Decius wrote:
If you were opposed to that you should have been fighting the guarantees years ago.

I was. No one listened. :(

Decius wrote:
This, however, is communist.

Not that I didn't expect to see the C-word, I just figured either dc0de or I would've been the first to use it. ;)

Decius wrote:
So, if we're going commie, I say why go half way. Never has the idea of progressive taxation seemed more just. Its not my fault. Its your fault. I ain't paying for it and I support taxing the crap out of your golden parachutes in order to cover it. Don't forget that the taxpayers have a monopoly on the use of force.

The problem is that you won't be hitting your intended targets. Taxes and fees are factored in as a business costs for corporations, and those costs are passed along to rank and file employees (fewer jobs, lower salaries/wages), consumers (higher retail prices), and investors (which includes everyone who has a retirement account). You'll indirectly hurt those taxpayers. Sure, you'll directly soak the people who work hard to make $100K/year, but the guys like Lehman's CEO Richard Fuld (who was paid an "estimated $466M in compensation from 1993 to 2007," and could still take an additional $60M on his way out), are already set for life. Their extreme salaries are structured to compensate for high tax rates, no matter how much you try to punish them through taxation.

Government should regulate. That's what it's here to do. It should not be using taxpayer dollars for guarantees, bailouts, or subsidies, nor should it try to run the economy or use taxation as a weapon.

RE: Fed’s $85 Billion Loan Rescues Insurer - NYTimes.com