Obama proposes bank tax

myp · Jan 12, 2010

President Obama has proposed a bank tax to help offset bailout costs and to help offset the growing deficit. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this? Not only have the major banks paid back most, if not all of their TARP money (many with interest,) but this move will only hurt market growth at a time when unemployment is still a huge problem.

The companies that have not paid back their bailout money- GM, GMAC, Chrysler, Fannie/Freddie, etc.- will not be effected by this tax. How is this even logical? We are going to tax the companies that have paid back their money to pay off the owed money of companies that haven't?

ref: http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/11/news/economy/bank_tax/index.htm

Thoughts?

dave · Jan 12, 2010

myp said:
President Obama has proposed a bank tax to help offset bailout costs and to help offset the growing deficit. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this? Not only have the major banks paid back most, if not all of their TARP money (many with interest,) but this move will only hurt market growth at a time when unemployment is still a huge problem.

The companies that have not paid back their bailout money- GM, GMAC, Chrysler, Fannie/Freddie, etc.- will not be effected by this tax. How is this even logical? We are going to tax the companies that have paid back their money to pay off the owed money of companies that haven't?

ref: http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/11/news/economy/bank_tax/index.htm

Thoughts?

Financially, this is not smart, but Obama and Company need money and its popular to go after the "fat cat banks".

My opinion is that Obama has a 2 stage plan based on 2 terms in the White House. Stage 1 is to implement a lot of programs and reshape the nation now while he is not opposed by Congress. The programs go into effect and build a bureaucracy and constituency, but are not paid for. Stage 2 is in his second term, when he implements the tax policy to pay for the programs (i.e., redistribute the wealth). He can't talk about stage 2 yet or he will npt get re-elected.

People like Glenn Beck think Obama is much more devious and plans to ruin the economy (the dollar), causing the collapse of the nation, and then rebuild the nation with a socialist government. I can't disprove that idea.

It is odd that so many smart people are taking such seemingly risky and foolish actions. Obama's 10 year budget plan released in February 2009 showed he plans on doubling the debt and continuing deficit spending for 10 years, implementing "health care reform" which overhauls a huge segment of the economy, reorienting the energy industry and energy usage, implementing some sort of global warming policy, and who knows what else. All this and the Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security financial landslide is still looming. I don't see how this can stand up.

myp · Jan 12, 2010

dave said:
Financially, this is not smart, but Obama and Company need money and its popular to go after the "fat cat banks".

While I am not a fan of the bailouts, I am also no fan of this sort of meddling. Both will only prove to be destructive in the long term.

dave said:
My opinion is that Obama has a 2 stage plan based on 2 terms in the White House. Stage 1 is to implement a lot of programs and reshape the nation now while he is not opposed by Congress. The programs go into effect and build a bureaucracy and constituency, but are not paid for. Stage 2 is in his second term, when he implements the tax policy to pay for the programs (i.e., redistribute the wealth). He can't talk about stage 2 yet or he will npt get re-elected.

If that is true, the problem (thankfully) is that right now it seems like he won't even have the Congressional support to do anything grand after 2010.

dave said:
It is odd that so many smart people are taking such seemingly risky and foolish actions.

Never underestimate the corruption of special interests and this guise of government-created prosperity that has been created.

Dirk · Jan 13, 2010

Well, i'm glad it's not a direct attack on the working class. But it will translate. The bourgeoisie won't pay this from their bloody bonuses, they'll just downsize to make up for the loss. This not only defeats the purpose, but also hurts working people.

It only reaffirms, for me, my belief that taxes are stupid and we need economic restructuring.

DodgeFB · Jan 13, 2010

Dirk said:
Well, i'm glad it's not a direct attack on the working class. But it will translate. The bourgeoisie won't pay this from their bloody bonuses, they'll just downsize to make up for the loss. This not only defeats the purpose, but also hurts working people.

It only reaffirms, for me, my belief that taxes are stupid and we need economic restructuring.

Agreed!

But you will never get the "tax and spend" people to go along with it. They think the government knows just what to do with your money.

deanhills · Jan 13, 2010

myp said:
President Obama has proposed a bank tax to help offset bailout costs and to help offset the growing deficit. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this? Not only have the major banks paid back most, if not all of their TARP money (many with interest,) but this move will only hurt market growth at a time when unemployment is still a huge problem.

I'm totally dumbfounded by this. It is almost as bad as the Government wanting you to pay taxes on dividends, i.e. money that has already been taxed in the hands of the company. Not only did the government effectively devalue the dollar, which is already a whammy in its own right, but now wants poor people to pay taxes on their banking accounts. I imagine this will be all the banks and not only the banks who got bailed out! This guy is really robbing everyone BLIND!

Why can't they simply put one tax on Wall Street? That seems to be the place that most benefitted by the bail out money

dave · Jan 13, 2010

deanhills said:
I'm totally dumbfounded by this. It is almost as bad as the Government wanting you to pay taxes on dividends, i.e. money that has already been taxed in the hands of the company. Not only did the government effectively devalue the dollar, which is already a whammy in its own right, but now wants poor people to pay taxes on their banking accounts. I imagine this will be all the banks and not only the banks who got bailed out! This guy is really robbing everyone BLIND!

Why can't they simply put one tax on Wall Street? That seems to be the place that most benefitted by the bail out money

Wall Street and Main Street are not independent entities. What effects one also effects the other.

deanhills · Jan 15, 2010

dave said:
Wall Street and Main Street are not independent entities. What effects one also effects the other.

That is probably common sense, however a much better place than taxing take home salaries of individuals. Perhaps the taxation should be limited to those who have enough money to party on Wall Street?

Dirk · Jan 17, 2010

DodgeFB said:
They think the government knows just what to do with your money.

Even if they did, which i just don't believe, it wouldn't make it their business to spend our money.

DodgeFB · Jan 17, 2010

Dirk said:
Even if they did, which i just don't believe, it wouldn't make it their business to spend our money.

I just can never be happy about someone else having their hand in my pocket. That is why my wife and I have accounts in different banks.

Do I spend my money on my wife? Sure I do. But I do it. It is not extorted from me.

David McHenry · Jan 17, 2010

Taxes are bad mmmkay, especially taxing a service many of us need and rely upon. These banks/business/corporations will refuse to take a loss in an aspect of their business, what does that mean? It means that the tax is nothing more than a tax to the American people and more costs

DodgeFB · Jan 17, 2010

David McHenry said:
Taxes are bad mmmkay, especially taxing a service many of us need and rely upon. These banks/business/corporations will refuse to take a loss in an aspect of their business, what does that mean? It means that the tax is nothing more than a tax to the American people and more costs

In my opinion any tax on any company will be passed down to their customers in someway. But many in this country don't see it that way.

David · Jan 17, 2010

DodgeFB said:
In my opinion any tax on any company will be passed down to their customers in someway. But many in this country don't see it that way.

The gov't could just outlaw that. Not that they would with all the CEO's in gov't.

deanhills · Jan 17, 2010

Isn't it time for the American people to just refuse to pay taxes? Like they did during the Boston Tea Party before the War of Independence? Where is this going to stop? Someone really needs to reign in the Banks. They had a wonderful opportunity in January last year, when they could have either refused to bail out the Banks, or at least make them sweat for it with focus on the people of the United States who needed the bail outs too, i.e. no extra costs to the tax payer from the Banks?

David · Jan 17, 2010

deanhills said:
Isn't it time for the American people to just refuse to pay taxes? Like they did during the Boston Tea Party before the War of Independence? Where is this going to stop? Someone really needs to reign in the Banks. They had a wonderful opportunity in January last year, when they could have either refused to bail out the Banks, or at least make them sweat for it with focus on the people of the United States who needed the bail outs too, i.e. no extra costs to the tax payer from the Banks?

I've no issue with bailouts, the alternative was becoming another USSR and having our country fall apart. But if they were going to use my tax money to give loans and buy stock they should of given everyone a check for interest and ownership of the stock, receptively.

myp · Jan 17, 2010

David said:
The gov't could just outlaw that. Not that they would with all the CEO's in gov't.

I thought you were against price controls. Either way, do you agree with this tax, especially when the banks have paid back most/all of their money?

deanhills · Jan 17, 2010

David said:
I've no issue with bailouts, the alternative was becoming another USSR and having our country fall apart. But if they were going to use my tax money to give loans and buy stock they should of given everyone a check for interest and ownership of the stock, receptively.

That was the alternative that they used to scare people in voting for the bail outs. I have a complete issue with bail outs. The Banks were greedy and overzealous in getting more business. They had also become much too big. In the eighties we used to have Building Societies, and they were taken over by larger Banks, who became larger and larger as they started to get involved in building societies and then added investment business as well. They do need to be split up again, so that the banks can be taken back to the people who are banking in it, instead of being as divorced as they have become in proverbial ivory towers. Bail out was completely unnatural. Also, I have to ask how necessary it was, if Banks could have recovered almost within months of the bail out. There were no statements to say how much they had needed. Almost like signing a blank cheque with complete lack of information.

David · Jan 17, 2010

myp said:
I thought you were against price controls. Either way, do you agree with this tax, especially when the banks have paid back most/all of their money?

For the ones that already payed off their debts? Hell no! That's like paying off a credit card and getting another bill the next month.

But I do agree in the case of banks that haven't payed. This country needs that money and if the banks don't want to repay the taxpayers, I've no issue with the Feds taking it via tax.

myp · Jan 17, 2010

David said:
I've no issue with bailouts, the alternative was becoming another USSR and having our country fall apart. But if they were going to use my tax money to give loans and buy stock they should of given everyone a check for interest and ownership of the stock, receptively.

How exactly would the US have fallen apart? The healthy assets of the Goliaths would simply have been sold off or spun off. They could have gone through the bankruptcy process and out of it we would have new growth. There would be no collapse. Some temporary tightening of the belt, sure, but no collapse.

deanhills · Jan 17, 2010

myp said:
when the banks have paid back most/all of their money?

Does this then mean that the Government has recovered all of the 1.2-trillion? I have not seen any news reports about that? Is there a source of information that one can look at?

Obama proposes bank tax

Similar threads