It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Wolf321
Whenever the government imposes a fee or tax that isn't on the end user, don't businesses simply pass those fees/taxes along to the end user/consumer?
It kinda seems like bailout remorse and the people end up paying for it, again.
Originally posted by royspeed
In the UK, the Chancellor Alaister Darling has announced that there will be a tax on bank bonuses, the response of the banks so far is to strongly hint that if this goes ahead, then they will up sticks and move their business somewhere where they will not pay tax.
Quelle surprise!
And yet, if I go overdrawn for even a day, they raise technicolour hell to make me pay them much more than the overdrawn amount.
One rule for us, another for them, eh?
Originally posted by mapsurfer_
really a double whammy on the taxpayers don't you think? Do you actually think banks would eat a fee imposed by the govt? This would no doubt be passed along as a fee to the consumers. Beyond stupid.
Originally posted by endisnighe
It seems everyone has this one handled.
Since Geithner was mentioned in the article, when will he be asked about the AIG debacle that has come out recently?
As for the banks ever paying back the US taxpayer. I am almost laughing about that part of the question.
We are not even allowed to know where the funds went, so how the heck are they going to pay us back?
That is one big question there, ay?
Audit the fed, audit the government, audit every politician for the last 35 years. That may make me happy, maybe not.
Originally posted by Wolf321
reply to post by ziggystrange
You are right, they should have recouped soon after.
I don't know if I agree that we had to do what we did. I think at best, we could have done a little something to make the situation less disastrous, but they should have been allowed to fail. I think that a no or ultra low bail out would have been hard, but I honestly think having done it is and will be far worse on the people in the long run.
If you look at what money was used from what was appropriated, then we estimated way higher than what was utilized, and what we used was probably more than needed to get by.
Anyone that was "for" the bailout is either idiotic or complicit. I know a little bit about economics, and so far I don't see a failure.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ziggystrange
Ziggy-
O - Of course it okay...I have a long handle and most just abbreviate. It isn't my name so I have no care in regards to that.
Z - Thanks OBE, I just lost my response long winded response by hitting the wrong key, back at you soon as I write a new one. It was a story of corruption I have seen in gov, and a major Bank, and some food for thought.
Back ASAP. Not spitting fire at you, I told you, I think you are one of the good guys. You convinced "me" of something! Not ideology, but about discernment.
Ziggy