Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Taxing Banks for the Bailout

  1. Jan 15, 2010 #1
    Obama Calls for Bank Tax to Recoup Bailout
    I'd be interested to read people's opinion. I especially do not understand the following comment
    Thank you in advance for sharing thoughts.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 15, 2010 #2
    This is true of taxes and regulation in general. Bigger businesses benefit from the burden taxes and regulation put on their (smaller) competition. This benefit outweighs the cost of the taxes and regulation to the bigger businesses because they can afford it a lot easier than their smaller competitors. In fact the cost is completely passed on to consumers. The net result is more growth, market share, and profit for the large companies at the expense of small companies and consumers.

    This is apparently a difficult concept to understand, a moderator even locked a thread not so long ago over this concept, apparently not understanding how large companies are greatly helped by government actions that disproportionally harm or limit their competitors.

    Any government action that reduces competition in any market benefits larger companies at the expense of smaller companies and consumers.
  4. Jan 15, 2010 #3
    I understand the logic, but I am not sure it is so obvious. Here for instance, the tax does not apply at all to smaller banks, and does "impose the greatest burden on firms that rely less on customer deposits" (from the second page of the above link). Even worse, as far as I read it is not yet even clear whether the tax will be applied to the banks or their executives
  5. Jan 15, 2010 #4
    Is this a 'mom & pop' vs the BIG 'MONEY' of banks issue?

    I just don't know so I ask.
    I'm a Canadian, and with our system we have not had any failures in our banking system.
  6. Jan 15, 2010 #5
    The specifics of this particular plan is unclear to me, too. My personal belief is that each bailout should have been treated as either a loan or a no-strings gift to begin with, without a bait and switch fraud after the fact.

    The only legitimate terms of each bailout are the exact same terms that were agreed to at the time, no more, no less. That's the honest ethical way that decent peaceful people treat each other. And it's been virtually universal common law for centuries.

    It looks to me like Obama is saying "It was a gift, but now, retroactively, we will treat it as a loan to be paid back with terms we determine are fair after the fact, and paid back by those who had nothing to do with asking for the bailout, and no basis for owing anything, and never agreed to have anything to do with it. And since we're the government, we can use force to get our way, and are exempt from any and all notions of common decency. And we can and will do things that we would imprison anyone else for doing. Caesar (and King George) would be soooo jealous, they could have only exercised such power over people in their wildest dreams. I'm the man!"

    OK, that last part was a rant, but a pretty apt one. :smile:
  7. Jan 15, 2010 #6
    My understanding was that most of the big banks had already paid back their TARP funds. :confused:

    The money will be paid back with interest. I'm not sure what Obama is looking to "recover". :confused:

    And, of course, taxation, no matter how one tries to modify it, will always hit one business or group of persons over another.
  8. Jan 17, 2010 #7

    The large banks have paid back their loans, with interest, and are now profitable. GM, on the other hand, may never be able to pay back it's obligation - short of a sale of the the government held equity position. It's very unlikely the government/UAW alliance will ever be able to generate a profit (especially selling cars nobody wants at very high prices).
  9. Jan 17, 2010 #8
    Hello, I am Mr. Middle Class. I will be paying for the banks taxes. I will also be paying for national healthcare.(but that's a different topic)
  10. Jan 17, 2010 #9
    I guess Mr. Obama's speech writer is not concerned over bank failures.
  11. Feb 5, 2010 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    An interesting discussion with David Stockman - mastermind of Reaganomics and Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

    I thought Stockman's final comment was rather definitive.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june10/makingsense_02-05.html#transcript [Broken]

    So there you have it from one of the authors of modern conservatism.

    Stockman supports Obama's tax on the banks.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  12. Feb 6, 2010 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But that excerpt says nothing about the specific tax being debated in this thread (IMO, this tax is a terrible idea).
  13. Feb 6, 2010 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The fact that "starving the beast" doesn't work is as much an indictment of the inability to get congress to cut spending. It certainly doesn't make it wrong to want to cut taxes and spending, it just means that cutting taxes won't force a cut in spending (a theory I actually hadn't heard before).

    I don't think it follows that one should give up the fight due to the policy being implemented wrong. That's not a failure of the overall idea of smaller government, just the idea that congress or the Pres will act responsibly when faced with a fiscal crisis. Heck, Obama is proving that much by continuing to raise spending and planning on trillion dollar deficits throughout his first term (a mistake that may cost him the election).

    Obama's really going for the opposite of the "starve the beast" approach - perhaps we should call it "release the beast". He's massively raising spending to force a tax increase.

    But there is hope to be had: Once the Repubs get back in power in Congress (maybe this year!), they can restore fiscal sanity by cutting spending. They can force Obama to be responsible just like they did Clinton.
  14. Feb 6, 2010 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The interview does address that. Both Krugman and Stockman [polar opposites] support the tax.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
  15. Feb 6, 2010 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This has been a fundamental princple of modern conservatism since Reagan.

    It is yet another failure of the Republican model. It also speaks to the fact that continually cutting taxes is not the path to fiscal sanity. The Republicans need to quit using tax cuts as the end-all solution. As Stockman states: Game Over. It doesn't work.

    A necessary response to a catastrohpic failure of the Republican philosophy that less government is better. It was too little regulation that created this disaster. To blame Obama for this is looney. This all goes back to Reagans mantra that the best government is no government.

    Just like they did Clinton? What a joke. Clinton was the one demanding that we reduce the deficit. It was at the core of his economic plan. Only after Clinton was elected on this platform in '92 did the Republicans get in line in '94 and try to jump on the bandwagon. The Republicans wanted more and more tax cuts. This was when I first became aware of the fact that it is Republicans who want to engage in unnecessary deficit spending, not the Democrats. Then, as you do now, the Republicans opposed spending when we desperately needed it to save the economy. Had your fiscal conervatives had their way, we probably would be in the midst of the second great depression. No doubt the Republicans would have found a way to blame Obama for that as well. God bless John Boehner who wept on the floor of the House and begged his irrational, die-hard, ideological collegues, to support the bailout - but only after the stock market went into a tailspin in response to Republican stonewalling. In the words of one stock expert who was watching the first vote which failed to support the bailout: "Those guys have no idea what they're doing". [source: The Frontline documentary on the Meltdown, which has been linked in a couple of threads].

    Where were your so-called Conservatives when Bush was in office? They had their chance and they nearly destroyed the country. After eight years of Bush and six year of Republican control of Congress, the country is in worse shape that I've ever seen it. Game over!
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
  16. Feb 7, 2010 #15
    Obama ran on "change" - nobody thought it would include massive "tax and spend" programs. The Republicans will ride into town next time with a clear mandate - CUT ENTITLEMENT SPENDING - before it's too late.

    Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are the underlying problems in the health care debate. The proposed legislation ALMOST succeeded in covering up and expanding the problem.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook