Comments on: Punitive Tax Rates of 90% Could Cause More Problems Than They Cure

By: m gross

m gross — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:42:13 +0000

Anyone who made successful deals for a solvent company will remain unaffected by this 90% provision, no matter how large their bonuses.
The ones affected are persons who received outrageous bonuses from companies who were forced by their insolvent circumstances to beg and receive aid from the taxpayer.
You do not need a degree in economics to tell the difference between the two, altho having one may make it more difficult. Once taxpayer aid has been received, there is a reasonable legal argument that contractual bonuses need not be adhered to due to force majeure. Any attempt to suggest otherwise represents spin or insensitivity. The latter appears to be de rigeur on Wall Street.

By: Searcher

Searcher — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:55:35 +0000

Please explain “retention bonus.” Is it a reward for past performance? Is it an inducement to retain the beneficiary based on past performance? If the bonus is paid and the beneficiary leaves employment, is the bonus to be returned pro-rata, or otherwise? Is the bonus and terms of award a point of an employment contract for a specific person, or merely a compensation ‘policy’ applied to a defined group?

By: Kevin Beck

Kevin Beck — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:54:43 +0000

I think it is unfortunate that we get the government that we pay for. The world would be better off if Washington, DC actually believed in something worthwhile, like capitalism. What we have had for the last 75 years is hardly capitalism, so we cannot blame it for our current problems as one reader suggests. I agree that if banks cannot make a profit doing what they are supposed to do (finance productive business and consumers), then they shoudn’t be in business. And I also agree that excess taxation would result in an excess of productivity not occurring. However, in the case of our good old Federal government, this might be the best of all worlds. But for those who are actually productive, this would be a disaster.

By: valter

valter — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:26:59 +0000

Can I ask when people responsible of the financial and economic crisis will be called to pay the bill of theirs ‘mistakes’(euphemism) instead of receiving premial bonuses?
And to have bonuses deriving from the ‘brilliants results’ of their jobs…? and not from bailout’s money deriving from jobless tax-payers???!!
Thank you

By: OilFieldTrash

OilFieldTrash — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:44:55 +0000

You know, the more I read what you have said, the more I agree with you about the days gone by. The era that you are talking about was a productive era. The greed was not so great a mind-set by the up and coming financial management group because it did no good to get into that top tier. Your money was actually going to go back into the system, not on to your yacht, or your summer house, or to your yearly at the Met, or all of those other little things that separate the ultra rich from the middle class and poor. As you put it, there was no reason to do the 30 minute power lunch, so why not take a customer to a well deserved long lunch at the shop, talk a little business and enjoy life, rather than plot that next big M&A that is going to allow you to screw the other guy out of his market money. Today corporate America skims 10% of the profits of the companies off of the top. One of the most important votes that I will make going forward is to limit perks and compensation bonus to company officers. Not take them away, rather make them reasonable. I believe that every stock holder should do the same. Reduce this greed! This is one of the reasons that we are loosing market share abroad and at home (read GM, Merrill Lynch, AIG, GE), this is one of the reasons why we can not compete across several markets today. Sure, the Google-heads can produce (but can you say BIDU) however many industries just do not have the completive advantage that we use to hold, so we throw manufacturing out the door and go to services (fast becoming an India market BTW).
Why not go back to that era. Rather than just taxing the bonus boys that are living off of our Grandchildren’s money via Tax supported bonuses, let’s just tax every body’s money above $250,000 at a 90% rate. I truly believe that the bygone days that you talk of produced more solid solutions than the days that we are seeing today.
But seriously though, maybe for just one or two years, while we try to struggle out of the soon to be 10% unemployment, watch the TV as people are evicted from their houses, see the street population grow in our papers these folks can suck their voracious appetite for their next big killer bonus back and look around at the environment that they also have a responsibility to fix. I would not mind it if the Congress folks (especially the one that have more money than sense) would forgo their salary for a while. They might truly develop real empathy for their real constituency.

By: Investor

Investor — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:36:43 +0000

Thoroughly useless drivel.

By: VentureShadow

VentureShadow — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:16:04 +0000

Hutchinson missed the forest for the trees. The 90% tax is not on employees of all firms, or even all bankers. It is only on the failures. It is not just a tax–it is a punishment, and punishment is well deserved. As with all punishments it has real shortcomings and it can backfire. Does AIG deserve punishment? They sure do, and lots of it!

By: howard hillman

howard hillman — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:30:23 +0000

This is really meant for Martin:

Excellent article! I “entered” Wall Street with the Chemical Bank (1960) and had the pleasure of dining as described and had many friends from the UK who kept trying to tell me that the US was crazy to work as hard as we did ….and it also didn’t make sense in the UK to have high salaries but glorious perks due to taxes.

Great, FABULOUS idea to tax post US office speaking fees!

By: gene

gene — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:44:50 +0000

ask not for whom the bell tolls…
Wake up, this is just a convenient first shot at taxing away wealth. There will be more “justifiable” outrages to demand taxing other groups at these rates and the definition of “rich” will keep going lower until in the end all of us are paying 90% marginal rates for any income over $50,000 (ted kennedy’s definition of rich). The outrage will be nothing more than the fact that you earn the money. BO has said often that if you have money you are expected to spread it around and this will be his primary means of spreading.

By: Aileen Murphy

Aileen Murphy — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:51:29 +0000

I believe that Congress, the Administration and the general public need to calm down for just a little while and take the time to think things through, rather than rush to so called solutions to calm the public and the investors.

First of all, we have found out that there are 13 banks that received TARP funds, but completed fraudulent applications to obtain those funds. To receive the funds, each bank had to certify that it did not owe income taxes. As it turns out, 13 banks did owe income taxes but certified otherwise. The very first step is to reclaim all of the TARP money given to these 13 banks that lied. Period. Not if, ands or buts or claims of the bank being “too large to fail”. This would be a fair solution and a fair way for taxpayers to get back some of their money.

Second, let’s think clearly about AIG. The bonuses that were agreed to were retention bonuses, not performance bonuses. Now, the retention bonuses may have been promised to those that did well performance-wise in the past, so realistically, AIG would want to retain those individuals. But as everyone knows “past performance is no indication of future results”. The bonus receivers should not be the ones that are punished, unless there was something in the bonus contracts that they did not live up to. If that is the case, then the money should just not be given based upon non-compliance with the contracts. But, hopefully, someone thought about looking at that aspect of this situation. Assuming all is on the up an up for the bonuses, then the money should be given, but not be taxed in any different way. The problem lies with AIG. It appears that AIG has not used the TARP money for the intended purposes. For that reason, the $165 million paid for bonuses should be given back to the Government by AIG from the TARP money it received (assuming that AIG was not already taken care of by the first solution noted above).

Third, if any of these solutions will cause AIG or any other banking entity to fail, so be it. Both solutions are not based on punitive measures. Rather, they are based on contract law.
If we as a country want to continue to boast about our values, following these two steps will show that we mean what we say.

I believe that no entity is “too big to fail”. Other entities will come to the rescue and fill in any gaps caused by the demise of the entities that fail based upon the two solutions noted above. Maybe even new individuals with fresh ideas and better skills will come forward. The work will still have to be done. It will just be done, hopefully, by individuals who have better skills and are ethical in all dealing with their employees, the shareholders, investors and all government entities to whom they will be accountable.