Are AIG bonuses such a big deal?
I'm torn about this whole bonus craze. I was distracted by other things, so I admit that when the fury started, I sort of accepted that the bonuses were an outrage that should probably be blocked if possible. It was a wee blip on my radar. Probably part of why I ignored it was that stuff that Joe the Plumber gets his knickers knotted up over annoys me, so I have a hard time taking it seriously. Then yesterday or the day before, I read The Rude Pundit's diatribe on the subject ("Welcome to the party, bitches - Fiduciary Outrage Edition," 3/18/2009), in which he argues that it's absolutely ridiculous for people to be focusing on this, given the other vast millions, billions, and trillions of taxpayer money that have been horribly squandered in recent years, about which most people have made nary a peep. It's a damn good point. Sure, those of us on the left were meowing, but these other fucktards were too busy waving flags to think about their tax dollars then. (Except when the dreaded liberals wanted to give it away to provide basic medical care for the snot-nosed brats of the lazy and and indolent who somehow don't provide their spawn with adequate care.) Why is it that suddenly, and probably due in huge part to media excitement, they get to wax self-righteous, demanding that our hard-earned tax dollars not go to these fat cats who screwed things up? (Does that mean we can withhold 70% on W's last paycheck, and Cheney's, etc?) Uh, Blackwater, anyone? How much tax-payer money did those assholes get?? (And continue to get!)
So just a few minutes ago, I spotted this story on the Daily Beast about protesters in CT going around to AIG execs' houses to protest, followed by a hyena pack of reporters more aroused than Brangelina could ever make them, and my first reaction was actually that it's horrible of them to invade the personal family space of these individuals who are not in and of themselves embodiments of AIG. Or are they? I suppose a fitting corollary might be the people who have lost their homes in the economic clusterfuck, and people who have lost all chances of having a comfortable, modest home to live in dignity for their retirement years. Maybe that's kind of like AIG execs and their ilk going to those people's houses and molesting their peace?
In the end, I think the bonuses suck. Legally, though, it sounds like they might have to be paid. Is it okay to tax them so hugely? It seems like a backdoor way of doing the same thing. Many have pointed out that the top income bracket used to be taxed even more than that, in the 1950s and surrounding years. I think absolutely we should return to a model in which the very rich pay their share more fairly. This isn't about that, though. This isn't about what their tax rate "should" be in general. BTW, I don't hear these people finishing that thought, saying that if those 1950s rates should be brought back to life here, it should be for all of the rich, not just a select rich of sinners convicted in the court of the popular media. (I heard Jay Leno excerpted on NPR Friday saying that it bothered him that we're giving the federal government to decide whether or not to slap this tax on an individual, by means of legislation that can't possible be specific enough to make sure only the "right" people get such punishment. Interesting thought, not unlike my argument against the death penalty.) There's a question of legality and there's a question of fairness. (HA, I know, I know.) How do we decide whose bonuses are withheld/supertaxed, and whose aren't? Does the douchebag who got his massive bonus on November 29 get to keep it, but the douchebag who was promised his December 1 and is receiving it now doesn't? In our country, under our system, we have to force ourselves to be fair in the legal sense, to be objective, to call the mass murderer a suspect so that the protester too will be given that right. It's frustrating, but maybe there's nothing we can do that we want to allow our government to do, really.
Finally, why AIG? Is it because talking about the executives of all of these companies who have taken bailout money is too much for their tiny minds to take in? Is the lynch mob intent on stringing up only one thief at a time? Won't they spend their energy on this first one and lose interest before they move on to the rest? Is that justice?
So just a few minutes ago, I spotted this story on the Daily Beast about protesters in CT going around to AIG execs' houses to protest, followed by a hyena pack of reporters more aroused than Brangelina could ever make them, and my first reaction was actually that it's horrible of them to invade the personal family space of these individuals who are not in and of themselves embodiments of AIG. Or are they? I suppose a fitting corollary might be the people who have lost their homes in the economic clusterfuck, and people who have lost all chances of having a comfortable, modest home to live in dignity for their retirement years. Maybe that's kind of like AIG execs and their ilk going to those people's houses and molesting their peace?
In the end, I think the bonuses suck. Legally, though, it sounds like they might have to be paid. Is it okay to tax them so hugely? It seems like a backdoor way of doing the same thing. Many have pointed out that the top income bracket used to be taxed even more than that, in the 1950s and surrounding years. I think absolutely we should return to a model in which the very rich pay their share more fairly. This isn't about that, though. This isn't about what their tax rate "should" be in general. BTW, I don't hear these people finishing that thought, saying that if those 1950s rates should be brought back to life here, it should be for all of the rich, not just a select rich of sinners convicted in the court of the popular media. (I heard Jay Leno excerpted on NPR Friday saying that it bothered him that we're giving the federal government to decide whether or not to slap this tax on an individual, by means of legislation that can't possible be specific enough to make sure only the "right" people get such punishment. Interesting thought, not unlike my argument against the death penalty.) There's a question of legality and there's a question of fairness. (HA, I know, I know.) How do we decide whose bonuses are withheld/supertaxed, and whose aren't? Does the douchebag who got his massive bonus on November 29 get to keep it, but the douchebag who was promised his December 1 and is receiving it now doesn't? In our country, under our system, we have to force ourselves to be fair in the legal sense, to be objective, to call the mass murderer a suspect so that the protester too will be given that right. It's frustrating, but maybe there's nothing we can do that we want to allow our government to do, really.
Finally, why AIG? Is it because talking about the executives of all of these companies who have taken bailout money is too much for their tiny minds to take in? Is the lynch mob intent on stringing up only one thief at a time? Won't they spend their energy on this first one and lose interest before they move on to the rest? Is that justice?