fox cities news, appleton, wi
foxpolitics.netwhats really going on in the fox cities
fox cities newsfox cities news, appleton, wi


Blogroll
Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America
fox cities news, appleton, wi fox cities news, appleton, wi
Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Blogs
  • Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)
  • Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)
  • Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)
  • FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)
  • Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)
  • Education done right (1/27/2011)
  • To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)
  • (more)



    1/14/2010
    Tax on banks is a really bad idea

    Massive new tax on banks is an Obama public relations ploy – and I don’t like it. I’m not a fan of outsized, outlandish salaries and bonuses on Wall Street. But this tax is a tax on consumers – ostensibly to pay for the sins of the bailout – but more obviously, to bailout out the administration with a public relations coup. Makes me ill.

    Here’s Larry Kudlow on the subject. Read it all – it’s good.
    The worst part about the proposal is that at the end of the day it’s going to be bank consumers who wind up paying the tax. Banks will pass the tax along.

    But there are many more problems with this absurd bank-tax-hike proposal. Think of this: The U.S. government bailed the banks out with TARP. Then the banks repaid TARP last year, including the stock warrants that provided a handsome taxpayer profit from the banks. And now the government wants to tax them? In other words, help the banks get healthy, and then punish them? I don’t understand it.

    And here’s yet another ridiculous part of this story: The largest banks that de-TARPed, and are regaining their health, are now, with this tax, supposed to cover the government-owned failures like GM, GMAC, AIG, and Fannie and Freddie, which are running up huge deficits because they may be on the taxpayer dole in perpetuity. In other words, the healthy banks that made good decisions and paid down TARP are now getting taxed so that the government can finance the bad actors. This makes no sense at all.
    This morning’s breaking news says Obama is serious – wants to “make a splash.” Great….
    The tax proposal, which would require congressional approval, is meant to make a splash, demonstrating to the public that the administration is now focused on reforming the financial industry after more than a year of bailout efforts. The official, who spoke with reporters before the president's announcement on condition of anonymity, said that large firms were reaping renewed profit from a rescue intended to help the broader economy and that the public deserved a larger share of the money.

    …. The nation's largest banks are expected to report large annual profits over the next week, along with plans to set aside billions of dollars for employee bonuses.

    "When you try to value the degree of benefit that they received from this exceptional government assistance, which was not aimed at helping specific companies but aimed at helping the economy at large, this is essentially the least they could do," the official said.

    Industry executives are warning that hitting banks will hurt the broader economy because firms would seek to impose the cost of any tax on customers.

    "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase, told reporters Wednesday after his testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. "All businesses tend to pass their costs on to customers."

    But by imposing the tax on only the largest firms, government officials said, they hope to protect consumers. Firms that raised prices would give smaller rivals a competitive advantage, creating an incentive for companies instead to swallow the cost, potentially by reducing employee pay.

    "It is in many ways offensive for those at our major financial institutions to suggest that they can today afford excessive, often outlandish bonuses for their top executives but cannot afford to make whole the taxpayers," the senior administration official said.
    Your government is protecting consumers. Yeah, right. You will pay for it, be assured.

    Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net




    COMMENTS

    Any tax ends up being a tax on us. Taxes paid by a bank, an insurance company, a corporation, whatever - is a tax on US because the 'corporate entity' just passes that along as part of the cost of doing business.

    So much for those of us making less than $250k not having our taxes raised. One year in to the mission and how many campaign promises have been broken? Just about all of them.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jeff Riedl (Thu Jan 14 07:57:32 2010)

    Yes, Jeff, and any "waste" or even "employer cost" ends up being a tax on all of us. Why we object to the simplest, most efficient healthcare system of all is beyond me. That's a single-payer Medicare-for-all system that provides first-class health care to 100% of our people for the same dollars we are spending today. We'd transfer the 31% of insurance bureaucracy waste to spending on health care instead.

    So for those who opposed it, you are getting what you asked for. Live with it.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jack Lohman (Thu Jan 14 09:19:10 2010)

    And incidentally, no taxes on banks and no taxes on Cadillac plans, because everybody pays for the system through our national infrastructure (progressive taxation) and everybody has a Cadillac plan. Even the politicians that administer it.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jack Lohman (Thu Jan 14 10:18:04 2010)

    This blog is one in an on-going stream of anti-tax rants. While I would not defend this specific tax proposal, I am curious whether any tax proposal would be acceptable to the blog author. Is taxation inherently wrong? If not, what criteria is there in the author's mind for judging a tax proposal as meritorious?
    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Dennis (Thu Jan 14 10:24:12 2010)

    Dennis,

    I won't pretend to speak for Jo, but I will speak for myself.

    If the Sales Tax was the only tax (tax on consumption - not on earning) or if a Fair Tax ... take 10% (or whatever is necessary) of everything you make as a result of your business or cashing in your investments, no progressive rate, no loopholes, I'd be all over it.

    I think we're all pretty hesitant to offer up more of our hard earned dollars to pay for the ridiculous waste found throughout our city, county, state, and federal budgets. We don't like paying for empty suits or useless cubicles, lifetime benefit packages (including after-retirement health care) when we're paying hundreds of dollars a month for our family's health care DURING our employment.

    A little bit of a level playing field might be nice - don't put the weight of government mischief on the backs of those of us who are not politically "connected" or "selected" as deserving of special treatment.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jeff Riedl (Thu Jan 14 10:54:36 2010)

    Dennis-

    The current cost of government is about 62%. That is all taxes, licenses fees, permits etc. PLUS the costs imposed by government on individuals and business. According to David M. Walker, former comptroller general of the US, taxes will need to go up another 36% or so to finance our unfunded liablities, like social security and medicare. That figure is actually from about 3 yrs ago, so a rough estimate of the total is government will soon consume nearly 100% of our economy. BEFORE any new programs are added (like the health care bill, which BTW, if history is any guide, will cost far more than projected.)

    Rome is burning, Nero is fiddling, and the rest of the politicians are throwing gasoline on the fire..
    How can any sensible person who grasps these facts suggest that higher taxes are a good thing? Government at EVERY level should be talking about economizing, reducing the size and cost, terminating any and all useless baggage. NOW!! The only good tax in this situation is one that is significantly lower in cost than what we have now.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Ken Van Doren (Thu Jan 14 14:21:51 2010)

    Again, is the issue taxation or malefeasance in government? I cannot envision a modern society without some form of public taxation. Clearly, the problems of graft, waste, incompetence and self-aggrandizement escalate the costs of government operations. To simply say "no more taxes" makes little sense. There are valid, urgent public needs. This being said, spotlighting the problems (and their political perpetuators)is vital to ensure tax dollars are effectively and wisely used.
    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Dennis (Thu Jan 14 18:47:47 2010)

    Dennis,

    Just about every elected official becomes a fiscal 'crack addict'. Giving them more only perpetuates and reinforces their addiction.

    Are there valid reasons for taxation? Yes and I would welcome the discussion on exactly what is a valid reason. It costs money to sustain an orderly society. I think we can all agree, however that we are well beyond what NEEDS to be done in many areas and until we can identify and eliminate those areas (as we were promised when our current POTUS was on the campaign trail) where money is being wasted, I doubt you will find too many thinking folks who are willing to fork over MORE so they can waste more.

    Prove responsibility - THEN when there is a NEED, we can talk. I'm not saying NEVER ... just NOT NOW.

    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jeff Riedl (Fri Jan 15 09:54:42 2010)

    You are not going to get rid of the "power" until you get the private bribes out of the system. For $5 per taxpayer per year we could fund the elections and have the politicians working for US rather than THEM. You must ask (demand!) that your politician supports public funding of campaigns.
    fox cities news, appleton, wi
    Jack Lohman (Fri Jan 15 10:13:04 2010)




    fox cities news, appleton, wi

    sign up to receive fox politics news
    see todays issue


    Blog Archives
    2011
    June
    March
    January
    2010
    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January
    2009
    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January
    2008
    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January
    2007
    December
    November
    October
    September
    August
    July
    June
    May
    April
    March
    February
    January
    2006
    December
    November
    October
    September
    2000
    May

    Site Map | Privacy Policy   •   FoxPolitics ©2006 All Rights Reserved.   •   Site Updated 6/19/2013