walkitout (walkitout) wrote,
walkitout
walkitout

this whole contract argument is really pissing me off

If I go shop for an apartment, and I talk to someone at the complex and ask them how the soundproofing is and they say, oh, sure, it's great, no one ever complains you'll be happy, then I sign a lease, and there isn't anything in the lease about how I can get out of the lease if the soundproofing is unsatisfactory to me then it turns out that the soundproofing is _not_ satisfactory to me, I got bupkus to get out of that contract. If I didn't get it written down, there is no commitment. Verbal contracts can be binding, but tough luck enforcing them -- especially if it was some sales critter making the assurances and they didn't have the agency to make promises.

Why oh why oh why do people say that taxing the fuck out of those boni is breaking a contract? Was there a clause in that contract promising tax rates wouldn't change?

Really?

Tax rates can _always_ change. You don't get to make contracts about them.

ETA: interesting little analysis about targeted taxation

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/3/20/targeted-tax-provisions-have-a-history-before-aig-bonus-tax.html

Back in the Reagan years, the Philadelphia Inquirer sent a bunch of investigative reporters out to track down the beneficiaries of some of this crap. It was great reporting.

ETAYA: I think part of why I'm so cranky about this argument is because I live in a Town Meeting town in New England where the Town Meeting really is the government. And Town Meeting can't pass rules/laws/whatever that restrict the actions of subsequent Town Meetings. Cannot. Illegal. Not constitutional. Whatever. And a decent Town Moderator makes sure that gets enforced in detail. This actually makes some very good things (saving money in a capital fund to pay for an ambulance, say) really tricky to implement and require ongoing good faith efforts by the Town to stop people who don't want to pay taxes one year from draining the fund so they don't have to pony up as much on their Property Tax. (This happens. Bring up Merrimack, NH's library capital fund someday and just watch everyone cringe. And don't _ever_ move to Merrimack. There are some Very Bad People in that town.)

So the _idea_ that a contract between AIG and their employees somehow limits what the Federal Government can do?

Obscene. Blasphemous. Very, very wrong.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments