
Where in the world does ANYBODY get the idea that after this money was handed over that it was business as usual for AIG? This would be a very irresponsible position for the government to take, because if AIG were to continue with the practices that got them into so much trouble, one can only assume that they would end up in trouble again some time in the future. With the financial crissis being what it is that "future" would be a lot sooner then many may think.
So my point in all this is that, the government is NOT on the hook for this bonus money and AIG and its employees should be told that there IS NO BONUS MONEY to go to ANYONE !!!
If you tell someone that they will lose their bonus for that year but they will continue to be employed, then that person if they have any intelligence would be OK with that. (particularly in the present situation) I mean where else are they going to go?
Which brings me to my problem with the reason AIG gave for handing out these bonuses. RETENTION... why would you have to pay extra to retain someone, who in the present crissis could not just take their skills and go work somewhere else?
Finally, can someone show me where in law the government does NOT have the right to say that this is NEW money intended to keep the company afloat and that there are conditions placed upon the acceptance of that money, even if that clarification comes after the money was given?
The employees of AIG may be very deserving (NOT) of that bonus money... but nobody out there will ever convince me that they are entitled to it from the taxpayers, and so if AIG has financial problems and has to cancel the bonuses for a year or two (or forever) that does NOT mean that taxpayers have to step in and pay these people. That is just so ludicrus. IMO
IMO the company should have never been bailed out... But many people would disagree...
also- the bonuses at AIG are just a small percentage of what was paid out, I am more pissed off about all the BILLIONS that were giving to EUROPEAN banks...so now the US Taxpayer is bailing out Europe?
"Long ashes my friends."
Also, AIG is not the only company affected by this new tax. Bank of America is affected, too. So are a few other institutions (Citi? Wachovia/Wells?)
Aint that a mother...
This is the type of *** that makes me think you BOTL who are calling for revolution might be on to something.
whats the likely hood of it making past the senate?
That may be zoom. I think that perhaps at least some of these guys were actually caught off gaurd that companies like AIG would take taxpayer money and turn around and give some of it away as bonus money.
I mean you would think they would not be so Fu-kin', totally stupid and greedy that they would think the people who were paying those bills would not get pissed at a move like that.
This is corporate welfare. Makes you wonder why these believers in the Free Market Capital system just can't wait to pony up to the trough. Unless of course their beliefs are based on greed, not actual confidence in their preferred system of money management. This is the best example of why you need regulations. Company's can't handle the responsibility of HONESTLY regulating themselves for their long term success. They make decisions based on what looks best "right now", with no thought for tomorrow. Like politicians that just can't seem to look past the next election, companies are doomed to repeat these mistakes over and over again. Without some regulations for them to follow, eventually they will end up exactly where they are now, as it is practically built into the money / management system in use today by these HUGE multi-national companies. So US tax payers are expected to provide money to a company so that company can take that money right out of the country and pay a BANK in a different country. We (not just US citizens) are providing these multi national corporations with money so that they can continue to shut down plants and move production to other countries where the employees can be treated like *** because they don't have the education, or workers rights legislation that we enjoy over here. Some will argue that this is the way the system works. the prize goes to the most competetitive, be that a company or a group of people in another country who are willing to work for less.
Thing is when the *** hits the fan who is asked to pay for it? The corporations who "have the right" to conduct business as they see fit?
Nope that would be you and I, the under worked over payed, lazy work force which made these corporations as successful as they are today.
Unions and over regulation are to blame for this mess? HARDLY !
It is GREED and no firm regulations to prevent the types of decisions which ultimately lead to this whole financial crisis, which are to blame. IMO
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/21/aig-bonuses.html