Quote:
Originally Posted by theking
,,,These bonuses were not performance based bonuses. They were retention based bonuses and in fact were not really bonuses but contracted salaries. Because of something to do with taxes the company pays a smaller salary on the books and uses contracted retention "bonuses" to pay what the actual salaries are. This whole thing is simply the media and politicians posturing for the sheeple.
|
You're exactly right. First of all Chris Dodd has already said that it was the administration that actually pushed to have the provision to allow payment of bonuses in the first place. This thing is a smokescreen for the fact that congress VOTED for the payment of bonuses.
Second, how fair, (or even constitutional), is it to prejudicially change higher income tax for one group of people.
So if you work for a company, and you have a contract to be paid a certain amount. Now all of the sudden the government decides to give the company money, and now they come and tell you that you are going to be taxed at 90% for the income that you are owed by contract when you took the job.
I don't see how anyone can think that this move by congress is a good idea.
.