Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama's Finance "Fee"

mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:03:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Today, on C-Span, I saw Obama give a talk in which he said that he'd be introducing a "fee" on the 50 largest banks in order to recoup $117 Billion dollars for the TARP funds.

Is this even constitutional?? The Pres. doesn't have the power to tax, that belongs to the congress.

Also I'm pretty sure taxes aren't supposed to be targeted towards specific people (like the evil bonussy bank execs), and this purpose was clearly dripping from his entire speach.

Also on a more basic level, if the US doled out money to people and wants it back why don't they just go to the people they gave it to? How does it make sense to go to other people and say they have to pay you back for money you never gave them?
What happened to property rights... Like having a right to your own money?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:26:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 10:03:38 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Is this even constitutional?? The Pres. doesn't have the power to tax, that belongs to the congress.

It has to be approved by congress
http://www.nypost.com...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:29:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If hes introducing the fee on the banks that got the bailout, then I fail to see how hes going after companies that didn't receive any money (and the bailouts were aimed specifically at the companies, not just individuals within the companies).

But, otherwise, its a pretty silly thing to do. I don't entirely understand it myself, though I heard it somewhat based off of Gordon Brown's "bank tax." I mean, if it is targeted specifically like that, then maybe he could construe it to something like "loan repayments," which is what they would be in a way... though I question whether or not this is a more effective way of getting it back.

However, I make two predictions: one, middle America will probably support it initially; and two, the banks roll over and take it.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:34:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 10:29:14 AM, Volkov wrote:
If hes introducing the fee on the banks that got the bailout, then I fail to see how hes going after companies that didn't receive any money (and the bailouts were aimed specifically at the companies, not just individuals within the companies).

The only thing is that most of those banks targeted already paid back (with interest) what they recieved. Now they're being held liable for more than what they recieved.

The reasoning is supposed to be that they benefitted indirectly from other institutions getting money, in that the system didn't collapse. But then so did we all, that's why we gave it to those others too.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:37:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 10:34:20 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
The only thing is that most of those banks targeted already paid back (with interest) what they recieved. Now they're being held liable for more than what they recieved.

The reasoning is supposed to be that they benefitted indirectly from other institutions getting money, in that the system didn't collapse. But then so did we all, that's why we gave it to those others too.

Well... thats just stupid.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:40:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 10:26:58 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/14/2010 10:03:38 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Is this even constitutional?? The Pres. doesn't have the power to tax, that belongs to the congress.

It has to be approved by congress
http://www.nypost.com...

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. . .

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers . . . .

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Article I, § 8, Clause 1 grants to the Congress the power to impose taxes, but requires excise taxes to be geographically uniform.

The Constitution states that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population.This basically refers to a tax on property, such as the value of land,as well as a capitation.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:43:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"The tax would hit around 50 banks, insurance companies and large broker-dealers. Of those, about 35 would be U.S. companies and 10 to 15 would be U.S. subsidiaries of foreign financial firms."

This is not good business, maybe he is trying to bluff until in mere hopes they they submit willingly.
It may piss them off and cause them to take it out on us, the people.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:44:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Whats funnier is that the auto companies are left out of this too...

Anyways, the bill is going through Congress matt, at least it is being noted in my news, so I don't think there is anything unconstitutional. CBC also explains it as a way to "get back every cent," and the tax will be called the "financial crisis responsibility fund".... lol. Are they going to tax Chris Dodd too? He played his part. This stinks of political ploy and a way to make banks essentially pay down the deficit.

I understand the need for revenge against the banks, but this is just stupid. They should ensure this kind of thing never happens again, not taxing them for whats already occurred. They've paid their dues I think, and the government's duty is to make sure it doesn't happen again, not getting even. Tsk.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:50:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 10:44:17 AM, Volkov wrote:

I understand the need for revenge against the banks, but this is just stupid. They should ensure this kind of thing never happens again, not taxing them for whats already occurred. They've paid their dues I think, and the government's duty is to make sure it doesn't happen again, not getting even. Tsk.

Yep, they took advantage. They flocked up, do not give them a chance to flock up again. The only problem is if the next administration does not learn from this, it will keep happening.

Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn at no other.
-Benjamin Franklin
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:55:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 10:50:51 AM, comoncents wrote:
Yep, they took advantage. They flocked up, do not give them a chance to flock up again. The only problem is if the next administration does not learn from this, it will keep happening.

I'd much rather this administration learn than the next, but the chances are that neither will. Levying this tax is almost brilliant in a way; it will have popular support, it will be taken without much resistance from the banks, and the banks have nowhere else to go that will be nearly as profitable as the US. Its like they're trapped.

And why would the next administration bother to change it? It gives them power and so long as they use that power with popular support, they won't be affected.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 10:57:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 10:40:14 AM, comoncents wrote:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

It would appear such a fee would be unconstitutional.

Thanks common.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:00:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 10:57:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
It would appear such a fee would be unconstitutional.

Thanks common.

However, before you jump out of your seat yelling "hooray! its unconstitutional!", remember that this might not take the form of an actual "tax." Wording matters, remember that.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:03:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 11:00:34 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/14/2010 10:57:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
It would appear such a fee would be unconstitutional.

Thanks common.

However, before you jump out of your seat yelling "hooray! its unconstitutional!", remember that this might not take the form of an actual "tax." Wording matters, remember that.

sure, I think lots of things are unconstitutional, but they happen.

However it has to be a tax, I would think, otherwise it would just be the executive branch just stealing people's money.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:08:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 11:03:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
sure, I think lots of things are unconstitutional, but they happen.

However it has to be a tax, I would think, otherwise it would just be the executive branch just stealing people's money.

No no, remember, its the executive branch getting back money that was owed - and they'll use that to excuse it. So, its a "fee," instead of a "tax."

My bets is that they'll say the entirety of the TARP loans haven't been paid back - which they haven't - and they'll levy this "fee" to get every cent. However, the naming of it itself - the "financial crisis responsibility fee" just oozes with "revenge!" and punishment. So, it might act like a tax, but its justification will be with ones used for loan payments.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:19:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 11:08:11 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/14/2010 11:03:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
sure, I think lots of things are unconstitutional, but they happen.

However it has to be a tax, I would think, otherwise it would just be the executive branch just stealing people's money.

No no, remember, its the executive branch getting back money that was owed - and they'll use that to excuse it. So, its a "fee," instead of a "tax."

Yes but as I said earlier it's not owed by them :. the stealing

For I have a friend who owes me 10 bucks, this gives me no reason to take 10 from you.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:20:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 11:19:11 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Yes but as I said earlier it's not owed by them :. the stealing

For I have a friend who owes me 10 bucks, this gives me no reason to take 10 from you.

So who does owe the government that money?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:25:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 11:20:49 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/14/2010 11:19:11 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Yes but as I said earlier it's not owed by them :. the stealing

For I have a friend who owes me 10 bucks, this gives me no reason to take 10 from you.

So who does owe the government that money?

Those people who borrowed it, if it really was a loan which I'm not sure it was.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:28:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 11:25:32 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Those people who borrowed it, if it really was a loan which I'm not sure it was.

I'm pretty sure it was the banks, or representatives of the banks, who borrowed that money - if it was a loan, which I think it was, since there was expected repayment - for use by the banks to keep themselves afloat. How does this not mark the banks was the borrowers?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:31:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 11:28:25 AM, Volkov wrote:

I'm pretty sure it was the banks, or representatives of the banks, who borrowed that money - if it was a loan, which I think it was, since there was expected repayment - for use by the banks to keep themselves afloat. How does this not mark the banks was the borrowers?

Yes ok, but as I said

THEY PAID BACK THEIR SHARE ALREADY (plus interest)

The NYPost article says that the top 10 banks will bear 60% of the burden meanwhile the majority of them (including Gldman Schs, JPM) Paid up their share (w/intrst) ASAP.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:36:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Plus, If certain banks owe money to the govt. then the government ought to take them to court, say they owe us money, prove it, and take the money.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 11:46:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 11:36:27 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Plus, If certain banks owe money to the govt. then the government ought to take them to court, say they owe us money, prove it, and take the money.

Hm.. I'm not quite sure this is what is happening. I might be thinking about this wrong.

According to this BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk...), this is a "retrospective tax" that will force banks to pay for the cost of the bailout, because what that bailout was, in essence, was insurance provided by the taxpayers, insurance which the banks had never paid anything for. Instead of it being loan repayments, its payment for insurance.

That actually makes some sense. Though, it is a little unfair.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 12:04:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 11:46:33 AM, Volkov wrote:

That actually makes some sense. Though, it is a little unfair.

It is a rationale, the unfair bit is that the banks never agreed to any terms for such "insurance", and why should some banks have to pay for the tabs of others?

If they also levied enormous fee's upon legislators who encouraged bad housing loans, and thus financial insecurity (like Barney Frank), then I could at least say they were being consistent ; )
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 12:06:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 12:04:52 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If they also levied enormous fee's upon legislators who encouraged bad housing loans, and thus financial insecurity (like Barney Frank), then I could at least say they were being consistent ; )

Haha! Agreed.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 12:54:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 12:50:29 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
This is ridiculously stupid. All presidents should be required to pass economic tests before running. I mean seriously.

However, that would be inevitably biased, especially if someone like you had your way. Equally, having an "economic test" would be quite stupid, considering that there are many, many economic theories, all of which can contradict or complement each other in ways that are hard to predict. Any test would have to take this into account, but it would generally be impossible to test knowledge of the plausible, if the plausible isn't already known.

Plus, people elect individuals on the basis of what they'll do, even if it isn't along traditional economic lines. Having a test that would discount those popular individuals would lead to quite a large backlash.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 1:16:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 12:50:29 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
This is ridiculously stupid. All presidents should be required to pass economic tests before running. I mean seriously.

Your into that IQ testing the presidents, huh.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 1:20:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 1:16:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/14/2010 12:50:29 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
This is ridiculously stupid. All presidents should be required to pass economic tests before running. I mean seriously.

Your into that IQ testing the presidents, huh.

No, I suspect AskFrodo just wants tests to make sure they all follow his ideology. Its also called partisanship, or ideological despotism (since it would allow all powers to be focused on one set of ideological ideas), or simply going against anything the US stands for. Freedom of association, freedom of belief, right to run for office, etc.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 1:29:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 1:20:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
No, I suspect AskFrodo just wants tests to make sure they all follow his ideology. Its also called partisanship, or ideological despotism (since it would allow all powers to be focused on one set of ideological ideas), or simply going against anything the US stands for. Freedom of association, freedom of belief, right to run for office, etc.

Or test to see if they have a basic understanding of economics which many of them obviously don't?

Protip: Knowledge exists everything isn't just theories.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 1:31:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 1:20:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/14/2010 1:16:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/14/2010 12:50:29 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
This is ridiculously stupid. All presidents should be required to pass economic tests before running. I mean seriously.

Your into that IQ testing the presidents, huh.

No, I suspect AskFrodo just wants tests to make sure they all follow his ideology. Its also called partisanship, or ideological despotism (since it would allow all powers to be focused on one set of ideological ideas), or simply going against anything the US stands for. Freedom of association, freedom of belief, right to run for office, etc.

I thought he was the one who said the you should have a masters degree or above to run for prez.
Or maybe he said doctorate?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 1:32:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 1:29:15 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
Protip: Knowledge exists everything isn't just theories.

Protip: most of economics is based on what are universally called "theories." Most understand this.