Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House OKs 90 Percent Tax on Bonuses
Fox News ^ | March 19, 2009 | Fox News

Posted on 03/19/2009 12:05:53 PM PDT by DakotaRed

Breaking news alert from Fox News, the House has approved the 90% tax on bonuses given out by firms that accepted bailout funds.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aig; billofattainder; bonuses; communism; dodd; kleptocracy; marxistcoup; pelosi; propertyrights; socialistblitzkrieg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2009 12:05:53 PM PDT by DakotaRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

You have got to be kidding? We haven’t had a 90% tax bracket since Truman’s day.


2 posted on 03/19/2009 12:06:30 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

Just think if there is a 12% state tax, lol. These people are commies, pure and simple.


3 posted on 03/19/2009 12:06:57 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

Unconstitutional. Just like the empty suit. Illegitimate.


4 posted on 03/19/2009 12:07:14 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
The challenges that this law is both an ex post facto law and a bill of attainder should be interesting.
5 posted on 03/19/2009 12:07:25 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

Here is the roll call vote. 255 to 160
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll144.xml


6 posted on 03/19/2009 12:07:50 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

There should be so many legal challenges to this law. You can design a law to specifical punish certain people, especially something after the fact.


7 posted on 03/19/2009 12:08:00 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

F***** communists. Time to get rid of the whole lot.


8 posted on 03/19/2009 12:08:09 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

Matters not.. it’s unconstitutional.


9 posted on 03/19/2009 12:08:12 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

The seizure of private property (income earned per a contract) by special tax assessment must now be constitutional

change!


10 posted on 03/19/2009 12:08:36 PM PDT by silverleaf (Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

Do they just ignore that they knew of the bonuses and that it was Senator Dodd who placed the exemption for their pay outs in the bill?


11 posted on 03/19/2009 12:08:54 PM PDT by DakotaRed (Don't you wish you had supported a conservative when you had the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

An amendment also passed, stating the ‘sense of the house’ that the entire mess is NOT the fault of the magnificent TOTUS.


12 posted on 03/19/2009 12:09:16 PM PDT by harwood (Ann Coulter: Future SCOTUS nominee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Wrong bill.

HR 1586

That is the resolution about 0bama being perfect


13 posted on 03/19/2009 12:09:35 PM PDT by EBH (The world is a balance between good & evil, your next choice will tip the scale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

Social engineering via the tax code...nothing new to see here.
The Constitution doesn’t matter to ends justifies the means Liberals...nothing new to see here.


14 posted on 03/19/2009 12:09:40 PM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I'm sure you meant can't, how true.

I saw this discussed by experts on TV last nite.

Unconstitutional and illegal.

SSDD for democrats.

15 posted on 03/19/2009 12:09:48 PM PDT by Syncro (Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You’re exactly right and I desperately hope these Marxists get shot down.


16 posted on 03/19/2009 12:09:53 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Who is John Galt?


17 posted on 03/19/2009 12:09:57 PM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

318/95


18 posted on 03/19/2009 12:10:04 PM PDT by EBH (The world is a balance between good & evil, your next choice will tip the scale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
How many repubs voted yea? Just curious.
19 posted on 03/19/2009 12:10:49 PM PDT by duckman (Jesus I trust in You. Mary take over)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

What country is this? I thought the Soviet Union was dead...................apparently not.......................


20 posted on 03/19/2009 12:10:56 PM PDT by Red Badger (0bama: I'm not a socialist......................(I'm a Trotskyite)...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
21 posted on 03/19/2009 12:11:22 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Actually, the top rate was 91% when Kennedy took office. He cut it to 70%.

This is BOLSHEVISM. This is TERROR.


22 posted on 03/19/2009 12:11:27 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

I can’t believe not a single representative voted PRESENT.


23 posted on 03/19/2009 12:11:35 PM PDT by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

If they can do this to these people is there anyone they cannot do it to.?

I dont know the Constitution well enough to say this is unConstitutional, but it damned sure aint right.

I dont go along with paying these people this kind of bonus , but one wrong doesnt excuse doing another.

These people are passing bills like there is no tomorrow. What is the rush, cant they step back a second and look some of this crap over? They are running wild. passing things that havent been read, passing bills that arent right. I am not a historian, but I am 65 years old and have never seen anything like this mess in my lifetime.


24 posted on 03/19/2009 12:11:40 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

My feelings are that the Supreme Court judges are quietly sitting and smiling tonight. It’ll even be hard for the liberal judges to just look the other way on this law. Plus you have the idiots who wrote this....naturally have experience from the previous bailout writing....so they are 1-star writters of law at best. The court will carve this up and probably have it tossed out by the end of June.


25 posted on 03/19/2009 12:11:53 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Bill of Attainder:

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

26 posted on 03/19/2009 12:11:58 PM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

What is the gov doing while they have our attention on this?


27 posted on 03/19/2009 12:12:03 PM PDT by DonaldC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

I thought I just heard a report on Fox that 100 of the Yeas had changed their vote to Nays.


28 posted on 03/19/2009 12:12:14 PM PDT by carolinablonde (Proud member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I just called my Congressrat’s (Kilroy, D-OH 15). I told them that bills of attainder are unconstitutional. The aide said, “A bill of what? I never heard of that.”


29 posted on 03/19/2009 12:12:31 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Thanks, here is the correct link to the vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll143.xml


30 posted on 03/19/2009 12:12:39 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

If they can take away their bonuses, we will not be far behind.


31 posted on 03/19/2009 12:12:46 PM PDT by mware (F-R-E-E, that spells free. Free Republic.com baby.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

Ex post facto is relevant only in criminal matters.

But it is a bill of attainder.


32 posted on 03/19/2009 12:12:54 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
1. Will Republicans in the Senate fillibuster this bill, preventing it from passing?

2. Will any Senate Dims EVER read the Constitution, and also support this fillibuster, preventing the bill from passing?

3. Will ZERO veto this bill, if it gets to his desk?

33 posted on 03/19/2009 12:12:58 PM PDT by willgolfforfood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

I cannot wait to see Hannity tonight.


34 posted on 03/19/2009 12:13:12 PM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

“Unconstitutional”

Probably why they did it. They knew it would fail.

I don’t see them reversing the Dodd clause, making a law where government shareholder has a say over bonuses from the beginning. Because that might work in the future.


35 posted on 03/19/2009 12:13:16 PM PDT by Shermy ("The whole world has financed the United States, ...they have a reciprocal debt with the planet.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

Opening borders, abandoning Israel, kowtowing to China, homosexuals, and killing thousands of babies, for starters..................


36 posted on 03/19/2009 12:13:41 PM PDT by Red Badger (0bama: I'm not a socialist......................(I'm a Trotskyite)...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

So after the Dems put those bonuses in the stimulus bill they turn around and take them out? That will teach those wall street types to trust them!


37 posted on 03/19/2009 12:13:53 PM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
I'm sure you meant can't, how true.

Yes, thanks. Posting too quickly does that.

38 posted on 03/19/2009 12:13:55 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

Incredible. 1 Dem voted NO.


39 posted on 03/19/2009 12:13:57 PM PDT by BGHater (Tyranny is always better organised than freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

40 posted on 03/19/2009 12:14:04 PM PDT by Sopater (I'm so sick of atheists shoving their religion in my face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

First, the tax is a dumb idea. They should not get the bonuses in the first place.

However, since the money for the bonuses comes from the government...the claims of “bill of attainder” will not hold up in court...since the bonus money “comes from the government”.

This AIG bonus stuff reminds me of the Stalin-Trotsky power struggle in the old USSR....only this time the Socialist-Communist struggle is between Democrats and Republicans....with Dems supporting some re-compensation for the AIG bonuses...while the GOP and pseudo-cons want to continue paying tax dollars to failed AIG execs.


41 posted on 03/19/2009 12:14:31 PM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (The Biggest Threat To American Soverignty Is Rampant Economic Anti-Americanism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

I am not sure that there is a Democratic congressman who is capable of conceptual thought.
One of our Senators is very wealthy. His father was a ruthless businessman in the grocery business. His brother ran the family business before it was sold. This senator has bought every election in this progressive state. He owns the professional basketball team. His brother’s comment on his brother, the Senator, was that it” gives him something to do” and out of the family business.
How many Democratic congress critters are of the same ilk?
People, men and women, who have spouses or families of great wealth and they have a seat in Congress that gives them “something to do”....so that they don’t screw up the real family business.


42 posted on 03/19/2009 12:14:37 PM PDT by madinmadtown (It is good to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Just FYI - these are not performance bonuses. They are more like severance pay. These jobs have already been eliminated and to give the employees a reason to stay long enough to wind down their particular book of business, they were promised these payments.

That’s why some of them have already left the company - their jobs no longer exist.


43 posted on 03/19/2009 12:14:44 PM PDT by carolinablonde (Proud member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

taking more money out of your wallet


44 posted on 03/19/2009 12:15:02 PM PDT by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

You are right. It is clearly and unarguably unconstitutional. Period. It cannot fly. Our house thugs held this vote in order to posture for the American public. Of course, these clowns consider themselves above the restraints of the constitution. Many if not most probably believe they can get by with it. And the same number undoubtedly have no idea what is in the constitution, not that they care anyhow. This is frightening as hell. The Barney Fwanks of the world become Gods, deciding how much people should make and inventing ways to confiscate whatever they consider appropriate from anyone they happen to dislike!


45 posted on 03/19/2009 12:15:16 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

This cannot possibly be legal. It’s heading perilously close to, if not into, bill of attainder territory and those are SPECIFICALLY forbidden by the Constitution.

}:-)4


46 posted on 03/19/2009 12:15:50 PM PDT by Moose4 (Hey RNC. Don't move toward the middle. MOVE THE MIDDLE TOWARD YOU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
CNN now reporting too.

"The measure passed, 328-93; most Democrats supported the measure while Republicans were sharply divided."

"A two-thirds majority among all members voting was required for passage."

47 posted on 03/19/2009 12:16:28 PM PDT by DakotaRed (Don't you wish you had supported a conservative when you had the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

That’s the truth. I have an acquaintance who works for a subsidiary of Citi. His division is very profitable, and he gets a bonus because of it. His household budget is figured on his bonus, so he works hard, and makes sure his division is profitable, ensuring he makes “x” amount of dollars at the end of the year. This will affect him and his family. Atlas may shrug over this “farce”...the bombastic outpouring from the Congress is unbelievable, just a show for the cameras.


48 posted on 03/19/2009 12:16:43 PM PDT by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

That was quick. The House never works this fast. I think it must be to facilitate 15 April. Hopefully most of those bonus folks saved their money. Some might get away with paying them in the 2009 taxes next April which will help people find some more deducations to help offset this tax.


49 posted on 03/19/2009 12:16:45 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
Dems are really the dumbest rocks on the face of the earth!
It would be just as easy to add legislation to the "stimulus" package bill dis-allowing any executive bonuses until the company pays back the $$ it "borrows" from the feds.

Or set up a committee to set up bailout packages for companies; a go-between to negotiate federal loans for comapnies with their hand out hoping for federal money. They would PUBLICLY negotiate a contract with each company.

50 posted on 03/19/2009 12:16:46 PM PDT by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson