bemused by the bonus/bailout scandal

[walkitout]

Just to be clear, when people are out to slash budgets, I really do believe that we should adhere to contractual obligations. I don't like to see union contracts abrogated -- even in bankruptcy court, much less to stay out of bankruptcy court. But I also don't like to see some people treated as if they are somehow sacred cows in the literal sense of we can't touch them even if the rest of us are starving. (I actually do know a little about the tradeoffs involved in the no-touch-cow thing, so please bear with me.)

That said, I'm right there with all the folk scandalized by the idea that AIG is going to pay hundreds of millions (yes, chump change compared to hundreds of billions, but still -- enough for lattes for a day for everyone in the US is Meaningful Money). Personally, I think a great solution is to pass a little one-year addition to the tax code: if you worked for AIG and got a bonus in 2009, you owe 110% of it to the IRS. That should bring them right to the table for negotiation. We can still change tax law for TY09, without resorting to breaking contracts or anything. I'm not sure why no one is suggesting this -- possibly because they're afraid of where this kind of thing could lead.

I got a little e-mail from someone-or-other about organizing protests at banks over the AIG bonuses (boni?). I read that Cuomo is looking to get 'em via state law. And Summers is looking a little eggy with Obama saying go back and double check make sure we can't undo this. The media is all over it with weird complaints (what do you think you're going to find? are you in bed with AIG? blah, blah, bleeping, blah). And I gotta say, this is a far cry from, we NEED these boni to retain the Important People.

Who Cuomo is now threatening to prosecute.

Comments

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

I was just reading about that on Shakesville: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/03/number-of-day_15.html#disqus_thread

And apropos of nothing in particular, except I had more respect for the Netherlands before reading the following:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/03/lol-your-fat-assvertising.html

weird comments thread

[walkitout]

I don't understand the idea that woman couldn't possibly weigh 150 lbs. Do they think she's heavier or lighter than that? Over and above the, so participating in the etc.

As for the respect issue, I love the Netherlands and miss it horribly. It feels like home to me (just as Seattle does, and our house here in Brookline does). And in much the same way I mock Seattlites and vilify my New England neighbors, I don't feel too bad picking on nederlanders. Particularly since I've heard them rip on the Fries (where many of my relatives come from/still live), and heard their youth complain about how they weren't told in their school history classes about how badly behaved the Dutch were during WWII and when they finally got to the Versetzmuseum it was a huge shock to them.

I figure the Dutch can't be held accountable for picking on German tourists, given how popular that particular pastime is internationally.

Re: weird comments thread

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

I think it was just the one person saying early on that she couldn't weigh that, which I took to mean that she couldn't possibly weigh that much. In reality, since so many women either don't discuss their weight, or lie about it, it's quite likely most people don't know what 150 pounds looks like. Back when I weighed what I consider about my ideal adult weight, adding winter clothes and a big purse would put me in the 150 range, and I'm not tall (though I'm not small-boned, either).

Most of the other comments about her weight were doing the WTF two-step in reaction to that early comment.

other people are looking at the tax code possibilities

[walkitout]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/16/tax-aig-executive-bonuses-dodd-says/

Sorry about the Fox News link, but it's what I found when I went looking. R. said you can't do what I proposed -- it would be a bill of attainder. But I didn't think so. I'm not proposing a crime and punishment; I'm just saying tax it all back into the public purse.

And indeed! Other people are thinking of this. Dodd and Maloney are looking at 98% percent and 100% tax provisions, specifically, and both seem to think that if this is what is settled upon, it could happen very quickly.

ETA:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20080.html

I like Gary Peters version: 60% surtax if you got more than $10K in boni from a company owned 79% or more by the US government (currently only AIG), then figure 35% income tax rate and a bit more here and there state/local and that should nicely retrieve all of the boni. I don't think it's an accident that this guy is repping Michigan. Go Gary!