When 'progressive' Means Punitive ...

... and the Constitution doesn't matter any more!


The progressive income tax is punitive by nature and in its design. It is ineffective for any purpose other then income redistribution and the graduated tax acts as a catalyst for social engineering. Where one can let lose the most base and insidious human emotions (jealousy and envy maybe), as justification. It was originally set up to make the wealthy pay ... a little money envy here maybe. Ah, but on the other side of the coin ... being progressive it removes many from being taxed.

Events of the last week reinforce the fact that being 'progressive' our tax can be used to punish people ... for a multitude of reasons.

The US House of Representatives passes a "90% Tax on AIG Bonus". But it actually goes against bonuses paid by companies receiving bailout money. If the "TARP bonus" bill the House passed today becomes law, any of the hundreds of thousands of people who work for Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, and nine other major US corporations will have to fork over 90 cents of every bonus dollar that puts their household income over $250,000. That's household income, not individual income. If you're married and filing singly, you'll have to surrender anything over $125,000. Indefinitely.

Congress didn't read the Bailout that contained the provision that okayed the bonuses, wonder if they actually red this bill.

What about the millions made by those at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when we first hear of this, millions in bonuses. And did people like Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick, Tom Daschle, and Rahm Emmanual exceed this limit? Where was the outrage against them?

Why do i write this you ask. What brought this on, well ....


Rangel: 'We'll take another look at private business executive compensation'
Fox News Sunday | 3/22/09

Charlie Rangel, one of Congress' Dem professional criminals, was just interviewed by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."

Among other bombshells was his answer to Wallace's question about the AIG bonus kerfuffle. Rangel suggested that, regarding private businesses that take no bailout, he is planning on limiting the pay and bonuses received by ANY business manager, whether the company involved has received any government money or not, to ensure the "fairness" of the system.

Barney Frank has already stated as much although we haven't heard much on this from Frank since the beginning of the year. But it seems clear to me that legislation is already written and awaiting filing that would allow Congress to set the compensation of all American workers.

On the other hand, Charlie Tax Cheat has no problem with Geithner despite Geithner's clear involvement in oking the AIG bonuses and then lying about it.

More fun was had with budget numbers. Dr. Somers said with a straight face, that The Messiah will indeed cut the deficit by 50% during his term.

Wallace then hit Charlie with Rangel's multitude of tax crimes. Rangel replied that the evil news industry -- esp. Fox -- had created these scandalous allegations as a personal vendeta against Rangel. Rangel insisted that he has done nothing wrong and that the Dem Congress is "carefully studying" the allegations and that there is no there there.

So, what about it? How much do you think Congress will let you earn, and how will you express your gratitude?



Rangel was introduced as the powerful chairman of the Ways and Means committee, where all tax legislation originates. Based on his words and human nature, lets think.

Where to next? Humm, let us think a bit. Who will be in Congress's sights next. Where have we seen similar outrage in the past?

Let’s cap actors at no more than $200,000 per year, regardless of how many films they make or what the box office is.

Baseball pitchers at $120,000. Other position players at $80,000. NFL quarterbacks at $250,000. Sports figures convicted of taking steroids pay back earnings.

Full professors at state schools at $50,000. Full professors at  Ivy League schools $75,000. They are allowed up to $10,000 a year of on outside income.

Airline pilots are allowed only $20/HR plus OT about 1.5X what cabbies make (they’re just glorified cab drivers, after all) and cabbies don’t get OT. Oh, lets not forget - less any outside income from military retirement pay, since we paid for their training, after all.

Authors who get big money to write against a member of Congress. Radio Talk Show hosts?

Where could it go? Where would it end? Nothing in the Constitution allows government to set salaries or bonuses. Ah, but that right ... the Constitution doesn't matter any more!


"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy." -- Daniel Webster


How about the old-fashioned idea of allowing shareholders to decide how to compensate their hired help? Why must society dictate the actions of companies they are not shareholders in? When the government gets into the business of mandating and controlling wages of individuals in private businesses, it’s over.

Bad, no terrible policy has started to become the Law of the Land. Congress (and politicians) fixes the outrage anywhere except where it belongs ... directed against them! Direct constituents outrage anywhere, but against them.


It is time for the FairTax! Not perfect, but a long sight better than the convoluted fouled up income tax we have or any of the flat income taxes proposed, since they too possess this same shortcoming.


The Unconstitutional AIG Bonus Tax
http://rightwingnews.com | March 19, 2009 | John Hawkins

Josie06 Josie06
56-60, F
8 Responses Mar 22, 2009

We won't even get started on illegal immigration. I do know that we do agree on that issue :-) That makes my hair stand on end!

Government is the problem and the cause ... and they use their slight-of-hand to get everyone's eyes off the real prize or rather problem. Elitist who rule us.<br />
<br />
i agree, the airlines after 9-11 should not have been helped. The bailouts of 2008-09 are wrong.<br />
<br />
i disagree on the Military Commission Act, it is a normal extension of the power of the President's Office.<br />
<br />
Never liked CAFTA or NAFTA. Or the UN.<br />
<br />
i wish that since this nation is based on the Rule of Law that the Rule of Law would stand and not be rode roughshod over with vindictive spur of the moment attack on a group of people.<br />
<br />
Politicians have determined without the benefit of due process or a trial, that the actions of the AIG employees in accepting these bonuses was a crime. Since it was a crime it shall be punished by seizure of the money.<br />
<br />
Was it wrong for them to do it ... no, cause Congress authorized it in the Bailout Bill. Was it just plain STUPID ... YES.<br />
<br />
i have not been a happy camper with the last 8 years either. Former President Bush ran as a conservative ... and he was not. Please remember that. <br />
<br />
He never saw a spending bill he didn't like and many other things that i disagree with (Amnesty for Illegals another biggie). i do however think he will be remembered well by historians for his efforts to protect America and take the fight overseas to where ever terrorist or their benefactors reside. The only conservative issue, strong national defense, he stood for.<br />
<br />
That's me and my opinion.

Actually, I'm pissed about the whole damn thing. We had no business bailing out anyone. First it was the airlines after 9-11, then it was the banks and Wall Street, then the Big Three Automakers. Citigroup buys the new rights to use their name on the new Yankee's Stadium, the sponsor the Superbowl. No one balks at that. Then we learn of the bonus' and there's a little howl, then the magnitude of the bailout comes to light and everyone who freaking gave the money to them in the first place feigns outrage. So, when I wrote what I wrote, I wasn't meaning you, Josie. I just mean the whole freaking system. <br />
<br />
I don't think the Military Commission Act was a good thing. We never would have invaded Iraq but that's another thread............. So, I'm not attacking you, per se, it's the freaking system and with you, I agree some big things need to change. I'm not a happy camper today and for the past 8 years. Oh and NAFTA and CAFTA were big freaking mistakes too.

Oh, i forgot the main point of the article.<br />
<br />
Evidently it is fine with you if Congress determines all salaries in the US.<br />
<br />
"Rangel suggested that, regarding private businesses that take no bailout, he is planning on limiting the pay and bonuses received by ANY business manager, whether the company involved has received any government money or not, to ensure the "fairness" of the system."<br />
<br />
This is truly the American way. Government determine all.<br />
<br />
The United Socialist States of America has arrived. You all can now party ... again. Remember ... you won!

Under the Patriot Act i didn't lose anything. You want to listen to my phone calls go ahead. i make no calls overseas and one end of the call had to be overseas.<br />
<br />
The Military Commission Act gave the President the right to decide who is an enemy of the country. As Commander-in-Chief, well i'd think that falls under his purview ... not the peoples.<br />
<br />
Unless we declare enemies by whom we tax and who we exclude. Maybe it's by who we call names. i call you a name your an enemy. Is that it? <br />
<br />
Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder. It cuts both ways.<br />
<br />
Neither of the acts protected the "greedy business men" you seem to have a vendetta against.

i guess you really don't understand what i am saying or have said if you read any of my other stories.<br />
<br />
i am against the Bailout! Was from the beginning. No bank, AIG or any other should have been given US tax dollars to survive.<br />
<br />
i am against the US government owning equity in any private business. They can't manage themselves now they are on the Boards of major US corporations creating havoc.<br />
<br />
The Bonus Tax is a vindictive tax ... especially when you start to realize that government okayed the bonuses in the original bill. Now their constituents are outraged and Congress must 'retro-actively' effect what the people want. Not to mention trample on the Rule of Law established in the US (Contract Law) and the US Constitution.<br />
<br />
Bad law! Who will be the next target of an outraged citizenry. <br />
<br />
Congress can and will use it to get the citizens to focus on any where else except where the actual problem lies ... with Congress.<br />
<br />
As i've already said and you have reiterated it clearly ... the Constitution means nothing today to the majority of Americans ... and certainly means nothing to Congress.<br />
<br />
i've got a concept for you ... let's legally tax people! Unique isn't it. But, i know, not the American way.

Funny how you think that using the tax code to get back the undeserved bonus money from the AIG employees is a bad precedent whereas giving the company 130 billion is not. I love Republilogic. <br />
It's amazing to hear the GOP is suddenly concerned about legislation being unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights shredders like the Military Commission act, and the "Patriot" act didn't faze you guys at all. But just try to curtail the obscene greed of the ruling elite and all of a sudden we have constitutional law experts on the far right side of the aisle. Is there no limit to the hypocrisy?

A little bit tired of Big Biz screams of government interference after they just brokered the most hideous raid on our taxpayer pockets since the days of the railroad right of way giveaways ... almost none of the Fortune 500 corporations pay any income taxes, and very few millionaires pay enough to affect their daily decisions. <br />
<br />
The lower three quintiles, however, are being hit from all sides by state and local tax increases, rising "hidden inflation" -- like gas prices, and decreasing job stability and benefit value.<br />
<br />
The wealthy benefit far more from the stable business environment and (somewhat damaged lately) world reputation that our Nation provides them than the average Jane and Joe. They should contribute to the maintenance of the commons proportionately.