Comments on: Taxing All Big Banks Is A Double Standard And Is Unconstitutional

By: Arthur @ Financialbondage.org

Arthur @ Financialbondage.org — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:16:32 +0000

government won’t create jobs (other than federal jobs) and won’t fix our economy. they won’t fix our problems they ARE the problem. I’m still waiting for Americans to “get” this.

By: BG

BG — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:25:36 +0000

@Jason @ MyMoneyMinute
It’s not that the banks are too big to fail, it’s that they are too big to be bailed out…

I agree with fredct, there is nothing unconstitutional about having a targeted tax — government does it all the time. Tax the things they do not want you to be/do, and give tax breaks on the things they want you to be/do.

If the tax is targeting banks with assets over $50b, then that is the government saying we don’t like banks to have assets over $50b. This is just like the insanely high tax on cigarettes — government doesn’t want you to smoke.

By: Jason @ MyMoneyMinute

Jason @ MyMoneyMinute — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:04:48 +0000

I think it’s a sad reflection of our country’s socialist shift & fiscal irresponsibility over the last decade.

NOTHING should be to big to fail. Piecemeal out the failed assets and let those who actually HAVE been fiscally responsible be the winners. Any gov’t injections should be tied to infrastructure investment or as a match to encourage citizens to pay for their own stuff.

Check out the 2-part “MyMoneyMinute Stimulus Plan” I wrote last year and let me know where you agree:
Part 1: http://bit.ly/aTGmrE
Part 2: http://bit.ly/dAoXxO

By: The People Asked To Get ROCKED And A Boulder Drops On Their Heads | Financial Samurai

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:13:34 +0000

[...] people realize that buying votes is wrong and that punishing innocent people at non-TARP banks while protecting AIG and the auto industry who haven’t’ paid back [...]

By: fredct

fredct — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:13:07 +0000

@The Genius
Genius, I care because I want others who made read this to understand that FS’s stated opinion is entirely undefended and shouldn’t just be taken at face value. I don’t give a darn about small accidents like grammar and spelling. I do care that someone trying to criticize proposed policy as unconstitutional be able to explain themselves.

If you’re asking me what I would do with the banks, what I feel would be the best policy would be to break up the ultra large banks. Bank that gets so large that the irresponsibility of a few executives can put a national economy at risk is just not safe for the American people. But I’m (admittedly) not sure about the legality of that, and from a pramatic perspective, I don’t think it’ll happen. Short of that, I have no issue of the policy of taxing ultra-large banks to discourage their formation and keep more competition in the markets.

By: The Genius

The Genius — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:41:20 +0000

@fredct Love the debate! Fredct, if you don't have to dispute an argument FS never made, why the hell do you care? Are you the guy on message boards who point out spelling errors and generally annoy people? Why don't you contribute to the discussion about bank taxation? You're a curious fellow.

By: fredct

fredct — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:50:05 +0000

@admin P.S. yes, its your site, you can say whatever you want. Its your constitutional right (speaking of) to free speech. But refusing to explain your statements nonethless exposes the apparent lack of truth behind them.

By: fredct

fredct — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:48:07 +0000

@admin
I love the idea that I have to dispute an argument you’ve never made. If you want to have an actual discussion of the matter by explaining your rationale, I’d be happy to.

In the meantime all I can say is that its no different than any other tax or fee that may be levied. The others have stood the constitutional test for decades, and there’s no reason I am aware of that this idea wouldn’t also.