Comments on: Should the US Adopt a “Bonus Tax” Like Europe is Enacting?

By: Don't Mess With Taxes

Don't Mess With Taxes — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:27:59 +0000

Tax Carnival #62: Happy New Tax Year!…

Have you recovered from the last decade yet? Yeah, I know. It’s bit too soon. What about last year? Have you put 2009 behind you and are ready to dive into 2010? Not that either, huh? Well, have you at least gotten over your New Year’s Eve hangover? …

By: Paul Kamp

Paul Kamp — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:50:42 +0000

Roger’s Tocqueville quotation rings true – as long as Congress feels the people are angry at bankers, they will toss this idea around. However, just like previous moves () towards bonuses, I don’t think this one will go the distance either. Still, it’s pretty pathetic to see populism gripping congress so completely…

By: Brad Castro

Brad Castro — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:47:43 +0000

There’s always a way around. How hard can it be to outsmart Congress, after all? The median functional IQ of a member of the House of Representatives is around 70 (my estimate, of course, but I am rounding up.)

Why couldn’t the industry simply change the pay structure so that “bonuses” are eliminated in favor of renegotiated annual salaries that incorporate much of the same performance incentives as the bonus structure?

Sure you’d have wildly fluctuating salaries from year to year, but you’d also avoid punitative taxation.

I propose we impose a special tax on any member of Congress who introduces an earmark to a piece of legislation. That might not bring in much revenue, but maybe it would cut down on the expenditure side.

By: Roger

Roger — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:00:58 +0000

Hunh, seems like a pretty crummy idea. Reminds me of the quotation attributed to Tocqueville: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing.”

Methinks that both parties here in America (and in other developed countries, apparently) try to shovel out too much largess; Democrats in the form of increased social spending, Republicans with defense spending. (As well as tax cuts that aren’t accompanied by spending cuts; if you want to be the ‘fiscally conservative’ party, you have to be willing to do the tough part of cutting spending on popular programs along with the easy part of saying ‘Lower taxes’.) It’s just a matter of time before the s*** hits the fan, it seems.

By: Financial Samurai

Financial Samurai — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:25:14 +0000

Darwin – If the public hated bankers, they wouldn’t give Citigroup and BOA ML $40 billion in the past 3 weeks, to pay back TARP, which came from us, so they can pay themselves BIG BUCKS for 2009!

Feel free to check out my post “The Public Loves Wall St. Again”.

The sad thing is, companies will just relocate out of France, UK, Germany, and thousands of support jobs will be lost.

Might as well tax all people involved in the financial crisis, and that includes consumers who took out passive loans in the first place and couldn’t afford them.

BTW, highlighted one of your posts in my wrap. Does my trackback system work?

By: Evan

Evan — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:17:40 +0000

Darwin,

I think this bonus tax is akin to the Estate Tax. For Politicians it is the perfect tax:
- It will affect approximately 1% of the population
- Those it does affect can’t complain publically because they have so much
- Most of America won’t think about the consequences because it doesn’t affect them

All that said I think it is almost un-American – literally penalizing those that make too much money (as decided by a Czar – who the hell thought it was a good idea to call these guys Czars when people are already called Obama a Socialist).