I for one welcome our new "HDBA" (Hunting Down Bad Americans) Overlords and can be useful in rounding up the Freepers as soon as this bill passes ... /sarc
Posted on 03/19/2009 6:57:28 AM PDT by EBH
Edited on 03/19/2009 7:34:42 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"This is an Unconstitutional bill of attainder"
They debated this, then postponed(I think?), and when will the real vote take place?
Thanks again. This is definitely a multi-pronged effort to destroy our capitalist system and neutralize the checks and balances within our government itself. Did you see the proposed law to give power to the Sec. of the Treasury to assume control of financial institutions IT deems “risky”? Another direct assault. These Commies are pushing for pure and complete government control (nationalization) of our economy and all means of production. It doesn’t surprise me, but it does surprise me they are acting so quickly. I guess Rahm really meant it when he said let no good crises go to waste.
The “tin-foil” part of me really wonders if this wasn’t the whole plan in the first place, and if this “crisis” wasn’t “concocted” in some way by the “movers and shakers” in our world who are partial to communism (because THEY would have control then).
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if we see a form of this happening in our own country sooner vs. later... We should all be prepared for that possibility, I fear.
I’m not glad about it, except that it’s our money—bonus money to Fannie, Freddie, AIG—it’s all our money. Those bonuses were not earned income. It’s not the same thing as someone working 40 hours and getting paid for 40 hours. Bonuses are completely arbitrary, based on nothing usually.
Here’s what I mean: If the government is going to be punitive, let’s see them be punitive across the board—not protecting their pet projects (like Fannie and Freddie) from punishment, as is usually their case. That’s all I meant. I’m sick of them calling the kettle black when they’re all boiling in the witch’s pot themselves. I’m sick of them throwing a fit over this piddly amount of money in comparison to the trillion they’ve wasted in the stimulus. I was only glad to see that they didn’t continue to finger point about the AIG bonuses and completely ignore the Fannie and Freddie bonuses.
I’m also glad that they’re getting spanked because of their failure to be thorough and actually READ the spendulus porkulus package before they all signed on. The back pedaling is actually pretty entertaining.
No actually it's not. It belongs to those citizens that received the bonuses. Once $$ changes hands possession and the legal protections ON that money change.
If people don't like it then use regulatory power differently.
This is no different than a bill of attainder.
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1586
To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 18, 2009
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. PETERS, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. STARK, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. TANNER, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. LUJAN, Mr. MAFFEI, Mr. PERRIELLO, Mr. CARNEY, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SIRES, Mr. WELCH, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Mr. WU, and Mr. HILL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS.
(a) In General- In the case of an employee or former employee of a covered TARP recipient, the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year shall not be less than the sum of—
(1) the tax that would be determined under such chapter if the taxable income of the taxpayer for such taxable year were reduced (but not below zero) by the TARP bonus received by the taxpayer during such taxable year, plus
(2) 90 percent of the TARP bonus received by the taxpayer during such taxable year.
(b) TARP Bonus- For purposes of this section—
(1) IN GENERAL- The term `TARP bonus’ means, with respect to any individual for any taxable year, the lesser of—
(A) the aggregate disqualified bonus payments received from covered TARP recipients during such taxable year, or
(B) the excess of—
(i) the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for such taxable year, over
(ii) $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).
(2) DISQUALIFIED BONUS PAYMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `disqualified bonus payment’ means any retention payment, incentive payment, or other bonus which is in addition to any amount payable to such individual for service performed by such individual at a regular hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or similar periodic rate.
(B) EXCEPTIONS- Such term shall not include commissions, welfare or fringe benefits, or expense reimbursements.
(C) WAIVER OR RETURN OF PAYMENTS- Such term shall not include any amount if the employee irrevocably waives the employee’s entitlement to such payment, or the employee returns such payment to the employer, before the close of the taxable year in which such payment is due. The preceding sentence shall not apply if the employee receives any benefit from the employer in connection with the waiver or return of such payment.
(3) REIMBURSEMENT OF TAX TREATED AS TARP BONUS- Any reimbursement by a covered TARP recipient of the tax imposed under subsection (a) shall be treated as a disqualified bonus payment to the taxpayer liable for such tax.
(c) Covered TARP Recipient- For purposes of this section—
(1) IN GENERAL- The term `covered TARP recipient’ means—
(A) any person who receives after December 31, 2007, capital infusions under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000,000,000,
(B) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
(C) any person who is a member of the same affiliated group (as defined in section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, determined without regard to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b)) as a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B), and
(D) any partnership if more than 50 percent of the capital or profits interests of such partnership are owned directly or indirectly by one or more persons described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
(2) EXCEPTION FOR TARP RECIPIENTS WHO REPAY ASSISTANCE- A person shall be treated as described in paragraph (1)(A) for any period only if—
(A) the excess of the aggregate amount of capital infusions described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such person over the amounts repaid by such person to the Federal Government with respect to such capital infusions, exceeds
(B) $5,000,000,000.
(d) Other Definitions- Terms used in this section which are also used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall have the same meaning when used in this section as when used in such Code.
(e) Coordination With Internal Revenue Code of 1986- Any increase in the tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by reason of subsection (a) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by such chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under such chapter or for purposes of section 55 of such Code.
(f) Regulations- The Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary’s delegate, shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.
(g) Effective Date- This section shall apply to disqualified bonus payments received after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such date.
That being the case does signing this bill constitute an impeachable offense? O is a constitutional scholar after all.
News on radio just said vote comes up in about an hour?
As usual the Democrats waste time at the shredder. The Constitution is already dead, Boys.
Saul Alinsky in practice. Make AIG the villain and pass legislation to "fix" the problem. Only trouble is the "fix" is usually worse than the problem.
My blood pressure is rising. These people are so full of it.
Retention bonuses are a form of exhortation—B. Frank
I’m off to get dry toast and tea before the projectile vomiting starts.
Wow- you’re clueless AND ignorant
Bachus(R)— Alabama
Legislation provides cover to democrats in congress.
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.