Is it fair for U.S. financial-industry players to count on tax revenue from average Jane and John Does to fund their bailout?

  • No, I believe that the Financial Industry should not count on tax revenues to bail it out yet, because we have a government which is apparently owned by the corporations.

    We now have corporations owning the governmental leaders which curry their favor by giving them bailouts. We have now a system where the corporations make the profits, and keep them private, while giving the public the financial, environmental, and social risks. This should not be. The corporations should not be allowed to get away with this. But unfortunately, as they now own the governments of all the nations, getting this to change will be very difficult. We have seen the Supreme Court come under the influence of the corporations when it said that they could become more involved in the political process, and be counted as an individual. This is just an indication of what is wrong in the political system now. We have lost our government to corporations. They should not expect us to bail them out especially when their losses are illusions, and yet they will continue to expect just that from us. And as long as we do persist in allowing corporations to purchase our leaders, this will continue.

    Posted by: SportyHart
  • As the size of the federal budget debt mandates stinginess, revenue should not be shared with the financial industry.

    There is an argument that goes like this. Since the financial bailout is part of a plan for economic recovery and because economic growth increases tax revenues, the bailout is good for the federal deficit. This argument is correct in form but not in content, so it is not sound. First, there is another argument, which is sound, according to which the bloated financial sector is too large for the economy. The bailout has the undesirable effect of keeping parts of the financial sector in place, preventing necessary liquidation of financial players. Second, the tax revenue would be better used elsewhere. The bailout hinders economical use of federal money.

    Posted by: 53xyMyIo
  • It is not fair for the financial industry to expect the average person to bail them out because everyone is struggling financially, not just the banks.

    Times are hard for everyone. The financial industry is unfairly expecting to be bailed out, but that is not a good thing. Everyone would love to be bailed out. I certainly would. While the financial industry is in trouble, I don't see the CEOs and COOs taking drastic moves to bail themselves out. Their employees are getting bonuses and big paychecks. I haven't seen a bonus in years, but I do see my taxes go up.

    Posted by: JayceC
  • I do not think it's fair for financial industry players to use my tax dollars as bailout money, because they should find other ways to manage their company.

    It is upsetting to see companies being bailed out by our tax dollars, but the board members or executives are still receiving large payouts, or even bonuses. I think that the financial cuts should come from within, and preferably from the top down. If the executives care about the company and really want to see it survive, then I think they will do what they have to do, without taking government money and putting the burden on taxpayers.

    Posted by: MundaneEdward45
  • I do not think it is fair for the financial industry players to count on tax revenue, because the people funding the bailout are the ones being foreclosed on by those same players.

    More lower income families are losing their homes, due to the current financial crisis. They were encouraged by various financial institutes to take out mortgages, regardless of their credit status. Now, after giving out the bad loans, the financial institutions are demanding the loans be paid in full. Then, they also tell the government that they need a bailout or they will fail and make the crisis worse. The government tax revenue is from the same people who are being foreclosed on.

    Posted by: B0rdKool
  • These millionaire bankers should pay for their own mistakes.

    Between overspending by government, and misspending by corporations, John and Jane Doe taxpayer have a completely drained economy, no jobs, no hope
    for future benefits from the depleted social security system, and no part of
    leadership and industry that can be trusted. Stop bleeding John and Jane
    Doe taxpayer.

    Posted by: MarsBIue
  • I don't want my money supporting a failing industry.

    I think that the overspending of our government needs to stop. We are heading into a crisis, and the people who are going to pay the most are members of the middle class. We need to head back into a time where we were stable as a country. If the U.S. financial-industry players can't stand on their own two feet, we need to let them fall.

    Posted by: ChubbyJoel36
  • No, because the bailout should have actually been the other way around.

    A whole lot of money was made by Goldman Sachs and other speculators in the financial industry, using CDs, CDOs, and AAA-rated junk securities to rip off average investors. To offset this, an emergency $700 billion tax should have been imposed on the banking industry, to directly return the money to the average American.

    Posted by: EqualClaud72
  • It is completely unfair for the financial industry to rely on taxpayer money to bail them out, because they should be held accountable for their mistakes.

    Just like any business out there, the financial industry needs to be held accountable for the mistakes that they have made. They should not have the option of taking, or the expectation to rely on, taxpayer money to bail them out. They should face the same consequences as any business faces when they make a financial mistake.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • No I definitely disagree that the U.S. financial industry players should not count on tax revenue from the average person for bailout, because are struggling the most.

    In this day and age, the economy is bad and everyone is struggling, even the average Jane and John. Asking them to contribute towards a tax revenue bailout puts more strain on them. I am sure funds can be found somewhere else, and spending cuts can be made elsewhere.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • I don't think that taxpayer money should go to help with the financial industry bailout, because the bailouts themselves represent a slippery slope.

    I don't think that taxpayer money should go to help with the financial industry bailout. The reason I feel this way is because there is no company that is too big to fail. I feel that by the government bailing out one company with tax payer money, that will lead to more and more companies being bailed out, and that it will not stop. If even a large company is allowed to fail, then other companies will rise because of this, and possibly make better decisions knowing there is no safety net.

    Posted by: GJazmine
  • The average person did not cause the "players" to need the bailout so why should their taxes be used to fund this?

    I do not believe that the average Jane or John Doe's taxes should be used to bailout the financial industry players because Jane and John did not cause the need for them to be bailed out. Our taxes should be used to lower the U.S. deficit or perhaps go to a cause such as education, feeding the hungry, etc.

    Posted by: P4triGrant
  • I oppose private citizens, especially rich ones, using our tax money to get themselves out of trouble.

    As an investor it is your responsibility to know all of the risks involved with every investment you make. For example, depending on home loans is tricky because you don't know if people will pay. When you mess up badly you shouldn't make the people who are already struggling (like tax payers in the US-especially homeowners) pay for your mistakes.

    Posted by: D Rosales 106

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.