Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › NPR: “Offshore Tax Havens”
- This topic has 385 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 24, 2011 at 4:59 PM #681683March 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM #680528
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Allan,How many people is that $1.5T (using your number) being divided among, and to whom (people who are actually doing the work)? How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? Can we even compare the two?
Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
Not saying we don’t need to make some changes in the public sector, but you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow “worthy” of bailouts…bailouts that are coming at the expense of public sector workers.[/quote]
CAR: When did this argument become mutually exclusive? One EITHER supports Wall Street OR the public sector unions?
As I’ve said before, isn’t it possible to be outraged at both? You’re assertion that “you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow worthy of bailouts…” is false: I NEVER made that argument on this thread. To the contrary, I’ve stated clearly that BOTH are wrong.
CONCHO was right about one thing: We, as a society, have become so used to the Left versus Right meme, that its become almost automatic now.
I’m all for pursuing Wall Street, and I’ve felt that more should have been done, both in terms of prosecution by the DoJ and in repatriation of funds and monies to those bilked by the banksters.
We also need to do something about our archaic, and outdated, tax code. But, that’s clearly a topic for another thread.
March 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM #680582Participant[quote=CA renter]
Allan,How many people is that $1.5T (using your number) being divided among, and to whom (people who are actually doing the work)? How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? Can we even compare the two?
Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
Not saying we don’t need to make some changes in the public sector, but you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow “worthy” of bailouts…bailouts that are coming at the expense of public sector workers.[/quote]
CAR: When did this argument become mutually exclusive? One EITHER supports Wall Street OR the public sector unions?
As I’ve said before, isn’t it possible to be outraged at both? You’re assertion that “you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow worthy of bailouts…” is false: I NEVER made that argument on this thread. To the contrary, I’ve stated clearly that BOTH are wrong.
CONCHO was right about one thing: We, as a society, have become so used to the Left versus Right meme, that its become almost automatic now.
I’m all for pursuing Wall Street, and I’ve felt that more should have been done, both in terms of prosecution by the DoJ and in repatriation of funds and monies to those bilked by the banksters.
We also need to do something about our archaic, and outdated, tax code. But, that’s clearly a topic for another thread.
March 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM #681199Participant[quote=CA renter]
Allan,How many people is that $1.5T (using your number) being divided among, and to whom (people who are actually doing the work)? How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? Can we even compare the two?
Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
Not saying we don’t need to make some changes in the public sector, but you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow “worthy” of bailouts…bailouts that are coming at the expense of public sector workers.[/quote]
CAR: When did this argument become mutually exclusive? One EITHER supports Wall Street OR the public sector unions?
As I’ve said before, isn’t it possible to be outraged at both? You’re assertion that “you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow worthy of bailouts…” is false: I NEVER made that argument on this thread. To the contrary, I’ve stated clearly that BOTH are wrong.
CONCHO was right about one thing: We, as a society, have become so used to the Left versus Right meme, that its become almost automatic now.
I’m all for pursuing Wall Street, and I’ve felt that more should have been done, both in terms of prosecution by the DoJ and in repatriation of funds and monies to those bilked by the banksters.
We also need to do something about our archaic, and outdated, tax code. But, that’s clearly a topic for another thread.
March 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM #681337Participant[quote=CA renter]
Allan,How many people is that $1.5T (using your number) being divided among, and to whom (people who are actually doing the work)? How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? Can we even compare the two?
Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
Not saying we don’t need to make some changes in the public sector, but you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow “worthy” of bailouts…bailouts that are coming at the expense of public sector workers.[/quote]
CAR: When did this argument become mutually exclusive? One EITHER supports Wall Street OR the public sector unions?
As I’ve said before, isn’t it possible to be outraged at both? You’re assertion that “you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow worthy of bailouts…” is false: I NEVER made that argument on this thread. To the contrary, I’ve stated clearly that BOTH are wrong.
CONCHO was right about one thing: We, as a society, have become so used to the Left versus Right meme, that its become almost automatic now.
I’m all for pursuing Wall Street, and I’ve felt that more should have been done, both in terms of prosecution by the DoJ and in repatriation of funds and monies to those bilked by the banksters.
We also need to do something about our archaic, and outdated, tax code. But, that’s clearly a topic for another thread.
March 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM #681688Participant[quote=CA renter]
Allan,How many people is that $1.5T (using your number) being divided among, and to whom (people who are actually doing the work)? How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? Can we even compare the two?
Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
Not saying we don’t need to make some changes in the public sector, but you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow “worthy” of bailouts…bailouts that are coming at the expense of public sector workers.[/quote]
CAR: When did this argument become mutually exclusive? One EITHER supports Wall Street OR the public sector unions?
As I’ve said before, isn’t it possible to be outraged at both? You’re assertion that “you cannot make the argument that the financial sector is somehow worthy of bailouts…” is false: I NEVER made that argument on this thread. To the contrary, I’ve stated clearly that BOTH are wrong.
CONCHO was right about one thing: We, as a society, have become so used to the Left versus Right meme, that its become almost automatic now.
I’m all for pursuing Wall Street, and I’ve felt that more should have been done, both in terms of prosecution by the DoJ and in repatriation of funds and monies to those bilked by the banksters.
We also need to do something about our archaic, and outdated, tax code. But, that’s clearly a topic for another thread.
March 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM #680543briansd1
Guest[quote=CA renter]Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
[/quote]Please don’t say that Wall Street caused the pension crisis because that’s not true.
The politicians and pension managers assumed a certain rate of return which allowed them to make promises they couldn’t keep.
Wall Street did not deliver that rate of return. But there was never any guarantee.
Had the politicians been required to set more money aside for pensions, they would not have promised so much or spent so much.
If I invest my money assuming 9% annual return, and I spend accordingly, is Wall Street to blame if/when I run out of money?
[quote=CA renter] How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? [/quote]
The trillions lent to Wall Street will all be paid back, in time. It may take a long time but it will be paid back at least in nominal terms.
In essence, the banks are borrowing from the Fed at near zero, and lending at a higher rate. Given enough time, they will recoup all the losses. The higher the margins, the shorter the time. With the profits, the banks will repay TARP and buy back the assets that were bought by the Fed. In fact, the Fed is making money on their asset sales.
Wall Street executives and managers got hundreds of billions which they would have gotten anyway in the good years (they should have been fired IMHO, but the choice was made to keep them on for continuity).
The other trillions were used to bailout asset values. That helped everyone who owns assets, including the portfolios of the pension funds and regular folks’ 401ks.
Without the bailouts, pensions funds would have lost even more and be even more underfunded.
Of course, the bailout benefited the rich more because they own the bulk of the assets.
The benefit to society is that we have continuity and a functioning financial system.
If we give $1.5 trillion to the public pension funds, that’s money that taxpayers will never see again.
I can see better use for that money. How about better school lunches for kids, or college scholarships for students? Given the choice, I would rather spend the money on services for the citizens than on the pensions for retirees.
March 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM #680597Guest[quote=CA renter]Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
[/quote]Please don’t say that Wall Street caused the pension crisis because that’s not true.
The politicians and pension managers assumed a certain rate of return which allowed them to make promises they couldn’t keep.
Wall Street did not deliver that rate of return. But there was never any guarantee.
Had the politicians been required to set more money aside for pensions, they would not have promised so much or spent so much.
If I invest my money assuming 9% annual return, and I spend accordingly, is Wall Street to blame if/when I run out of money?
[quote=CA renter] How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? [/quote]
The trillions lent to Wall Street will all be paid back, in time. It may take a long time but it will be paid back at least in nominal terms.
In essence, the banks are borrowing from the Fed at near zero, and lending at a higher rate. Given enough time, they will recoup all the losses. The higher the margins, the shorter the time. With the profits, the banks will repay TARP and buy back the assets that were bought by the Fed. In fact, the Fed is making money on their asset sales.
Wall Street executives and managers got hundreds of billions which they would have gotten anyway in the good years (they should have been fired IMHO, but the choice was made to keep them on for continuity).
The other trillions were used to bailout asset values. That helped everyone who owns assets, including the portfolios of the pension funds and regular folks’ 401ks.
Without the bailouts, pensions funds would have lost even more and be even more underfunded.
Of course, the bailout benefited the rich more because they own the bulk of the assets.
The benefit to society is that we have continuity and a functioning financial system.
If we give $1.5 trillion to the public pension funds, that’s money that taxpayers will never see again.
I can see better use for that money. How about better school lunches for kids, or college scholarships for students? Given the choice, I would rather spend the money on services for the citizens than on the pensions for retirees.
March 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM #681214Guest[quote=CA renter]Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
[/quote]Please don’t say that Wall Street caused the pension crisis because that’s not true.
The politicians and pension managers assumed a certain rate of return which allowed them to make promises they couldn’t keep.
Wall Street did not deliver that rate of return. But there was never any guarantee.
Had the politicians been required to set more money aside for pensions, they would not have promised so much or spent so much.
If I invest my money assuming 9% annual return, and I spend accordingly, is Wall Street to blame if/when I run out of money?
[quote=CA renter] How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? [/quote]
The trillions lent to Wall Street will all be paid back, in time. It may take a long time but it will be paid back at least in nominal terms.
In essence, the banks are borrowing from the Fed at near zero, and lending at a higher rate. Given enough time, they will recoup all the losses. The higher the margins, the shorter the time. With the profits, the banks will repay TARP and buy back the assets that were bought by the Fed. In fact, the Fed is making money on their asset sales.
Wall Street executives and managers got hundreds of billions which they would have gotten anyway in the good years (they should have been fired IMHO, but the choice was made to keep them on for continuity).
The other trillions were used to bailout asset values. That helped everyone who owns assets, including the portfolios of the pension funds and regular folks’ 401ks.
Without the bailouts, pensions funds would have lost even more and be even more underfunded.
Of course, the bailout benefited the rich more because they own the bulk of the assets.
The benefit to society is that we have continuity and a functioning financial system.
If we give $1.5 trillion to the public pension funds, that’s money that taxpayers will never see again.
I can see better use for that money. How about better school lunches for kids, or college scholarships for students? Given the choice, I would rather spend the money on services for the citizens than on the pensions for retirees.
March 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM #681352Guest[quote=CA renter]Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
[/quote]Please don’t say that Wall Street caused the pension crisis because that’s not true.
The politicians and pension managers assumed a certain rate of return which allowed them to make promises they couldn’t keep.
Wall Street did not deliver that rate of return. But there was never any guarantee.
Had the politicians been required to set more money aside for pensions, they would not have promised so much or spent so much.
If I invest my money assuming 9% annual return, and I spend accordingly, is Wall Street to blame if/when I run out of money?
[quote=CA renter] How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? [/quote]
The trillions lent to Wall Street will all be paid back, in time. It may take a long time but it will be paid back at least in nominal terms.
In essence, the banks are borrowing from the Fed at near zero, and lending at a higher rate. Given enough time, they will recoup all the losses. The higher the margins, the shorter the time. With the profits, the banks will repay TARP and buy back the assets that were bought by the Fed. In fact, the Fed is making money on their asset sales.
Wall Street executives and managers got hundreds of billions which they would have gotten anyway in the good years (they should have been fired IMHO, but the choice was made to keep them on for continuity).
The other trillions were used to bailout asset values. That helped everyone who owns assets, including the portfolios of the pension funds and regular folks’ 401ks.
Without the bailouts, pensions funds would have lost even more and be even more underfunded.
Of course, the bailout benefited the rich more because they own the bulk of the assets.
The benefit to society is that we have continuity and a functioning financial system.
If we give $1.5 trillion to the public pension funds, that’s money that taxpayers will never see again.
I can see better use for that money. How about better school lunches for kids, or college scholarships for students? Given the choice, I would rather spend the money on services for the citizens than on the pensions for retirees.
March 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM #681703Guest[quote=CA renter]Why are trillions being directed into the financial sector when they were the ones who caused the pension crisis in the first place?
[/quote]Please don’t say that Wall Street caused the pension crisis because that’s not true.
The politicians and pension managers assumed a certain rate of return which allowed them to make promises they couldn’t keep.
Wall Street did not deliver that rate of return. But there was never any guarantee.
Had the politicians been required to set more money aside for pensions, they would not have promised so much or spent so much.
If I invest my money assuming 9% annual return, and I spend accordingly, is Wall Street to blame if/when I run out of money?
[quote=CA renter] How are the trillions that have been diverted to the financial sector being divided, and to whom? Did they do any “work” to deserve this largess? Does one outlay benefit society more than the other? [/quote]
The trillions lent to Wall Street will all be paid back, in time. It may take a long time but it will be paid back at least in nominal terms.
In essence, the banks are borrowing from the Fed at near zero, and lending at a higher rate. Given enough time, they will recoup all the losses. The higher the margins, the shorter the time. With the profits, the banks will repay TARP and buy back the assets that were bought by the Fed. In fact, the Fed is making money on their asset sales.
Wall Street executives and managers got hundreds of billions which they would have gotten anyway in the good years (they should have been fired IMHO, but the choice was made to keep them on for continuity).
The other trillions were used to bailout asset values. That helped everyone who owns assets, including the portfolios of the pension funds and regular folks’ 401ks.
Without the bailouts, pensions funds would have lost even more and be even more underfunded.
Of course, the bailout benefited the rich more because they own the bulk of the assets.
The benefit to society is that we have continuity and a functioning financial system.
If we give $1.5 trillion to the public pension funds, that’s money that taxpayers will never see again.
I can see better use for that money. How about better school lunches for kids, or college scholarships for students? Given the choice, I would rather spend the money on services for the citizens than on the pensions for retirees.
March 24, 2011 at 9:46 PM #680608gandalf
ParticipantI thought this thread was about taxes.
It’s about taxes. I posted it.
It’s about corporations that make LOTS OF MONEY…
But don’t pay any taxes.
March 24, 2011 at 9:46 PM #680661ParticipantI thought this thread was about taxes.
It’s about taxes. I posted it.
It’s about corporations that make LOTS OF MONEY…
But don’t pay any taxes.
March 24, 2011 at 9:46 PM #681278ParticipantI thought this thread was about taxes.
It’s about taxes. I posted it.
It’s about corporations that make LOTS OF MONEY…
But don’t pay any taxes.
March 24, 2011 at 9:46 PM #681417ParticipantI thought this thread was about taxes.
It’s about taxes. I posted it.
It’s about corporations that make LOTS OF MONEY…
But don’t pay any taxes.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.