Is the bonus tax unconstitutional?

Is the tax constitutional?

  • Total voters
    21
F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
The constitution prohibits bills of attainder, which are laws passed to punish a specific person or group.

Do you think the tax on bonuses going towards employees of companies taking bailout money is sufficiently broad to avoid this? Or does the fact that, in practice, it only applies to AIG make it a bill of attainder?

Or some other reason?
 
I dont' pretend to be a constitutional legal scholar, like Dano or any of the libertarians on this site do constantly. My answer: I don't know.
 
Conservatives only say it is unconstitutional because they support the rich and hate the poor. They were cheering these bonuses on; any transfer of wealth to the rich is justified.
 
If the government has controlling interest in a company, they get to call the shots. That's really as difficult as this needs to be. It would be tyranny to go and tax corporations that they don't own, but we just gave them tax payer dollars. We're in charge now.
 
It's unconstitutional.

But Hell, it's probably the LEAST unconstitutional thing our government has done in the last 90 days so I'm not sure that it even matters anymore.
 
Epicurus said:
It's unconstitutional.

But Hell, it's probably the LEAST unconstitutional thing our government has done in the last 90 days so I'm not sure that it even matters anymore.
Click to expand...

it is unconstitutional, but i'd have to disagree with you on the idea of it being the LEAST constitutional.

This bill is an overt abuse of the taxing power of congress, designed to punish a select group of people.
 
Violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The bonuses wer NOT illegal at the time given. Passing a law that punishes these bonuses will stand Constitutional muster.
 
Socrtease said:
Violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The bonuses wer NOT illegal at the time given. Passing a law that punishes these bonuses will stand Constitutional muster.
Click to expand...


The bonuses still aren't illegal. They'll just be heavily taxed.

I don't think it's unconstitutional, just stupid.
 
There is no way that there is a justification for a 90% tax on just ONE companies bonuses and not EVERY bonus given in America. Courts will have to see the tax as punitive in nature and therefore a violation of ex post facto clause. There is no other rational explanation for the severity of the tax.
 
Socrtease said:
There is no way that there is a justification for a 90% tax on just ONE companies bonuses and not EVERY bonus given in America. Courts will have to see the tax as punitive in nature and therefore a violation of ex post facto clause. There is no other rational explanation for the severity of the tax.
Click to expand...


But it doesn't make the payment of bonuses or acceptance of same criminal conduct. It just taxes the bonuses. If Congress raised the income tax today on all income earned in 2009 I couldn't successfully claim that the tax increase is an unconstitutional ex post facto law as applied against my earnings in January and February.

A better argument can be made on bill of attainder grounds, but I still think it is constitutional but stupid.
 
Socrtease said:
There is no way that there is a justification for a 90% tax on just ONE companies bonuses and not EVERY bonus given in America. Courts will have to see the tax as punitive in nature and therefore a violation of ex post facto clause. There is no other rational explanation for the severity of the tax.
Click to expand...

It is raising the income taxes on companies receiving bailout money. Not a specific group, and not an individual. Of course, it only practically effects AIG, because they've been the only company receiving bailout money with the gall to do this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top