You mean back when the interest rate on a home loan was 18%+?
Sounds sweet.
I’m not a fan of hers. She represents the status quo and everything wrong in politics. She is merely a representative of the corporate wing of the Democratic party, like Obama.
What about the taxes on individuals and corporations? Did the taxes make them move ashore?
The government will probably find some way to kick the can a little further down the road, but ya, on its current trajectory SS is insolvent and relatively soon.
No, it is because the people are treated like an endless source of revenue to fund every official’s wet dream.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/america-s-shrinking-corporate-sector
The Fed got smart and increase payroll taxes:
If you want the answer to that question you only need to google the Carter administration tax policies. It won’t take long to see the mess that Carter made of the economy. But of course Ronald Reagan turned it around.
Then what happened in the 50’s and 60’s when the tax rate for an individual peaked around 91% and the corporate tax peaked around 51%, I believe. The economy should have collapsed according right-economists, right?
Do you understand what the difference is between a statutory tax rate and an effective tax rate?
Here is lefty loony bloomberg on what you’re asking:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare
1 Like
Well, gee, there’s a real surprise…
Sanders: I don’t understand how any of this works, but by golly I don’t like the “big” banks and they must be boken up! People might lose their jobs, oh well…
Unreal. This is the savior the left is looking to…?
Sanders can’t articulate it, but others can:
And former Dallas Fed president Richard Fisher has been sounding this alarm for years now.
1 Like
In your “Trading tax pays for college” plan it sure as hell would be.
Lets say you tax financial transactions. You can’t base projected revenue off of current trading models. People will change their behavior and you will not get the money you planned on.
It’s like if you always left your door unlocked. Then one day I come to your house and I tell you that I am going to burglarize it that night. Wouldn’t you change your behavior and lock the door?
Bad analogy, because you can make some fact-based predictions on the behavioral changes, mostly because the new tax rate can be figured into ROI of the trading.
They were breaking up just fine on their own in 2008 until something happened.
Is that a reason not to break them up now?
Who gets to pick the winners and losers in this “break up?”
The United States government would set the policy, of course, and the winner would be the American public.
That benevolent, unbiased, prudential United States government? Well, I’m sold.
I’m not necessarily opposed to breaking the banks up any more or less than breaking other monopolies up. That said, I want to see an actual plan. Separating the biggest banks would not be easy or quick. Not to mention the volatility it would cause on speculation alone. My guess is loan cost will rise and availability will decline as well.
I am in favor of creative destruction, though, and I hate corporate subsidies. That said TARP was absolutely the right call at the time and has already been paid back with interest.
Good to hear. It’s the first step in joining the real world and sobering up from the misguided fiction of libertopia.
I agree generally, but banks are never purely private entities. They fulfill a public function re: money and credit and are (and always have been) roped into a broader economic mission beyond merely operating as a private concern and rising and falling with supply and demand.