Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:18:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynalobo at yahoo.ca>
Correct me if I am wrong but it looks like there is only one country in the world today that has a 90% tax on the bonuses paid to workers. That country, hold your breath, is the good ol' United Socialist States of America. Abso-funny-lutely amazing! Mario observes: Imagine how misled this forum would be like with posts like the one above without any voice of reason, truth and peace to provide corrections, context and perspective? The good news is that such misguided posts provide a teaching opportunity as to how the American system of checks and balances works, especially the co-equal power sharing that the US Constitution provides between the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. Very few people outside the USA understand this process. The politically motivated proposal to levy a 90% income tax on the small number of bonuses "above a certain amount" paid only by the small number of companies that "received more than a certain base amount of bailout funds" is currently wending its way through the American Legislative process. Compare this with the assertion that the tax would apply to "....the bonuses paid to workers" in the "...good ol' United Socialist States of America." without any qualification, context or perspective. The House of Representatives has hastily passed one version of the bill, apparently to placate public outrage. Now the Senate has to pass its version if it can get at least 60 Senators to agree. If they cannot get at least 60 Senators to vote in the affirmative, the bill dies and does not become law. If the Senate does pass a version of the bill, then representatives of the House and Senate meet to arrive at a compromise with the House version. Then the compromise version goes to President Obama and his teleprompter for his signature. The President and his teleprompter can veto the bill in which case it goes back to the Senate, which can override the veto with at least 60 votes, in which case the bill becomes law. However, in this case I do not expect a veto because it is the kind of confiscatory power grab - changing the rules in the middle of the game - that this President and his teleprompter and most of his party support. The matter may or may not end with the President and his teleprompter's signature because someone may challenge the new law in the courts as "un-Constitutional". This may happen in this case because the kind of legislation being proposed violates certain Constitutional restrictions against targeting a narrow section of citizens, that, too, retroactively. The courts, which share equal power with the Legislature and the Office of the President, can reject the bill if they judge it to violate the Constitution. If the lower courts reject the bill, it can be appealed to higher courts, all the way to the Supreme Court. If the Supremes reject the bill, the bill dies and it's back to square one. This is the political "sausage factory" in which laws are made that Winston Churchill likened the democratic process to. The Chinese do not have to go through this rigamarole. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_bonuses Excerpts: How to impose those taxes without running afoul of the Constitution or the law is a dispute that has Republicans urging a go-slow approach. Republicans say there are enough problems or unknowns about the bonus-limiting bills to merit a closer look. Imposing too high a tax rate, doing it retroactively and targeting a narrow group of people could violate several of the Constitution's prohibitions against government takings without due process,... Then there's the question of the sanctity of contracts. If the government goes around canceling contracts like those calling for AIG bonuses, people might stop entering into contracts that call for using government bailout money designed to get credit flowing again to help spend the nation out of recession. Some firms could be scared away from the bailout program, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable. "Ultimately it will undermine the recovery efforts," Talbott said. "It will have a chilling effect on ability to attract and retain employees," Talbott said. [end of excerpts]
