Sunday, March 22, 2009

The House Passes a 90% Tax Rate...Are You Concerned Yet?

Check out the following Time article.,8599,1886748,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

Thursday after little debate the House passed a bill which would impose a 90% tax rate not only on the AIG bonuses that everyone is furious about, but on the majority of bonuses paid from the beginning of the year on bonuses to all employees making more than $250,000 a year working for companies that received more than $5 billion in TAR money.

Do any of you have a problem with this? What's to stop them from just imposing the same rate on every other company that didn't receive TARP money? What do you think would happen? Are you thinking that since you don't make $250,000 you don't care?

The article goes on to say that it will likely be modified in the senate to 70% on bonuses of $50,000 or more to companies that received $100 million. So this potentially broadens the number of people they will get but lowers the tax rate. I don't really know which is worse.

Here's my first problem. Everyone is so focused on these bonuses and how outrageous they are. Where is the outrage at congress for passing these bailouts to begin with that didn't exclude the bonuses. Where is the outrage that they didn't bother to read the whole bill before voting on it? Now that the country is on the hook for this money against the will of at least half of the people, maybe more, don't we need AIG and all these other companies that got TARP money to make money so they can "pay us back?" Or do we expect them to turn things around with executives and people that are worthless? What's to keep the people with the ability and know how to turn things around from going to another company that will pay them for their talent? You can't expect them to work for free. You wouldn't.

Of course the people that are part of the problem in these companies should be let go, but do you know which ones they are? I surely don't.

Are you concerned at all that congress would pass a 90% or 70% tax rate? Both sides of the aisle are on board with this. Are you? Are you aware that people that make over $250,000 a year generally employ other people through purchasing more services that they don't want to do themselves. They help keep those of us making anywhere from $15,000-$100,000 or more employed. Do you care? What happens to our salaries if theirs suddenly get sucked up in taxes? Do you think they'll stop paying for those services that they used to pay for? I do. But what do I know? I'm just a dog.

Are you upset? Do you care? And if you don't care, my question is Why Not? Do you think we should keep throwing good money after bad?


jan said...

We're just dogs too, and our biped doesn't make $250,000 a year, but she had planned to add employees to her small partnership until her accountant explained what was coming in her taxes if she did.

Misty the alpha Poodle

Annalee said...

Completely ridiculous. I can't say that I'm suprised by the mess. said...

How often do they have to be told. This is completely unconstitutional. They can't do this. And if they do, which they did, it shows the world that they do not care what the founding document of this country says.


Lola said...

Complete and absolute disreguard for the constitution. The constitution limits their power and their aim is to gain more and more power by trickery, fear tactics, or force if necessary...The sheep need to pull the wool out of their eyes and get pissed of and do something about it!!! This is shameful...

This Day in History