working

POPULAR TAGS

 Outside the Beltway 

AIG Executives Remind Gregg of Founding Fathers

Senator Judd Gregg makes a rather thin analogy here regarding the punitive taxing of AIG executive bonsues.

“Using the tax code to exact retribution or divert public attention from the government’s own errors is unjustifiable. Also, the implications of pursuing this course of action are not that we will recover the bonuses distributed to AIG executives, but that we will undermine the credibility of our tax system, create an atmosphere where any group that offends the sensibilities of the majority may be at risk for punitive tax treatment, and step into a world more akin to the government of Venezuela than that of America.

Remember, it was the abuse of the power to tax by the British government that led to our revolution, and we should not forget that fact or those principles of fairness and equity that led to the creation of our nation in the first place.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I do not approve of the proposed punitive taxes against the AIG executives who received retention bonuses. That said, that proposed tax is hardly in the same league as the punitive taxes in the American Revolution, which were geared at maintaining monopolies for favored companies and discouraging colonial enterprise. The retention bonuses are a nasty bit of work that, as far as I can tell, were written into the executive pay packages in full contemplation of the fact that AIG was going to fail and likely be bailed out.

Like I said, I oppose taxing those bonuses for a number of reasons, not the least of which are rule of law issues. That said, I’m not really ready to go all Lexington and Concord over taxes against executives who are right up on the border of having committed acts of fraud.

About the Author: Alex has a B.S. in Biochemistry from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law. He has been published in the Kansas City Star, TCS Daily, and Comic Book Resources. He joined the staff of OTB in June 2006. Additionally, he’s been writing at Heretical Ideas since October, 2001, and also reviews cigars at Cigar Jack's Cigar News and Reviews.
 
 
Related Stories:
 
Recent Stories:
| Subscribe to RSS Feed | Permalink | Send TrackBack

 
Comments
 

Gregg has been wrong about a number of things lately.

It is remarkable that Senator Gregg apparently has no understanding of how the economy works.

--Dean Baker (economist)

I wouldn't say it's remarkable. The guy's a republican, after all. He probably still believes in Supply Side. Glad he didn't get into the Obama administration.

Posted by steve s | March 24, 2009 | 04:18 am | Permalink
 

Hey Steve, if you do not think of supply side, who is it your work for? You must be a government worker. You know, those that produce nothing but just feed at the public trough. The alternative to supply side economics is socialism. That being the government controls commerce.
Alex, the similarity between the taxation that caused the revolution and the one that will cause the next revolution is it being unequally applied to all citizens. Only the highly educated and Obamanians think they will somehow be exempted after the rich are taxed into poverty or leave. Who will that leave to pay for the entitlements of those who do not produce? That will be you Alex. Wonder how you will like being taxed at 75% or so? Some of us are ready to burn down the Mission to end this nonsense.

Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | March 24, 2009 | 07:27 am | Permalink
 

we will undermine the credibility of our tax system, create an atmosphere where any group that offends the sensibilities of the majority may be at risk for punitive tax treatment

Next thing you know, we'll be taxing cigarettes more because people find smoking offensive, then there will be a revolution!

Or not.

Posted by Michael | March 24, 2009 | 08:05 am | Permalink
 

after the rich are taxed into poverty

That's pretty much impossible.

See, in order to get from rich to poor, they'd have to pass through middle class, in which case their tax rate would be lowered, lettering them keep more of their wealth. Eventually they will find a new equilibrium somewhere between their previous wealth, and the wealth of those one tax bracket lower than their previous wealth.

But hey, don't let that stop you from believing in the whole "Going Galt" fad, everyone needs a hobby.

Posted by Michael | March 24, 2009 | 08:09 am | Permalink
 

The retention bonuses are a nasty bit of work that, as far as I can tell, were written into the executive pay packages in full contemplation of the fact that AIG was going to fail and likely be bailed out.

Alex, I can see the argument that AIG knew it was likely to fail, but exactly how would they have known that they were likely to be bailed out? Hasn't your contention been that these bonuses were re-structured well before September of '08?

Posted by Phil Smith | March 24, 2009 | 09:31 am | Permalink
 

“That's pretty much impossible.”

Sorry for being a stickler but that is not true. Once you destroyed or chase away what today is considered rich, the government will still need money. Therefore they will redefine rich and that can continue until the rich is in the poverty class. Remember a man with half a sandwich is rich to a man with no food at all.

I thought the "Going Galt" was a silly notion at first but there may be some relevance to it regardless if they mean to or not. Businesses are not going to invest and take risk if they can’t expect a reasonable return thereby causing stagnation. Even big businesses will only take so much.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123785266231219605.html

Posted by Wayne | March 24, 2009 | 09:41 am | Permalink
 

Businesses are not going to invest and take risk if they can’t expect a reasonable return thereby causing stagnation.

Or just go someplace else. Macedonia doesn't tax retained earnings, just as one example. Dubai, I'm told, is a hell of a place to do business. And 5 gets you 20 that as we make it harder to do business here, the EU as a whole will make it easier to do business there. Hide and watch.

Posted by Phil Smith | March 24, 2009 | 10:02 am | Permalink
 

Phil
True enough. There was a recent article on energy related companies moving their HQs to Europe because of tax breaks. That said that is more of an option for large companies. The medium and small size companies simply will sit on low yield assets and won’t take a chance on expanding because the risk isn’t worth the reward. All of which will hurt our economy. All resulting from the anti-business and class warfare attitudes and policies from the left.

Posted by Wayne | March 24, 2009 | 10:42 am | Permalink
 

RSS feed for these comments.

Comments are Closed

 
Search OTB
Lijit Logo
OTB RSS Subscribers via FeedBurner

For Advertising Info, write
otb@blogads.com

ADVERTISERS

OTB MEDIA

MANzine logo

OTB Gone Hollywood

OTB Sports

Allie is Wired

ATLANTIC COUNCIL

New Atlanticist Atlantic Council Blog



Visitors Since Feb. 4, 2003

All original content copyright 2003-2009 by OTB Media. All rights reserved.