finknottle Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 With the Democrats eager to single out and tax the AIG bonuses 90% in this brave new popularist world we live in, I came up with the following idea: NYS has a vested interest in the Buffalo Bills, with the various investments it has put into them over the years. Whenever the Bills suck, we taxpayers are rightfully outraged at players getting paid bonuses for doing a crappy job while we fork over for stadiums and road improvements. So the state assembly should pass legislation targeting everybody in the organization - administrators, coaches and players - and making their state tax 90% on bonuses above their base salary whenever the team finishes with 5 wins or less. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 With the Democrats eager to single out and tax the AIG bonuses 90% in this brave new popularist world we live in, I came up with the following idea: NYS has a vested interest in the Buffalo Bills, with the various investments it has put into them over the years. Whenever the Bills suck, we taxpayers are rightfully outraged at players getting paid bonuses for doing a crappy job while we fork over for stadiums and road improvements. So the state assembly should pass legislation targeting everybody in the organization - administrators, coaches and players - and making their state tax 90% on bonuses above their base salary whenever the team finishes with 5 wins or less. Thoughts? Just tax their bonuses all the time, as a "windfall" tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9 Article I Section IX The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.) No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9 I agree that - based on what I've heard about the situation - it shouldn't be constitutional. But as indignant I am about AIG I am far more troubled by the House even considering such a bill, let alone passing it. It is distinctly Chavez-like. A CEO I was talking with today put it well: Pelosi and friends may not be doing Obama's bidding, but Obama and the blank-check mandate he fashioned in the election is effectively an enabler for every unexamined popularist impulse on the left, whether people would have voted for them or not. We've got Congress targeting the incomes of people we don't like, we've got Congress talking about taxing companies Health Insurance contributions, we've got Congress exploring a nationalizing of 401k accounts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I am far more troubled by the House even considering such a bill, let alone passing it. The Constitution hasn't seemed to hinder Congress the last decade or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I think this whole taxing of the bonus thing is just such a stupidly thought out piece of legislation done for one reason and one reason only. To keep them in their phony baloney jobs. How stupid do they think we are? All these companies are going to do is jack up base compensation and eliminate bonuses. "Your base salary will be $2.5mil and your bonus will be $.15. Here congress, take your $.135 and stick it up your ass!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I agree that - based on what I've heard about the situation - it shouldn't be constitutional. But as indignant I am about AIG I am far more troubled by the House even considering such a bill, let alone passing it. It is distinctly Chavez-like. A CEO I was talking with today put it well: Pelosi and friends may not be doing Obama's bidding, but Obama and the blank-check mandate he fashioned in the election is effectively an enabler for every unexamined popularist impulse on the left, whether people would have voted for them or not. We've got Congress targeting the incomes of people we don't like, we've got Congress talking about taxing companies Health Insurance contributions, we've got Congress exploring a nationalizing of 401k accounts... Pretty scary stuff alright. 'Chavez-like' indeed. And to think these are the same lunatics who were in hysterics about our Constitutional rights because a handful of terrorists were getting tortured for information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ron Paul told CNN yesterday something I've said more than once - Congress and its knee-jerk reactions (and he cited the Patriot Act, thanks Ron we agree) are getting out of hand. Not that I think greedy incompetent people on the dole from the government deserve my tax dollars but...there have to be other methods of redress. What these idiots at AIG etc do not seem to realize is that when this is all over they're going to have to hope Americans remain stupid and lazy, so that when AIG changes its name to cover its past (like KBR) people will continue to do business with them not realizing their history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Again... They can't do it legally: Like Dev said. Art I, 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Hmm and it seems our President, a constitutional scholar (how refreshing) does not agree with this either. Hence I would suspect he ain't gonna sign a bill if one is ever presented. I think it was satisfying to see some action taken and perhaps a bunch of AIG executives collectively soiled their undergarments...but of course it's not constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Now Connecticut now wants to get involved? I'm not sure what their jurisdiction is seeing AIG is a NY company other than it's because many of those Execs may live in Conn. And to me that would just be a state income tax issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Now Connecticut now wants to get involved? I'm not sure what their jurisdiction is seeing AIG is a NY company other than it's because many of those Execs may live in Conn. And to me that would just be a state income tax issue. I think it'll burn its way out. The gov't will take back the money from the TARP loans and the American people will boycott AIG until AIG gets smart and changes its name. And then everyone will forget when the economy is humming again...until next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Now Connecticut now wants to get involved? I'm not sure what their jurisdiction is seeing AIG is a NY company other than it's because many of those Execs may live in Conn. And to me that would just be a state income tax issue. Richard Blumenthal wants to be governor. This isn't about anything else. CT isn't dumb enough (I hope) to not understand that the state budget would impload without the Gold Coast crowd that commutes into NYC every morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 AIG financial products' hq is in CT I believe. As are nearly all US hedge funds. Kev never underestimate the ignorance of the voter. It is a state that voted Chris Shayes out. They'd love the shot at Elliott Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Did they grow a conscience? Or maybe they're just trying to avoid tar, feathers, and a splintery rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Did they grow a conscience? Or maybe they're just trying to avoid tar, feathers, and a splintery rail. Cuomo said that some of the executives, who have been under tremendous public scrutiny in recent weeks, were not necessarily guilty of undermining the financial system. "Many of these employees have nothing to do with the meltdown in the financial products division," he said. Sounds like some of them just got tired of the shiit from people like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Did they grow a conscience? Or maybe they're just trying to avoid tar, feathers, and a splintery rail. I wish they would just tell Cuomo to go !@#$ himself. But that didn't exactly work against Samuel Sewell, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Sounds like some of them just got tired of the shiit from people like you. I certainly can understand why you think I am so all-powerful but I assure you I don't even know who those people are. I got a nice fat bonus myself in December. Not only did I keep it but I spent most of it. Ditto the bonuses I got in February and March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 24, 2009 Author Share Posted March 24, 2009 Hmm and it seems our President, a constitutional scholar (how refreshing) does not agree with this either. Hence I would suspect he ain't gonna sign a bill if one is ever presented. I think it was satisfying to see some action taken and perhaps a bunch of AIG executives collectively soiled their undergarments...but of course it's not constitutional. And this is based on Obama's track record of bucking his party and taking unpopular positions with his constituients? He will encourage the Senate to make it go away. But I predict that if something does get passed, you won't see an Obama veto. He will roll over and pronounce it grand just like he did on earmarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Over the years I've found the Buffalo Bills to be just about as taxing as anything I can imagine.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts