Baucus: Taxes On Wall Street Coming

Let's hope so:

“I don’t think there’s much doubt that there will be a bank tax,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus told POLITICO. And more than ever, the Montana Democrat signaled that Congress will also crack down on wealthy hedge fund and private equity partners who shelter their income as capital gains — taxed at half the top 35 percent rate.

< Freedom Of Speech | Misreading The Polling On FinReg >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That means... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:22:06 AM EST
    a bank customer's tax...watch your fees y'all.

    My GOP friends keep telling me that (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:12:13 AM EST
    what gets taxed gets disincented...disincentiveized... happens less.

    I guess that does not apply to bank fees and profits.


    Guess not... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:35:05 AM EST
    remember, without banks we all die...at least thats the message I got during the TARP scam:)

    Food, water, shelter...and banking.  Who knew?

    I'm with my boy Ryan Bingham....

    Man I never understand why all my money
    Goes down to man at the bank
    And all he does is sit and think
    About the money that I'm gonna make

    - "Dollar A Day"

    How about (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    Part of the new tax rule is that profits made from consumer fees are taxed even higher? I'm sure we can find the sweet spot.let them raisecfees on hedge funds instead.

    We've seen... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:53:55 AM EST
    how fast and loose these grifters can play with the numbers...I don't think D.C. can out-grift them.

    Not that Washington really wants to...all they care about on the Hill is signing a bank tax and popping a celebratory cork...that the little guys will actual pay for it is of no importance, they got a political "win" they can tout in Nov.


    Sad to say, probably true (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    Max Baucus, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:53:38 PM EST

    Yes, but how much will they be (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 05:29:07 PM EST
    compromised away?

    From the linked article:

    At issue is whether income paid to wealthy investment fund managers should be taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate or the upper income bracket, 35 percent and climbing. Proponents of the current system argue that the managers have a "carried interest" in the capital investments they oversee. Critics say it is ordinary income paid in exchange for the performance of services, and the managers often have very little skin in the capital game.

    The House permits some leeway: allowing carried interest to be taxed at the capital gains tax rate to the extent that it reflects a reasonable return on invested capital. And after interviewing different coalitions with a stake in the outcome, Senate Finance staff is now looking at compromises that could address some complaints -- but still yield much needed tax revenue.

    Hedge fund partners make for an easy political target today, but much of their trading is so short term that it doesn't qualify for the lower capital gains rate that applies to assets held more than six months. Private equity, publicly traded partnerships in the energy field and real estate partnerships are often affected more, especially given the strained state of commercial real estate. To win the needed votes, Baucus will have to look at options that ease the transition by perhaps imposing a midpoint rate -- between 15 percent and 35 percent -- or grandfather in some deals already made before a fixed date.

    I don't know why, but I am imagining a whispered conversation between Baucus and those most likely to be affected: "stop worrying, boys...by the time we're finished here, this is going to be chump change for you - not gonna hurt one little bit."

    And it will be hailed as an historic victory by Democrats, as usual.

    Reconciliation! (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:11:07 AM EST

    Isn't this called (none / 0) (#3)
    by abdiel on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 10:26:27 AM EST
    robbing Peter to pay Paul?

    Are Peter and Paul both banks? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:08:42 AM EST
    One pays for the bailout and the other gets bailed out? I have no problem with that.

    Actually, I have no problem with it regardless.


    Except the one paying for the bailout... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    are robbing their customers blind to do it.

    Guess that is still better than the innocent taxpayer smart enough not to get in bed with these sc*mbags in the first place:)


    Even if it's the taxpayer's money to bail them out (none / 0) (#14)
    by abdiel on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 07:38:08 PM EST
    and the consumer's money to pay for it?

    A bank is a financial intermediary and every dollar of its basis comes from a human being. You can't beat the bank and spare the consumer.


    You can if you write and enforce the (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:14:30 PM EST
    regulations properly. Banks were not gambling money in investment arms until they were allowed to do so. They were also more reasonable in their credit interest rates until they got the  bankruptcy laws changed.

    Some of the so-called dollars on their account sheets is the sheer vapor of mortgages that will probably default that they have not fessed up to yet. They will be charging consumers to make up for that loss too at some point if we let them. there will always be an excuse to rip off consumers. May as well tax them more at the same time.  


    They may have to pass it on as they (none / 0) (#12)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:37:56 PM EST
    say, but at least they will have to "work" on it.