Bailout is actually more than $700bn

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap


Duh! They are a part of the executive branch at a time of war and crisis. To try to stop the executive branch from doing whatever the hell is wants at this time is clearly anti-American and highly unpatriotic.

Shame on you, you terrorist lover!

Well I want to be part of the executive branch too.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
The tax revenue wasn't expected, unless you think the IRS can peer into the future and anticipate bank mergers.

Bull****. More tax revenue was expected because more mergers were expected.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

What happens if the politician is an economist, a la Canada?

What happens when that politician economist has apparently forgotten all of his economic training (GST cut and refusing to countenance a carbon emission tax instead of cutting income taxes)?

[Velociryx]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


I'm sure those models provided a very accurate estimate of expected tax revenue from bank mergers during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Well yes...obviously this is a valid reason to just nix the tax altogether and not talk about where we make up the shortfall.

Face it NGR, the argument doesn't hold.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Doesn't the WAY in which this extra little tidbit was introduced provide some sort of clue? I think yes, but again, this is just IMO.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Well yes...obviously this is a valid reason to just nix the tax altogether and not talk about where we make up the shortfall.

What shortfall? There has been an abnormally large number of bank mergers recently due to the financial crisis. The government couldn't possibly have expected the amount of tax revenue that would've come in from these mergers had the tax code not been changed. The government effectively sacrificed a windfall in tax revenues in order to encourage bank mergers that it felt would strengthen the financial system.

Throw in the fact that a lot of these bank mergers might never have happened had the change in the tax code not been made and I really don't understand how you can claim that the government had an accurate estimate of the potential tax revenue from these mergers far enough ahead of time to plan to spend that money so that there would be a resultant "shortfall" to make up.

[Velociryx]

Only one of these can be true. Pick one and stick with it..

NGR Quote #1: I doubt any bank felt like taking on much risk given recent conditions in the financial markets. (re: mergers)

OR

NGR Quote # 2: There has been an abnormally large number of bank mergers recently due to the financial crisis.

And btw...

If the tax no longer exists, then the shortfall = the expected value that's no longer there...nothing to do with the present situation, except that it's being used as an excuse to give an early Christmas to the folks who got us here in the first.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


What shortfall? There has been an abnormally large number of bank mergers recently due to the financial crisis. The government couldn't possibly have expected the amount of tax revenue that would've come in from these mergers had the tax code not been changed. The government effectively sacrificed a windfall in tax revenues in order to encourage bank mergers that it felt would strengthen the financial system.

Throw in the fact that a lot of these bank mergers might never have happened had the change in the tax code not been made and I really don't understand how you can claim that the government had an accurate estimate of the potential tax revenue from these mergers far enough ahead of time to plan to spend that money so that there would be a resultant "shortfall" to make up.

That's all just wrong, as I told you.

JP Morgan heads predicts wave of bank mergers

JPMorgan Chase expects the current market turmoil to unleash a wave of bank mergers in the U.S. and Germany, JP Morgan Chairman and Chief Executive Jamie Dimon told a German newspaper on Friday [12-7-2007].

[Naked Gents Rut]

Only one of these can be true.

No, they can both easily be true.

That's all just wrong, as I told you.

Where's the accurate estimate of what the tax revenue from all those mergers would be?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Where's the accurate estimate of what the tax revenue from all those mergers would be?

Who cares? The point is that there would have been a huge number of bank mergers anyway without the elimination of the tax. Therefore this is nothing more than a give away to banks who are taking over their competitors with nothing gained by the tax payer.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Who cares?

How the **** do you allocate all the tax revenues you're expecting (such that their absence at a later date would create a budget shortfall that would have to be made up via other funding sources) when you have no idea how much money is going to be coming in?

The point is that there would have been a huge number of bank mergers anyway without the elimination of the tax.

You have no idea if this is true or not. Statements by Wells Fargo and others would indicate that it's not true.

nothing gained by the tax payer.

Except a healthier financial system. And an ownership stake in the banks that are strengthened by this change in the tax code and more likely to be profitable in the future thanks to the healthier financial system.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
How the **** do you allocate all the tax revenues you're expecting (such that their absence at a later date would create a budget shortfall that would have to be made up via other funding sources) when you have no idea how much money is going to be coming in?

Who cares? Again, I don't know what you're on about.

You have no idea if this is true or not. Statements by Wells Fargo and others would indicate that it's not true.

What the hell is coming of this place. It's becoming common for people to ignore evidence that people provide to support their argument. Read the news article. It explains why there would have been more mergers regardless. You're just ignorant and you wont accept anything anyone tells you about this.

Except a healthier financial system. And an ownership stake in the banks that are strengthened by this change in the tax code and more likely to be profitable in the future thanks to the healthier financial system.

An ownership in the banks? That's got to be a ****ing joke. They're ****ing us 3 times till Tuesday.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Whatever you say, DT.

[KrazyHorse]

That's why he should be on your ignore too.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's why he should be on your ignore too.

It doesn't stop me from pointing out how retarded you are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

From the article:

Some congressional staff members have privately concluded that the notice was illegal. But they have worried that saying so publicly could unravel several recent bank mergers made possible by the change and send the economy into an even deeper tailspin.

So they would have merged regardless?

Doesn't seem so.