Jonathan Clements跟马多夫(Bernie Madoff)一样，政府也在对我的钱穷追不舍。而跟他不一样的是，我并没做错什么事。可惜的是，众议院不这么想。上周四，328名众议员投票通过法案，要对我的奖金征收90%的附加税，筹款委员会(Ways and Means Committee)主席兰格尔(Charles Rangel)还将我1月份得到的奖金说成“有悖于正直人士的所有信仰”。参议院也在考虑类似的法案。对于熟悉我名字的人，这可能出乎你们的意料。直到一年前，我还一直是《华尔街日报》个人理财栏目的专栏作者，并且被很多人视为普通投资者的朋友。但那已是过去时了。2008年4月，我离开《华尔街日报》，加入了花旗的一家新机构。（以下是我的观点，不代表花旗集团。）过去一年中，我觉得自己参与建立了一个很棒的为客户着想的公司，将利益冲突降到最低，偏重于指数基金，并为普通美国人提供方方面面的理财帮助。看上去我是大错特错了。如果政府的指责能够作准的话，我显然是在全球经济和金融市场的崩溃中扮演了重大角色，而且必须为此受到惩罚。众议院提出的议案如果得以立法，那我的调整后总收入一旦达到25万美元，我的奖金就会被课以最高90%的税。这一税项适用于花旗这样接受了50亿美元以上政府金融救助资金的公司的员工。可以想像，这有点儿难以理解，因为我从未涉及向次债贷款者放贷，而且据我所知我现在的同事也没有人涉及此事。事实上，许多应该为当前的困境负责的华尔街高管早就一走了之，除非他们在2009年获得奖金，否则他们就逃脱了这90%的附加税。不公平？事实上的确如此。打个比方，众议院的法案就好像对当前在任的政治家的收入实施处罚，因为他们的前任没能将我们大家从当前的经济崩溃中拯救出来。我知道，读者们并不会为我掬一把同情泪－－25万美元算得上是一大笔钱了（不过，相信我，这点钱在纽约也过不上什么好日子）。然而，这个法案可能导致财务方面的问题。我的一些同事已经花掉了奖金，或是将很大一部分放进了401(k)退休金计划中，因此要拿出钱来付这90%的税会很难。有的人总收入不到25万美元，但如果将配偶的薪水以及他们的投资所得算进来，他们就超过了这个水平。该法案还可能对经济造成损害，促使银行缩减放贷，以便归还之前获得的救助资金，让员工不用缴这笔附加税。还是不接受我们的日子也不好过的观点？不相信这项税不公平？想想这个真正让人刺痛的控诉：90%的税简直就是愚蠢无比，会对经济产生极大的阻碍。证据一？那就是我。如果我今年的总收入达到了25万美元，那我在2009年就会没有丝毫工作动力。毕竟，我在25万美元收入之外每多赚一块钱，早些时候所得到的奖金就会损失0.9美元。鉴于我自己对个人理财还算有些心得，我试图想出蒙混过关的法子。我估计，通过将2009年的投资收入降到最低，再将其他收入推迟到2010年，我就可以让付税的一天晚点到来。但就算用这样的手段，到今年10月中旬我的总收入也会达到25万美元－－然后就再也没有动力在2009年赚更多收入。这样的话，我打算向花旗要求无薪休假。别去想赚更多钱了。一点意义都没有。相反，你会发现我成天窝在家里，拼命想法不花钱。这对于我们一家子来说在财务上是明智的。对于在困境中挣扎的经济而言呢？那就不是那么明智了。（本文作者为花旗集团旗下myFi的财务指导业务负责人，着有The Little Book of Main Street Money，将于今年5月由Wiley出版。）相关阅读美国三大银行CEO批评奖金税法案 2009-03-23美国会奖金税法案震撼华尔街 2009-03-20向奖金开炮 2009-03-20美众议院通过奖金税法案 附加税高达90% 2009-03-20
Like Bernie Madoff, I've got the government coming after my money. Unlike Madoff, I didn't do anything wrong.The House of Representatives, alas, thinks otherwise. Last Thursday, 328 members voted for a bill that would slap a 90% surtax on my bonus, with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel dismissing the payout I received in January as 'repugnant to everything that decent people believe in.' The Senate is considering a similar bill.All of this might come as a surprise to those of you who recognize my byline. Until a year ago, I was The Wall Street Journal's personal-finance columnist -- and widely considered to be a friend of the ordinary investor.But that was then. In April 2008, I left to join a new Citi venture. (What follows are my views -- not those of Citigroup Inc.) For the past year, I thought I was involved in building a wonderful, customer-friendly business that minimizes conflicts of interest, favors index funds, and helps everyday Americans with their entire financial lives.It seems that I was sadly mistaken. If the rebuke from Washington is any guide, I have apparently played an integral part in the collapse of the global economy and the financial markets -- and I must be punished.Should the House bill become law, my bonus will be taxed at up to 90% once my adjusted gross income hits $250,000. The tax will apply to employees of those companies, like Citi, that have received more than $5 billion from the government's financial rescue program. As you might imagine, this is a tad perplexing, given that I've never been involved in lending to subprime mortgage borrowers and, as far as I know, nor have any of the folks I now work with.In fact, many of the Wall Street executives responsible for today's mess have long since moved on -- and, unless they receive a bonus in 2009, will escape the 90% surtax. Unfair？ Indeed, it is. The House bill is akin to, say, penalizing the earnings of today's politicians because their predecessors failed to save us from the current economic debacle.I realize readers won't be shedding tears -- $250,000 is a decent chunk of change (though, trust me, it doesn't buy that great a lifestyle in New York). Still, the bill could cause financial headaches. Some of my colleagues have already spent their bonus or put a big chunk into their 401(k) plan, so finding the money to pay the 90% tax will be a struggle. Some have total incomes that don't come close to $250,000 -- but they breach that level once their spouse's salary and their investment income are included. The bill could also hurt the economy, encouraging banks to cut back on lending, so they can return their bailout money and protect employees from the surtax.Not buying the hardship angle？ Not persuaded that this tax is unfair？ Consider this truly searing indictment: A 90% tax is downright stupid, creating bizarre disincentives. Exhibit A？ That would be me. Once my total income hits $250,000 for the current calendar year, I will have no incentive to work a single day more in 2009. After all, for every extra dollar of income I earn above $250,000, I will lose 90 cents of the bonus I received earlier this year.Being somewhat knowledgeable about personal finance, I'm trying to figure out how to finagle this. By minimizing my investment income in 2009 and pushing other income into 2010, I reckon I can delay the day of tax reckoning. But even with that finagling, by mid-October, I will hit $250,000 in total income -- and have no incentive to earn any more income in 2009.At that point, I plan to ask Citi for an unpaid sabbatical. Forget earning more income. There's no point. Instead, you will find me hunkered down at home, desperately trying not to spend money. This will make entire financial sense for the Clements household. What about the struggling economy？ Not so much.(Mr. Clements is director of financial guidance for myFi, a unit of Citi, and the author of 'The Little Book of Main Street Money,' out in May by Wiley.)
Like Bernie Madoff, I've got the government coming after my money. Unlike Madoff, I didn't do anything wrong.The House of Representatives, alas, thinks otherwise. Last Thursday, 328 members voted for a bill that would slap a 90% surtax on my bonus, with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel dismissing the payout I received in January as 'repugnant to everything that decent people believe in.' The Senate is considering a similar bill.All of this might come as a surprise to those of you who recognize my byline. Until a year ago, I was The Wall Street Journal's personal-finance columnist -- and widely considered to be a friend of the ordinary investor.But that was then. In April 2008, I left to join a new Citi venture. (What follows are my views -- not those of Citigroup Inc.) For the past year, I thought I was involved in building a wonderful, customer-friendly business that minimizes conflicts of interest, favors index funds, and helps everyday Americans with their entire financial lives.It seems that I was sadly mistaken. If the rebuke from Washington is any guide, I have apparently played an integral part in the collapse of the global economy and the financial markets -- and I must be punished.Should the House bill become law, my bonus will be taxed at up to 90% once my adjusted gross income hits $250,000. The tax will apply to employees of those companies, like Citi, that have received more than $5 billion from the government's financial rescue program. As you might imagine, this is a tad perplexing, given that I've never been involved in lending to subprime mortgage borrowers and, as far as I know, nor have any of the folks I now work with.In fact, many of the Wall Street executives responsible for today's mess have long since moved on -- and, unless they receive a bonus in 2009, will escape the 90% surtax. Unfair？ Indeed, it is. The House bill is akin to, say, penalizing the earnings of today's politicians because their predecessors failed to save us from the current economic debacle.I realize readers won't be shedding tears -- $250,000 is a decent chunk of change (though, trust me, it doesn't buy that great a lifestyle in New York). Still, the bill could cause financial headaches. Some of my colleagues have already spent their bonus or put a big chunk into their 401(k) plan, so finding the money to pay the 90% tax will be a struggle. Some have total incomes that don't come close to $250,000 -- but they breach that level once their spouse's salary and their investment income are included. The bill could also hurt the economy, encouraging banks to cut back on lending, so they can return their bailout money and protect employees from the surtax.Not buying the hardship angle？ Not persuaded that this tax is unfair？ Consider this truly searing indictment: A 90% tax is downright stupid, creating bizarre disincentives. Exhibit A？ That would be me. Once my total income hits $250,000 for the current calendar year, I will have no incentive to work a single day more in 2009. After all, for every extra dollar of income I earn above $250,000, I will lose 90 cents of the bonus I received earlier this year.Being somewhat knowledgeable about personal finance, I'm trying to figure out how to finagle this. By minimizing my investment income in 2009 and pushing other income into 2010, I reckon I can delay the day of tax reckoning. But even with that finagling, by mid-October, I will hit $250,000 in total income -- and have no incentive to earn any more income in 2009.At that point, I plan to ask Citi for an unpaid sabbatical. Forget earning more income. There's no point. Instead, you will find me hunkered down at home, desperately trying not to spend money. This will make entire financial sense for the Clements household. What about the struggling economy？ Not so much.(Mr. Clements is director of financial guidance for myFi, a unit of Citi, and the author of 'The Little Book of Main Street Money,' out in May by Wiley.)
扫一扫
1万+
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
