Help me understand??  

It goes more like this: The real worry is the fact that what congress just did was so blatently ilegal and they did it using the anger that they managed to generate by pointing fingers at a "monster" they created to shift blame to, and then having the peasants charge the monster's castle with torches and pitch forks, getting their agenda passed and covering their tracks in the process. Then to show the peasants they are the "peoples governemnt" they punish that evil monster publicly and the public is so greatfull, they don't care that a very dangerous and precident setting thing has taken place with that punishment, that has opened the peasants up to the same punishment someday should they become the next "monster"

Whiteheather,

I have to agree with Xhahctor! Even though I believe the bonuses are in poor taste and a hideous use of yours and my money, democrats in congress opened the door for this wide open by the removal of language from the "bail-out" package that would have prevented it.

The REAL criminal thing here is the after-the-fact punitive taxes and the precedent they set. Firest and foremost, punitive taxes are unconstitutional as X pointed out in one of his discussions yesterday. Second, if this act stands, what is to stop congress from punishing other groups of people at their discretion?

Let's say you make XXX amount of BIG BUCKS this year and like a good citizen you pay your normal taxes and your done. Next year, congress has made such a complete mess of the economy that many more people are jobless and suffering and congress wants to know just where they can get some relief funds. The see you and many people like you made the XXX BIG BUCKS and just paid regular taxes and well, that was just plain greedy so for being greedy they punish you and all these other people by re-taxing you, after the fact. THAT is the precedent that this act sets.

If I were one of the people getting one of these bonuses, before I would let the government get hold of one cent, I would donate every penny to charity! At least I would then have a reasonable idea that the money would go to good use, not to line some politician's pocket.

First off, it was not really quite kosher what congress did there. Besides that you are right, it's not due till next year and clever investing especially in this market will indeed provide them with extra profits on that money. Heck a simple savings account will provide them with gains. To top it off, people think that it's 90%, well not really. We all have tax deductions. All these people incurred losses either with investments (okay, then they don't need to invest this money this year, lol, or they won't make up for their losses) or other business ventures (most of them have something on the side in terms of consulting and such. They have mansions and other things that offer tax deductions. So 90% won't be 90%.

This is just all smoke and mirror once again to show how Obama will pull for us;)

Why not bonuses the same way one taxes bank interest? Here in Canada bank interest is taxed at a higher rate then income you get from working. And well if they tax the bonuses that would get the ones who get them to really worry, like I used to do and made sure I did not save enough to get taxed.
And are the bonuses legal? I mean if they are not, they should give them back. And eighty percent is almost as good as taking it back. These businesses have taken money from the American people and caused the latter to struggle to keep body and home together. It is a crying shame that there are leaches not only in the bottom of society, but also at the top.
I can see nothing hunky dory about this. I can see people shaking their heads and thinking "if they had not gotten this money, we could have not had to choose between rent and food this week.:

What I was wondering, since they won't be taxed until 2010; what if they gave the money to charity and used that as a deduction? Then they would actually be paying LESS in taxes. I mean, I don't know how all this stuff is going to work with taxing these bonuses at 90%. I know I've heard Obama wants to limit how much people can deduct if they make above a certain pay, concerning charitable contributions. Or maybe they could put some of the money into their 401k account, which wouldn't be taxed until they withdrew it. THEN how would that 90% tax thing work. These guys work in the Financial Products part of AIG. They 'know' about investing money (although they did a poor job of it, it would seem). Surely they could figure out a way to get past that crazy 90% tax.

well I think they are thinking that some people have already spent it like going on a trip or whatever so it wouldn't be prudent to ask for it back, I think they are not punishing the people who got it but want to punish a.i.g. the company, for what I understand, i could be wrong though.

To my way of thinking the government should never have given the money out....you know this was going to happen yet they did not make any of those famous earmarks to prevent this kind of misuse of the money. All this bailout bill is doing is raising the overall deficit and guaranteeing that we run in the red big time for at least the next ten years.
They will of course blame it all on Bush, but some people are beginning to see the light. I am not sure how long this country can survive under this kind of leadership.

you would think that they would call it back NOW!

I don't think that taxing the bonuses is either helpful or wise. I appreciate that bonuses are often written into contracts and therefore it isn't quite as simple as some people think to not award bonuses. They should actually be called something different, in my view.

It is likely that taxing them is the only 'legitimate' way of making sure that the money is returned to the Government and it is a move which 'looks good' to the majority (those not receiving the bonuses).

I do agree that moves like this are done with an eye to popularity but it is a sad and inevitable fact that, especially at the moment, the Government (and Obama in particular) need to be seen to be doing something. Whether 90% of the bonuses awarded is returned now or later is really neither here nor there: the amount received from the tax is a mere drop in the ocean.

On the whole, I tend not to feel too cynical about it. Taxing at 90% is one way of returning the money to its 'rightful' owners and it's a 'Robin Hood' manoeuvre. In actual fact what worries me more is that it sets a precedent for taxing anything at any level at any time. The fact that it doesn't immediately affect me (I am neither in receipt of a bonus nor an American citizen) is beside the point. In essence it is a totalitarian and undemocratic (and therefore a Right wing) move from someone who purports to be less right wing than the opposition. It also gives the nod to other socialist governments (such as mine) to follow suit - not that they exactly need a lead: they have already quite a history of such behaviour.

Yes, it's very likely that these people will do some sensible investing and return their 'talents' to the government as requested when the time comes - and thank you very much for the free loan of funds to invest! That is life (and common sense would dictate that you make the best of what you have while you have it).

You have actually only to look at the media reporting on the expenditure of the inordinately rich (such as a recent divorce case) to realise that your and my conceptions of 'money' is not the same as that of those who appear to have plenty. For us a dollar represents how much we are worth per hour and how much it will buy us of food, shelter and entertainment; for them, all of those things are a given. Their dollars buy something quite different - status, kudos ... whatever (I am not actually sure). Their second mansion or boat in the Bahamas or bevy of servants is not something they have simply because they can afford to, it is about as much part of their way of life as the table cloth on your table or the flowers in your vase. The fact that it takes what looks like the same kind of dollar to maintain that lifestyle is actually a smokescreen.

Now, I am not condoning the lifestyle of those people. All I am saying is that the dollars they use to maintain it are different from the kind that you take to the grocery store or pay the bills with.

I would have thought that if the government made a law, then it would be legal, no matter how bad the law is. I think also that bonuses have to be earned (indeed I don't think anyone should get a bonus for doing the job that they are paid to do anyway - that's what a salary is for).

In the U.K. Nick Leeson brought down Baring's Bank by making a mistake (and trying to earn lots of money for Baring's and earning a massive bonus), it didn't work out for him and he got 7 years in jail. Now both in U.K. and U.S it seems that bringing down banks gets you massive bonuses, if everyone was treated the same (ie like Nick Leeson), then perhaps the world's financial problems would not have been as great.