bpwallace49 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 This can be very questionable . . Anyone think this is a good idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 This can be very questionable . . Anyone think this is a good idea? If they can afford to pay bonuses, they can afford to repay the taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 i'm sure they're figure out a way to pass the tax off to the consumer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 If they can afford to pay bonuses, they can afford to repay the taxpayers. But the article says that many of the affected banks accepted ZERO federal money so they have nothing to repay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 (edited) i'm sure they're figure out a way to pass the tax off to the consumer. That's not very likely because the tax would only affect the biggest banks. Anyone who tries to pass the tax off onto their customers would merely drive their customers into the arms of smaller banks who would not be subject to the tax. Edited January 14, 2010 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 But the article says that many of the affected banks accepted ZERO federal money so they have nothing to repay? True. Though I was referring to repayment of bailout money, not this new tax. The article discusses a new tax I'd heard about this morning. I understand (and agree) with the sentiment of the proposed tax. However, as my hedge fund manager friend is fond of saying, you affect change in the industry by regulating how people make money: not by penalizing conduct you don't like. Penalties can be avoided. The incentive to make money cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 I really do not see any positives out of this . . . and I cant read into any deeper now because Predator is on AMC and my attention is diverted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Two wrongs don't make a right. They would have to pay up even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most that did have repaid the infusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 (edited) Two wrongs don't make a right. Please understand that the proposed tax isn't meant to punish those who took taxpayer assistance. It's a half-cocked disincentive for banks to become "too big to fail" in the first place, and would discourage cultures of ginormous bonuses built on the back of short-term thinking and/or financial trickery, regardless of whether those banks end up needing assistance. I understand where the president is coming from. But I think he's going it about it the wrong way. Edited January 14, 2010 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 (edited) Well, to me it sounds much like those of us who do the right things, budget ourselves according to our worth, buy only a house we can afford, etc... and then get told that we have to kick in money to bailout the idiots that thought the could buy a $500,000 house on a $40,000 income. Would it be fair to put a similar tax on the American automakers for having to bail them out and then lump in Ford even though they didn't take government assistance? ETA: I understand your point, that it is not to "punish" but more to "regulate" the industry. But as you said, he is going about it in the wrong way. Edited January 15, 2010 by millerx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 then get told that we have to kick in money to bailout the idiots that thought the could buy a $500,000 house on a $40,000 income. We do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Wait a minute, I thought I just heard we were making a profit on these bailouts? Why do we need a tax to get our money back if we are making a profit? You mean someone didn't tell us the whole truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Wait a minute, I thought I just heard we were making a profit on these bailouts? Why do we need a tax to get our money back if we are making a profit? You mean someone didn't tell us the whole truth? See post #9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 We do? Indirectly... and it was an analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 See post #9 But I thought Obama said "we want our money back". Hey I wonder if we can start taxing politicians extra because we want our money back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 We do? Indirectly... and it was an analogy. So, do you believe he IS going about it in the right way? Punish regulate those that didn't need it? Don't view it on a individual basis, but rather lump everyone together? Shocking how anti-capitalistic your view is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Indirectly... and it was an analogy. Almost no-one has had their mortgage subsidized or bailed out as far as I know. That's one of the administration's least successful efforts. I seriously doubt anyone who overstretched as far as you mention is still in their house. Not even at half that cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Indirectly... and it was an analogy. So, do you believe he IS going about it in the right way? Punish regulate those that didn't need it? Don't view it on a individual basis, but rather lump everyone together? Shocking how anti-capitalistic your view is. Did you read the apologies mumbled by the grand panjandrums yesterday? Far from taxing them, I'd regulate the bejesus out of them and make defenestration from the 85th floor for one Wall Street executive per month a public entertainment. Shocking how short your memory is - these people wiped out ten years of savings with their greed. And before you argue the toss over that, remember I'll just post the admission quotes from their own mouths yesterday to respond, so don't bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 (edited) We do? alot of this mess has to do with housing and real estate. so unfortunately, we do. and the usg is to blame as well. they gave these guys golden parachutes. they gave money to aig, and then had aig pay full price for the cdos to all the banks. those banks shouldve gotten 20 cents on the dollar. talk to the fed about that one. the banks needed to be bailed out, the terms shouldve been different. or we couldve let the weak ones fail, but who know what that wouldve done. good times. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Geithner-wil...set=&ccode= and it really isnt hard to make money when you can borrow it for free from the usg. my feeling is these guys said, lets just go balls to the wall. either we make a ton of money or we go under and it really doesnt matter what happens. they saw things were gonna change, more regulation so gave it one last shot. and won. imo. and this tax will do nothing good. doesnt provide jobs. the cost will passed on to us somehow. Edited January 15, 2010 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.