• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Unveils Proposal on Bank Taxes

RightinNYC

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Obama Unveils Proposal on Bank Taxes - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama, declaring "we want our money back and we're going to get it," said Thursday banks have a responsibility to make taxpayers whole for the financial-sector bailout and should pay a proposed tax by rolling back big bonuses.

"Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities," Mr. Obama said in remarks at the White House.

The president, who said his resolve in recouping taxpayer funds has been stiffened by reports of "obscene bonuses," formally unveiled his plan for a new tax on large financial firms. The tax, which the White House calls a "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee," is expected to raise $117 billion over about 12 years, and $90 billion over the next 10 years. Around 60% of the revenue will come from the 10 largest financial firms.
Click to expand...

Let's be very clear about the numbers here.

TARP is projected to cost the taxpayer just $42 billion. That $42 billion includes a $30b loss from the automakers, a $30b loss from AIG, and a $19b profit from the big banks.

So in order to recoup that $42b loss, the most fair way to do it is to impose a $120b tax on the only people who didn't actually cost the taxpayer money? ****ing bull****.

"When we see reports of firms once again engaging in risky bets to reap quick rewards, when we see a return to compensation practices that seem not to reflect what the country's been through, all that looks like business as usual to me," Mr. Obama said. "The financial industry has even launched a massive lobbying campaign, locking arms with the opposition party to stand in the way of reforms to prevent another crisis. That, too, unfortunately is business as usual."
Click to expand...

The financial industry dared to agree with the Republicans in opposing your proposed reform, so this is your way of getting back at them?

The White House plan, which excludes small banks and auto makers that accepted funds from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, reflects lingering public anger toward Wall Street and mounting unease over the billions in bonuses that financial firms are expected to dole out this year.
Click to expand...

So it excludes the organizations that are responsible for more than half of the losses from TARP, while placing the entire responsibility on the organizations that earned the government a $19b profit.

This is probably the worst example of naked populism we've seen from Obama. There is just no justification for this.
 
AIG will be hit by the tax, right?
 
liblady said:
AIG will be hit by the tax, right?
Click to expand...

AIG will be one of the 50 institutions hit by the tax, yes.

If the government wanted to recoup this money from them, it wouldn't be so problematic. It's the fact that they're just using public ignorance and misplaced anger to drum up support for a completely misguided tax that pisses me off.

But hey, Obama has to propose a budget, and even if its not eventually passed, this will let him fudge the numbers in there to make it look better for now.
 
RightinNYC said:
So in order to recoup that $42b loss, the most fair way to do it is to impose a $120b tax on the only people who didn't actually cost the taxpayer money? ****ing bull****.

This is probably the worst example of naked populism we've seen from Obama. There is just no justification for this.
Click to expand...
…"when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."

Unbelievable.

And when you read his remarks?

Liar.
 
Obama Tells Banks: 'We Want Our Money Back' - US News and World Report
The president's tone was emphatic and populist, capitalizing on public antipathy toward Wall Street. With the sharp words, he also tried to deflect some of the growing skepticism aimed at his own economic policies as unemployment stubbornly hovers around 10 percent.

The proposed 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of large financial institutions would apply only to those companies with assets of more than $50 billion - a group estimated at about 50. Administration officials estimate that 60 percent of the revenue would come from the 10 biggest ones.

They would have to pay up even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most that did have repaid the infusions.
Click to expand...
 
RightinNYC said:
AIG will be one of the 50 institutions hit by the tax, yes.

If the government wanted to recoup this money from them, it wouldn't be so problematic. It's the fact that they're just using public ignorance and misplaced anger to drum up support for a completely misguided tax that pisses me off.

But hey, Obama has to propose a budget, and even if its not eventually passed, this will let him fudge the numbers in there to make it look better for now.
Click to expand...
then your numbers aren't quite right. and i really don't believe the anger is misplaced.
 
RightinNYC said:
Obama Unveils Proposal on Bank Taxes - WSJ.com



Let's be very clear about the numbers here.

TARP is projected to cost the taxpayer just $42 billion. That $42 billion includes a $30b loss from the automakers, a $30b loss from AIG, and a $19b profit from the big banks.

So in order to recoup that $42b loss, the most fair way to do it is to impose a $120b tax on the only people who didn't actually cost the taxpayer money? ****ing bull****.



The financial industry dared to agree with the Republicans in opposing your proposed reform, so this is your way of getting back at them?



So it excludes the organizations that are responsible for more than half of the losses from TARP, while placing the entire responsibility on the organizations that earned the government a $19b profit.

This is probably the worst example of naked populism we've seen from Obama. There is just no justification for this.
Click to expand...

Sure there is... it's all in "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. You know... we heard all about it during the campaign: "Spread the wealth around".
 
liblady said:
then your numbers aren't quite right.
Click to expand...

Please explain how my numbers aren't right. Do you mean that instead of raising $120b from innocent banks, I should have said that this tax will raise $115 from innocent banks and $5b from guilty AIG?

and i really don't believe the anger is misplaced.
Click to expand...

And I really don't think you can offer an explanation for why.
 
RightinNYC said:
Please explain how my numbers aren't right. Do you mean that instead of raising $120b from innocent banks, I should have said that this tax will raise $115 from innocent banks and $5b from guilty AIG?



And I really don't think you can offer an explanation for why.
Click to expand...
i work for a bank that accepted tarp money and has not paid it back. i also believe my bank was needlessly speculative and brought their problems on themselves, as did most other firms.

yes, aig should have been included.

i've had no raise for 2 years, while our sr mgmt has been given loads of stock. so no, my anger is not misplaced.

millions of $$ in bonuses to the very people who caused the crisis pisses me off, yes. it doesn't bother you?
 
liblady said:
i work for a bank that accepted tarp money and has not paid it back.
Click to expand...

Whether they've paid it back yet or not has no bearing on whether it will earn the government money when it is paid back. BoA hasn't paid their money back yet, but the gov will turn quite a healthy profit once it does.

i also believe my bank was needlessly speculative and brought their problems on themselves, as did most other firms.
Click to expand...

So? They brought the problems on themselves, suffered some substantial losses, took money from the government, and paid that money back with interest.

i've had no raise for 2 years, while our sr mgmt has been given loads of stock. so no, my anger is not misplaced.

millions of $$ in bonuses to the very people who caused the crisis pisses me off, yes. it doesn't bother you?
Click to expand...

It's not my money, so no, it doesn't anger me. They paid the money back, they can run their businesses however they like. It shouldn't anger you either.
 
liblady said:
i've had no raise for 2 years, while our sr mgmt has been given loads of stock. so no, my anger is not misplaced.
Click to expand...

Your anger is misplaced. You should instead re-direct it into finding a new job.

millions of $$ in bonuses to the very people who caused the crisis pisses me off, yes. it doesn't bother you?
Click to expand...

The banks didn't cause the crisis.
 
The relentless federal push toward higher homeownership, the rock bottom interest rates, the overbuilding (and oversupply) of houses, foolish borrowing, foolish lending, securitization, insane leverage, the credit rating agencies, the general assumption that home prices would continue to rise forever, etc.

Wall street and the rest of the major banks weren't the only ones that played a role in the housing/economic crisis, they're just the most convenient ones to blame.
 
liblady said:
i work for a bank that accepted tarp money and has not paid it back. i also believe my bank was needlessly speculative and brought their problems on themselves, as did most other firms.
Click to expand...

And the correct solution was for the government tell the bank, "oh, look, you're going belly up. Too bad, isn't it?" And then the government goes back to obeying the Constitution, which doens't allow the government to interfere in private business matters like that.

Who should be taxed to pay back the TARP money? The goonion members who's jobs were saved, for one. The bank employees who's jobs were saved, for another.

That sounds perfectly fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom