With more than $18.4 billion in bonuses paid out to executives of failed financial institutions, and with President Obama calling these bonuses "shameful," the NY Times has an article discussing the merits of getting some of this money back. Unfortunately, while the article discusses taxing bonuses retroactively, it ends meekly by saying that this tactic "would hurt New York and other financial centers."
Incredible.
My comment at this point is "Who Cares?" Definitely not those who have seen their nest eggs collapse, or who have lost their homes.
We need to keep in mind that these guys knew what they were doing. Even the ones who weren't malicious understood what was going on. If they didn't, they don't deserve bonuses and, more to the point, should be looking for new a new line of work.
To argue that clawing back at bonuses with retroactive taxes would be bad for business is akin to suggesting that we shouldn't confiscate the ill-gotten goods of drug traffickers because "finders keepers." Where criminal activity and criminal negligence are involved, possession is not 9/10ths of the law.
Some might be inclined to argue that nothing illegal was done by executives who secured bonuses for helping run their companies into the ground. Think again.
As one of my acquaintances from the investment world pointed out, if we look at RICO statutes (1970, Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act; inspired by the Mob) we could pursue a criminal conspiracy to defraud. What's key here is conspiratorial "intent." Only in this case, because finance and corporate law is so opaque, I say let's circumvent the courts. They're overburdened as it is.
If we can grant retroactive tax breaks for a specific industry (and we have) we can also pursue, for lack of a better term, a Financial Industry "Bonus" Tax after the fact.
- Mark
Incredible.
My comment at this point is "Who Cares?" Definitely not those who have seen their nest eggs collapse, or who have lost their homes.
We need to keep in mind that these guys knew what they were doing. Even the ones who weren't malicious understood what was going on. If they didn't, they don't deserve bonuses and, more to the point, should be looking for new a new line of work.
To argue that clawing back at bonuses with retroactive taxes would be bad for business is akin to suggesting that we shouldn't confiscate the ill-gotten goods of drug traffickers because "finders keepers." Where criminal activity and criminal negligence are involved, possession is not 9/10ths of the law.
Some might be inclined to argue that nothing illegal was done by executives who secured bonuses for helping run their companies into the ground. Think again.
As one of my acquaintances from the investment world pointed out, if we look at RICO statutes (1970, Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act; inspired by the Mob) we could pursue a criminal conspiracy to defraud. What's key here is conspiratorial "intent." Only in this case, because finance and corporate law is so opaque, I say let's circumvent the courts. They're overburdened as it is.
If we can grant retroactive tax breaks for a specific industry (and we have) we can also pursue, for lack of a better term, a Financial Industry "Bonus" Tax after the fact.
- Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment