THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
Well I personally have already moved my accounts from BofA to a credit union. Maybe they should do the tax and if they pass it on, perhaps some more would do the same.
Probably they would just bitch at the evil gubmint for raising their taxes, even if they can easily move their money and not have to worry about it.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
Man, I wish I had enough money to worry about my investment accounts and the capital gains tax.
[ed] Also, here's where you get to express your likes or dislikes with your wallet! Would you prefer to pay BofA's taxes for them, or would you prefer to just pay your own taxes?
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
I believe in that old credo from our founding fathers: "No taxation!"
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
Now this isn't anything other than anecdotal:
A politician in any European country gets up in front of a crowd and says, "I'll cut taxes!" The crowd immediately asks "what services will you cut that are paid for by taxes?"
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
Technically you could have done your research on the bank before you opened an account there and studied their levels of debt compared to assets, and the relative security of those assets.
Furthermore, the banks will pass on costs to the consumer by way of removing visible perks like free checking, and calling it a 'government involvement surcharge fee', they won't mess with their investment accounts since you are the source of their loanable capital.
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
Now this isn't anything other than anecdotal:
A politician in any European country gets up in front of a crowd and says, "I'll cut taxes!" The crowd immediately asks "what services will you cut that are paid for by taxes?"
In America we lack that second question.
Uh, no.
"Less taxes, more beer and wider roads" is a universal vote-winner.
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
Now this isn't anything other than anecdotal:
A politician in any European country gets up in front of a crowd and says, "I'll cut taxes!" The crowd immediately asks "what services will you cut that are paid for by taxes?"
In America we lack that second question.
Actually, we DO ask that question. The answer is inevitably "the ones that I'm not personally using, and fuck those other guys."
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
Now this isn't anything other than anecdotal:
A politician in any European country gets up in front of a crowd and says, "I'll cut taxes!" The crowd immediately asks "what services will you cut that are paid for by taxes?"
In America we lack that second question.
This still doesn't answer how the "pass to the consumer" problem isn't one. Taxing the big banks means they have to screw over their customers, so that the customers then leave and go to smaller banks. Only in some cases, like the one I brought up, it isn't just as simple as "I'd like to close my account".
This also assumes that you would have the presence of mind to move away from the big bank before they pass on the cost. If people actually understood the terms and policies of the banks that hold their money, do you think that banks would find all those "easily avoidable" finance charges so profitable?
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
Now this isn't anything other than anecdotal:
A politician in any European country gets up in front of a crowd and says, "I'll cut taxes!" The crowd immediately asks "what services will you cut that are paid for by taxes?"
In America we lack that second question.
This still doesn't answer how the "pass to the consumer" problem isn't one. Taxing the big banks means they have to screw over their customers, so that the customers then leave and go to smaller banks. Only in some cases, like the one I brought up, it isn't just as simple as "I'd like to close my account".
This also assumes that you would have the presence of mind to move away from the big bank before they pass on the cost. If people actually understood the terms and policies of the banks that hold their money, do you think that banks would find all those "easily avoidable" finance charges so profitable?
Well, maybe those banks shouldn't have fucked everything up that required government money to fix.
Technically you could have done your research on the bank before you opened an account there and studied their levels of debt compared to assets, and the relative security of those assets.
I didn't put my money in BoA on purpose. They bought my bank. How is it that that is my fault?
JacksWastedLife on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
edited January 2010
Fun fact about the bank 'tax' - it's not a tax, and is, in fact, tax deductible. It's also not going anywhere, and is more than likely just an attack on the growing division in the republican party - forcing republican congressfolk to step up and either vote in favor of protecting the Great Satan or in favor of raising taxes.
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
Now this isn't anything other than anecdotal:
A politician in any European country gets up in front of a crowd and says, "I'll cut taxes!" The crowd immediately asks "what services will you cut that are paid for by taxes?"
In America we lack that second question.
This still doesn't answer how the "pass to the consumer" problem isn't one. Taxing the big banks means they have to screw over their customers, so that the customers then leave and go to smaller banks. Only in some cases, like the one I brought up, it isn't just as simple as "I'd like to close my account".
This also assumes that you would have the presence of mind to move away from the big bank before they pass on the cost. If people actually understood the terms and policies of the banks that hold their money, do you think that banks would find all those "easily avoidable" finance charges so profitable?
If the banks could have raised rates, they would have done so already. A tax would do nothing to change equilibrium price.
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
Thats not what they are going to do. They will (try to) levy punitive taxes against the banks, which will be passed directly to the consumer and accomplish nothing.
Unless the Obama admin pulls their collective heads out of their asses and starts to try and actually lead/make the difficult choices, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and their tea party stooges make great headway in 2010 while we continue to languish in recession/jobless recovery.
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
Now this isn't anything other than anecdotal:
A politician in any European country gets up in front of a crowd and says, "I'll cut taxes!" The crowd immediately asks "what services will you cut that are paid for by taxes?"
In America we lack that second question.
Actually, we DO ask that question. The answer is inevitably "the ones that I'm not personally using, and fuck those other guys."
It's usually responded to with important agencies that have very background/dull jobs. Like the FDA.
THIS is the answer: The government has to think big and they can't think easy. Putting money in the hands of banks and praying for a recovery is taking the easy way out. They have to get their hands dirty and actually pay for **** to get built or it's not going to put people to work in a big way.
You're both wrong.
THIS is The Answer.
And this? This is The Truth.
Don't kill me, I'm just trying to inject some humor into a far too serious debate.
Fun fact about the bank 'tax' - it's not a tax, and is, in fact, tax deductible. It's also not going anywhere, and is more than likely just an attack on the growing division in the republican party - forcing republican congressfolk to step up and either vote in favor of protecting the Great Satan or in favor of raising taxes.
Ha, thats probably very true, I only didn't think of it that way since I'd forgotten that democrats could be devious. We should just propose a big tax on the bank bonuses every year, forcing the schism in the republicans deeper and deeper.
Fun fact about the bank 'tax' - it's not a tax, and is, in fact, tax deductible. It's also not going anywhere, and is more than likely just an attack on the growing division in the republican party - forcing republican congressfolk to step up and either vote in favor of protecting the Great Satan or in favor of raising taxes.
Ha, thats probably very true, I only didn't think of it that way since I'd forgotten that democrats could be devious. We should just propose a big tax on the bank bonuses every year, forcing the schism in the republicans deeper and deeper.
Or just tax the fuck out of people who put our country to shame.
Fun fact about the bank 'tax' - it's not a tax, and is, in fact, tax deductible. It's also not going anywhere, and is more than likely just an attack on the growing division in the republican party - forcing republican congressfolk to step up and either vote in favor of protecting the Great Satan or in favor of raising taxes.
Ha, thats probably very true, I only didn't think of it that way since I'd forgotten that democrats could be devious. We should just propose a big tax on the bank bonuses every year, forcing the schism in the republicans deeper and deeper.
Or just tax the fuck out of people who put our country to shame.
I'm not sure George W Bush has enough money for that.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Fun fact about the bank 'tax' - it's not a tax, and is, in fact, tax deductible. It's also not going anywhere, and is more than likely just an attack on the growing division in the republican party - forcing republican congressfolk to step up and either vote in favor of protecting the Great Satan or in favor of raising taxes.
Ha, thats probably very true, I only didn't think of it that way since I'd forgotten that democrats could be devious. We should just propose a big tax on the bank bonuses every year, forcing the schism in the republicans deeper and deeper.
Or just tax the fuck out of people who put our country to shame.
Fun fact about the bank 'tax' - it's not a tax, and is, in fact, tax deductible. It's also not going anywhere, and is more than likely just an attack on the growing division in the republican party - forcing republican congressfolk to step up and either vote in favor of protecting the Great Satan or in favor of raising taxes.
Ha, thats probably very true, I only didn't think of it that way since I'd forgotten that democrats could be devious. We should just propose a big tax on the bank bonuses every year, forcing the schism in the republicans deeper and deeper.
Or just tax the fuck out of people who put our country to shame.
Fun fact about the bank 'tax' - it's not a tax, and is, in fact, tax deductible. It's also not going anywhere, and is more than likely just an attack on the growing division in the republican party - forcing republican congressfolk to step up and either vote in favor of protecting the Great Satan or in favor of raising taxes.
Ha, thats probably very true, I only didn't think of it that way since I'd forgotten that democrats could be devious. We should just propose a big tax on the bank bonuses every year, forcing the schism in the republicans deeper and deeper.
Or just tax the fuck out of people who put our country to shame.
Shall we start with you?
Although, perhaps adding mandatory massive personal fines to white collar crime convictions would be excellent. Rather than life in prison seize assets and funds that would put someone over the median income in whichever district they were convicted in.
Technically you could have done your research on the bank before you opened an account there and studied their levels of debt compared to assets, and the relative security of those assets.
I didn't put my money in BoA on purpose. They bought my bank. How is it that that is my fault?
I was actually in the same boat after they got Merrill Lynch. I just left the cap gains tax amount in a savings account when I moved my investments. Kinda sucked, but at least I don't have BoA anymore.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Technically you could have done your research on the bank before you opened an account there and studied their levels of debt compared to assets, and the relative security of those assets.
I didn't put my money in BoA on purpose. They bought my bank. How is it that that is my fault?
I was actually in the same boat after they got Merrill Lynch. I just left the cap gains tax amount in a savings account when I moved my investments. Kinda sucked, but at least I don't have BoA anymore.
Yep that's what happened here. Minus the moving it out of BoA... yet.
Fun fact about the bank 'tax' - it's not a tax, and is, in fact, tax deductible. It's also not going anywhere, and is more than likely just an attack on the growing division in the republican party - forcing republican congressfolk to step up and either vote in favor of protecting the Great Satan or in favor of raising taxes.
Ha, thats probably very true, I only didn't think of it that way since I'd forgotten that democrats could be devious. We should just propose a big tax on the bank bonuses every year, forcing the schism in the republicans deeper and deeper.
Or just tax the fuck out of people who put our country to shame.
Shall we start with you?
Although, perhaps adding mandatory massive personal fines to white collar crime convictions would be excellent. Rather than life in prison seize assets and funds that would put someone over the median income in whichever district they were convicted in.
That's fine. raise my taxes. I won't cry.
The latter is exactly why we're fucked: we are unable to address any punitive measures on people who, essentially, fuck the country over to make more personal wealth.
I'm so freaking tired of watching people preach "Personal Responsibility" while screeching about government spending and ignore the basic flaw in the huge deficit issue.
Unless you want to cut the Army (they don't) we're all going to have to chip in more cash if we truly want to lower the debt.
Go ahead, tax the cash back from the banks. Won't be enough.
Go ahead, cut the federal government's services back to nothing (that would destroy us). Still won't be enough.
If you really care about "selling our children's future" you're going to have to pay more taxes. PERIOD.
Yeah, might want to hurry. The awesome 15% long term cap gains rate sunsets this year, and who knows where the Dems are going to put it? At least 28% I reckon, and considering all the spending, quite possibly higher.
I'm so freaking tired of watching people preach "Personal Responsibility" while screeching about government spending and ignore the basic flaw in the huge deficit issue.
Unless you want to cut the Army (they don't) we're all going to have to chip in more cash if we truly want to lower the debt.
Go ahead, tax the cash back from the banks. Won't be enough.
Go ahead, cut the federal government's services back to nothing (that would destroy us). Still won't be enough.
If you really care about "selling our children's future" you're going to have to pay more taxes. PERIOD.
I probably paid over $50,000 dollars in taxes last year.
I'm so freaking tired of watching people preach "Personal Responsibility" while screeching about government spending and ignore the basic flaw in the huge deficit issue.
Unless you want to cut the Army (they don't) we're all going to have to chip in more cash if we truly want to lower the debt.
Go ahead, tax the cash back from the banks. Won't be enough.
Go ahead, cut the federal government's services back to nothing (that would destroy us). Still won't be enough.
If you really care about "selling our children's future" you're going to have to pay more taxes. PERIOD.
I probably paid over $50,000 dollars in taxes last year.
I'd prefer cutting the army. Thanks.
Mhmm, join the club.
Thats the point I was trying to make. This is a case of realism versus mindless, righteous anger.
How loud do people have to scream to be able to ignore basic truths like "this will lower the deficit"?
Why do we listen to people that scream instead of logic?
It's logical to cut the Army in half and end our moneypit wars. Ignoring that tosses logic out the window and makes the entire argument an example of stupidity.
Technically you could have done your research on the bank before you opened an account there and studied their levels of debt compared to assets, and the relative security of those assets.
I didn't put my money in BoA on purpose. They bought my bank. How is it that that is my fault?
I bet you also support the deregulation which enabled that purchase.
For the record defense is about 20% of our budget. Social Security and Medicare are another 20% each respectively.
I'd be more than happy to gut those, or at least streamline/privatize to get those costs down as well. But those two things the bloated golden goose of politics and if you threaten to touch them old people won't vote for you which translates into lost elections.
So yeah, we can solve the deficit by cutting spending, but we'd have to reduce spending on the military and those entitlements which of course nobody is willing to do.
Technically you could have done your research on the bank before you opened an account there and studied their levels of debt compared to assets, and the relative security of those assets.
And if all that research wasn't written by spin doctors and day traders, that might be a good suggestion.
What we've had overall is a breakdown in the principles of accountability and responsibility. Investors today behave like speculators.
Technically you could have done your research on the bank before you opened an account there and studied their levels of debt compared to assets, and the relative security of those assets.
And if all that research wasn't written by spin doctors and day traders, that might be a good suggestion.
What we've had overall is a breakdown in the principles of accountability and responsibility. Investors today behave like speculators.
For the record defense is about 20% of our budget. Social Security and Medicare are another 20% each respectively.
I'd be more than happy to gut those, or at least streamline/privatize to get those costs down as well. But those two things the bloated golden goose of politics and if you threaten to touch them old people won't vote for you which translates into lost elections.
So yeah, we can solve the deficit by cutting spending, but we'd have to reduce spending on the military and those entitlements which of course nobody is willing to do.
WRT military spending...
There is a lot of money spent on Cost++ contracts. If defense contractors were forced to operate on Fixed Cost contracts that would save a lot of cash. Also, lets build less expensive weapons platforms to fight todays wars, not tomorrows. Wiz-bang jet fighters don't do us a lot of good when we are fighting guys in caves.
I am ok with cutting funding but only if we change the culture. If we just cut funding it will absolutly cripple us and put a lot of good men and women in serious danger.
shit we could build a fleet of F-18's for the cost of of one F-22. F-18's are proven and effective, don't really need the F-22 right now.
For the record, I am a navy logistician so I see how a lot of money flows.
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
For the record defense is about 20% of our budget. Social Security and Medicare are another 20% each respectively.
I'd be more than happy to gut those, or at least streamline/privatize to get those costs down as well. But those two things the bloated golden goose of politics and if you threaten to touch them old people won't vote for you which translates into lost elections.
So yeah, we can solve the deficit by cutting spending, but we'd have to reduce spending on the military and those entitlements which of course nobody is willing to do.
Err, no, our year on year budget shortfall is nowhere near 60%. Social Security and Medicare are vital programs which contribute to the country, and each would reap huge savings if a National Healthcare System was enacted. The military is the first obvious target for cost cutting, and really only needs to be perhaps 30% its current size.
For the record defense is about 20% of our budget. Social Security and Medicare are another 20% each respectively.
I'd be more than happy to gut those, or at least streamline/privatize to get those costs down as well. But those two things the bloated golden goose of politics and if you threaten to touch them old people won't vote for you which translates into lost elections.
So yeah, we can solve the deficit by cutting spending, but we'd have to reduce spending on the military and those entitlements which of course nobody is willing to do.
Err, no, our year on year budget shortfall is nowhere near 60%.
I don't believe I said that. I said in terms of our budget 60% is tied up on those 3 items.
Social Security and Medicare are vital programs which contribute to the country, and each would reap huge savings if a National Healthcare System was enacted.
If NHS involved gutting medicare I'd probably be for it. But since it's just an add on to the existing broken system it's just all sorts of bad.
Social Security is an inefficient bloated nightmare. It needs to be destroyed. I'd settle for some type of tax free mandatory savings account or publicly funded 401ks.
The military is the first obvious target for cost cutting, and really only needs to be perhaps 30% its current size.
I can't say for certain how large it should be but I'm convinced it doesn't need to be as large or as expensive as it currently is.
Technically you could have done your research on the bank before you opened an account there and studied their levels of debt compared to assets, and the relative security of those assets.
I didn't put my money in BoA on purpose. They bought my bank. How is it that that is my fault?
I bet you also support the deregulation which enabled that purchase.
You'd lose that bet. But as a consolation prize you can keep trying to demonize the opposition rather than improve your suggested solution.
Posts
While I agree that the whole approach has been utterly misguided, levying the tax on banks is a net positive. We seem to forget that when a company "passes it to consumers" we have to assume that the rational choice is to move one's accounts to a bank that doesn't have anything to pass along.
The "pass to the consumer" argument is another win for the finance industry.
Well I personally have already moved my accounts from BofA to a credit union. Maybe they should do the tax and if they pass it on, perhaps some more would do the same.
Probably they would just bitch at the evil gubmint for raising their taxes, even if they can easily move their money and not have to worry about it.
So what happens when I cash out my investment accounts with Bank of America and move them to a smaller bank? Is the magic lack of passing on the buck going to some how negate the capital gains tax that is going to bend me over less than gently?
[ed] Also, here's where you get to express your likes or dislikes with your wallet! Would you prefer to pay BofA's taxes for them, or would you prefer to just pay your own taxes?
God forbid you have to pay taxes in exchange for services.
Edited for unnecessary content.
The service of not being ass fucked by a bank when it has punitive taxes levied against it?
Now this isn't anything other than anecdotal:
A politician in any European country gets up in front of a crowd and says, "I'll cut taxes!" The crowd immediately asks "what services will you cut that are paid for by taxes?"
In America we lack that second question.
Technically you could have done your research on the bank before you opened an account there and studied their levels of debt compared to assets, and the relative security of those assets.
Furthermore, the banks will pass on costs to the consumer by way of removing visible perks like free checking, and calling it a 'government involvement surcharge fee', they won't mess with their investment accounts since you are the source of their loanable capital.
Uh, no.
"Less taxes, more beer and wider roads" is a universal vote-winner.
Actually, we DO ask that question. The answer is inevitably "the ones that I'm not personally using, and fuck those other guys."
This still doesn't answer how the "pass to the consumer" problem isn't one. Taxing the big banks means they have to screw over their customers, so that the customers then leave and go to smaller banks. Only in some cases, like the one I brought up, it isn't just as simple as "I'd like to close my account".
This also assumes that you would have the presence of mind to move away from the big bank before they pass on the cost. If people actually understood the terms and policies of the banks that hold their money, do you think that banks would find all those "easily avoidable" finance charges so profitable?
Well, maybe those banks shouldn't have fucked everything up that required government money to fix.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I didn't put my money in BoA on purpose. They bought my bank. How is it that that is my fault?
If the banks could have raised rates, they would have done so already. A tax would do nothing to change equilibrium price.
It's usually responded to with important agencies that have very background/dull jobs. Like the FDA.
You're both wrong.
THIS is The Answer.
And this? This is The Truth.
Ha, thats probably very true, I only didn't think of it that way since I'd forgotten that democrats could be devious. We should just propose a big tax on the bank bonuses every year, forcing the schism in the republicans deeper and deeper.
Or just tax the fuck out of people who put our country to shame.
I'm not sure George W Bush has enough money for that.
Hasn't Britney been through enough?
LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
Shall we start with you?
Although, perhaps adding mandatory massive personal fines to white collar crime convictions would be excellent. Rather than life in prison seize assets and funds that would put someone over the median income in whichever district they were convicted in.
I was actually in the same boat after they got Merrill Lynch. I just left the cap gains tax amount in a savings account when I moved my investments. Kinda sucked, but at least I don't have BoA anymore.
Yep that's what happened here. Minus the moving it out of BoA... yet.
That's fine. raise my taxes. I won't cry.
The latter is exactly why we're fucked: we are unable to address any punitive measures on people who, essentially, fuck the country over to make more personal wealth.
This. This times a fucking thousand.
I'm so freaking tired of watching people preach "Personal Responsibility" while screeching about government spending and ignore the basic flaw in the huge deficit issue.
Unless you want to cut the Army (they don't) we're all going to have to chip in more cash if we truly want to lower the debt.
Go ahead, tax the cash back from the banks. Won't be enough.
Go ahead, cut the federal government's services back to nothing (that would destroy us). Still won't be enough.
If you really care about "selling our children's future" you're going to have to pay more taxes. PERIOD.
Yeah, might want to hurry. The awesome 15% long term cap gains rate sunsets this year, and who knows where the Dems are going to put it? At least 28% I reckon, and considering all the spending, quite possibly higher.
I probably paid over $50,000 dollars in taxes last year.
I'd prefer cutting the army. Thanks.
Mhmm, join the club.
Thats the point I was trying to make. This is a case of realism versus mindless, righteous anger.
How loud do people have to scream to be able to ignore basic truths like "this will lower the deficit"?
Why do we listen to people that scream instead of logic?
It's logical to cut the Army in half and end our moneypit wars. Ignoring that tosses logic out the window and makes the entire argument an example of stupidity.
I bet you also support the deregulation which enabled that purchase.
I'd be more than happy to gut those, or at least streamline/privatize to get those costs down as well. But those two things the bloated golden goose of politics and if you threaten to touch them old people won't vote for you which translates into lost elections.
So yeah, we can solve the deficit by cutting spending, but we'd have to reduce spending on the military and those entitlements which of course nobody is willing to do.
And if all that research wasn't written by spin doctors and day traders, that might be a good suggestion.
What we've had overall is a breakdown in the principles of accountability and responsibility. Investors today behave like speculators.
Use the Texas Ratio.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/chris/banks/banks2.html
Banks over 100 are high risk. Banks over 50 are moderate risk. Banks under 50 are generally safe.
100 * ((Non-performing Assets – U.S guaranteed loans) + Other REO) / (Equity + Loss Reserves)
This information was compiled from the FDIC website.
WRT military spending...
There is a lot of money spent on Cost++ contracts. If defense contractors were forced to operate on Fixed Cost contracts that would save a lot of cash. Also, lets build less expensive weapons platforms to fight todays wars, not tomorrows. Wiz-bang jet fighters don't do us a lot of good when we are fighting guys in caves.
I am ok with cutting funding but only if we change the culture. If we just cut funding it will absolutly cripple us and put a lot of good men and women in serious danger.
shit we could build a fleet of F-18's for the cost of of one F-22. F-18's are proven and effective, don't really need the F-22 right now.
For the record, I am a navy logistician so I see how a lot of money flows.
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Err, no, our year on year budget shortfall is nowhere near 60%. Social Security and Medicare are vital programs which contribute to the country, and each would reap huge savings if a National Healthcare System was enacted. The military is the first obvious target for cost cutting, and really only needs to be perhaps 30% its current size.
I don't believe I said that. I said in terms of our budget 60% is tied up on those 3 items.
If NHS involved gutting medicare I'd probably be for it. But since it's just an add on to the existing broken system it's just all sorts of bad.
Social Security is an inefficient bloated nightmare. It needs to be destroyed. I'd settle for some type of tax free mandatory savings account or publicly funded 401ks.
I can't say for certain how large it should be but I'm convinced it doesn't need to be as large or as expensive as it currently is.
There are major repercussions involved with slashing military spending.
You'd lose that bet. But as a consolation prize you can keep trying to demonize the opposition rather than improve your suggested solution.