Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-23-2009, 12:14 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,222,159 times
Reputation: 7373

Advertisements

Looks like classic doublespeak, as though he really wants to do it...but:


While acknowledging the legitimacy of the public outcry over at least $165 million in bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, administration officials stopped far short of endorsing legislation passed last week by the House that would levy a 90 percent tax on the payments..."I think the president would be concerned that this bill may have some problems in going too far -- the House bill may go too far in terms of some -- some legal issues, constitutional validity, using the tax code to surgically punish a small group,"

washingtonpost.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2009, 01:06 AM
 
Location: New York, New York
4,906 posts, read 6,848,248 times
Reputation: 1033
From what I understood, that was the concern brought up by the treasury department. They took their concerns to Dodd and thats why the part regarding bonuses was removed from the ARRA. I could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 01:09 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,266,002 times
Reputation: 4937
Odds are, the 90% tax would not pass Constitutional Muster -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 01:59 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,897 posts, read 8,319,404 times
Reputation: 1911
The odds are great that it would provided it covered the current tax year and it covered all firms which are part of the TARP program. As for the claim that a 90% tax wouldn't be legal... You do know the top income tax bracket used to be 92%, right? Under a Republican president no less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2009, 02:05 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,266,002 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
The odds are great that it would provided it covered the current tax year and it covered all firms which are part of the TARP program. As for the claim that a 90% tax wouldn't be legal... You do know the top income tax bracket used to be 92%, right? Under a Republican president no less.
The specific problem with this proposal is the retro active nature of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top