Bailout is actually more than $700bn
 

Where the hell to these people get off All over us, of course.

-Arrian

There had to be the trick somewhere in there...

Remember when they were telling us that we have to pass a bailout quickly? That's how a con works.

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Encouraging bank mergers to save the financial system http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif Killing bankers to save the economy http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

Double jeopardy?

Originally posted by Japher
This is why economist should set fiscal policy and not politicians. I'm sure the people responsible for this know a great deal about economics. They're probably PhDs.

I take it the fact that this was done in an underhanded manner is just fine with NGR.

Originally posted by Kidicious
I take it the fact that this was done in an underhanded manner is just fine with NGR. Of course! All you have to do is wave the idea of "lower taxes" in front of NGR and he will start drooling and willing to bend over and accept any means to get "lower taxes" for the wealthy.

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
No one's money is being used to encourage them. The banks are paying less in taxes, not receiving more in taxpayer funds. The money is going to be borrowed to pay for this. Giving the banks a tax break is in effect, exactly the same thing as giving them a subsidy. Of course, the money has to come from somewhere else in the economy, which hurts all of us.

I'm not going to get up in arms about cutting taxes as an emergency measure during a financial crisis. There's nothing preventing Congress from reinstating the tax at a later date. Congress didn't intend to make this cut. It was snuck into the deal as the framers terrorized us with their language of urgency.

A particularly weak part of your argument is the assumption that banks don't want to take over their competitors, that they need to be encouraged to do that.

Amen.

And the fact that the money raised (whether or not the tax is levied against "normal operations" is still being raised for some purpose, and less expected revenue = revenue that has to be made up by raising a tax elsewhere.

But no matter...we can't let logic get in the way... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

-=Vel=-

And the fact that the money raised (whether or not the tax is levied against "normal operations" is still being raised for some purpose, and less expected revenue = revenue that has to be made up by raising a tax elsewhere. The tax revenue wasn't expected, unless you think the IRS can peer into the future and anticipate bank mergers.

Why NOT!? Picking up a competitor for pennies on the dollar? You better be getting a very sweet deal in return for accepting the risk from all the bad paper on your newly purchased bank's balance sheet...

Statistically, you can model an average of mergers across any industry and come up with a reasonable expectation of revenues received from such a tax.

If you don't believe such modelling takes place, then I have a wonderful tract of beachfront property to sell you in central Kansas... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

-=Vel=-

Statistically, you can model an average of mergers across any industry and come up with a reasonable expectation of revenues received from such a tax. I'm sure those models provided a very accurate estimate of expected tax revenue from bank mergers during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'd love to know how it is that Treasury has the power to cut taxes... They don't. That's another issue.

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
The tax revenue wasn't expected, unless you think the IRS can peer into the future and anticipate bank mergers. Bullshit. More tax revenue was expected because more mergers were expected.

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


I'm sure those models provided a very accurate estimate of expected tax revenue from bank mergers during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Well yes...obviously this is a valid reason to just nix the tax altogether and not talk about where we make up the shortfall.

Face it NGR, the argument doesn't hold.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Doesn't the WAY in which this extra little tidbit was introduced provide some sort of clue? I think yes, but again, this is just IMO.

Only one of these can be true. Pick one and stick with it.. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

NGR Quote #1: I doubt any bank felt like taking on much risk given recent conditions in the financial markets. (re: mergers)

OR

NGR Quote # 2: There has been an abnormally large number of bank mergers recently due to the financial crisis.

And btw...

If the tax no longer exists, then the shortfall = the expected value that's no longer there...nothing to do with the present situation, except that it's being used as an excuse to give an early Christmas to the folks who got us here in the first.

-=Vel=-

Only one of these can be true. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

No, they can both easily be true.

That's all just wrong, as I told you. Where's the accurate estimate of what the tax revenue from all those mergers would be?

Who cares? How the **** do you allocate all the tax revenues you're expecting (such that their absence at a later date would create a budget shortfall that would have to be made up via other funding sources) when you have no idea how much money is going to be coming in?

The point is that there would have been a huge number of bank mergers anyway without the elimination of the tax. You have no idea if this is true or not. Statements by Wells Fargo and others would indicate that it's not true.

nothing gained by the tax payer. Except a healthier financial system. And an ownership stake in the banks that are strengthened by this change in the tax code and more likely to be profitable in the future thanks to the healthier financial system.