Increase Corp. Taxes on Anyone who Benefits from bailout

Discussion in 'Economics' started by DHOHHI, Sep 21, 2008.



    In all likelihood the US taxpayer is the one who in the end is paying for this bailout. Why not increase the corporate tax rate on any corporation who benefits from the bailout and keep their tax rate at "x"% until they've paid back the amount that they'll get from the bailout? And if that means MS, GS and others so be it. No reason they should walk away basically unscathed and have partners and senior management getting their massive bonuses each year.
  2. Mr Pain

    Mr Pain

    This is what they need to do.

    1) No institution participating in this plan may pay dividends, issue bonuses or issue or redeem stock options until the United States Government and taxpayers are fully reimbursed for the cost of the institution’s aid.

    2) At participating institutions, no employee or board member may be compensated above that of the highest paid US Civil Servant until the United States Government and taxpayers are fully reimbursed for the cost of the institution’s aid.

    3) No aid may be rendered in any state that provide for no recourse mortgages and loans.

    I believe these three simple insertions will protect the tax payers. Wall Street has been so focused on immediate profits and bonuses that they knowingly engaged in unsound business practices for huge short term gains.

    In California, the state with 40% of the mortgage problem, consumer mortgages are no recourse, the defaulting home owner is not responsible for a deficiency balance in the event of foreclosure. This allows them to simply walk away with out fear of being sued. These no recourse provisions allowed reckless speculation. See the site to see this. The states must eliminate the no recourse provisions of their laws immediately. Reckless and greedy Wall Street and these reckless consumers of a handful of states have caused this problem.
  3. I like it, but the problem with #2 is anybody who's remotely qualified for the gig will simply resign and seek "greener" pastures. What further havoc will the idiot who's willing to work for a pittance wreak on the operation?
  4. Mr Pain

    Mr Pain

    The top us civil servants make close to 200k. Is it great no but it is enough.
  5. lrm21


    Umm here is the rub. There can not be any gotchas because if not institutions will not participate and will just go chapter 7 or 11, thereby circumventing this whole bailout. The idea is we dont want 1000 insolvent institutions.

    This is why Paulson wants no gotchas in the bill. He wants institutions to come clean and worry about the guilty party later.

    Consider that the bill has to incentivize institutions to participate and has to be a better option than bankruptcy.
  6. Civil servants in the "managerial state" makes less than they "could" to conserve "public image".
    They then also participate in various boards etc. After their efforts, they are rewarded handsomely by a well-paid position in the corporate elite.

    THAT is how THAT works...

  7. sprstpd


    What's wrong with 1000 insolvent institutions if they all deserve to be insolvent? Seems like we don't want them to be in business anymore considering what royal screwups they really are. And don't tell me that would be a catastrophe. It already is a catastrophe and the sooner we weed out these idiots the sooner we get on with the healing process.
  8. Gotta love that slogan "Helping thousands of families nationwide"

    But they need to add "while destroying 1000s of banks & economies worldwide"
  9. Well it appears the executive compensation limitation idea is gaining some strength. I believe I saw a clip of McCain in support of it yesterday, not that his opnion matters much right now.

    What Paulson should do is make these jackasses take the paycut and take away bankruptcy protection as an option. These greedy irresponsible motherf****rs have brought the whole system to the brink of collapse, and participation in the bailout should not be without extreme consequences for those responsible.
  10. dubes


    Why would cutting executive compensation be worse than going bankrupt? Don't the executives stand to lose everything through layoffs and a stock price of zero if the company went bankrupt? It would seem to me that the power is with Congress and if they want to cut pay for participating companies, those companies have to submit.
    #10     Sep 22, 2008