Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i am not a fan of wealth redistribution since it pits people against each other, but shouldn't the people who created the greatest part of the financial problem facing america pay the most? is this a good or bad idea?
i am not a fan of wealth redistribution since it pits people against each other, but shouldn't the people who created the greatest part of the financial problem facing america pay the most? is this a good or bad idea?
i don't agree with this type of thinking. over the last year i have seen this ridiculous witch hunt on the evil "speculators"!
this is just plain stupid. our whole society is based on speculation. pension funds, health insurance, any market you can dream of, our banking system, everything relies on speculation.
so where have we gone wrong? i believe that the problem is with our understanding of risk. for a very long time we've looked at our giant institutions as 'risk free'. we've looked at real estate, our job security, our money in the bank and the value of our money as 'risk free'.
in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. lehmans, enron, gm, ford, bear stearns, aig have shown us that these institions are not without risk. the housing market, the value of our 401k's, homes, money etc have all proved that our assumptions on risk are unfounded.
the free market only functions properly when there is a proper balance between risk and reward. when the belief in our 'infallible' system, or government interference distorts that balance, wall street, main street and everyone else makes poor investment decisions, over spends, saves too little etc.
so no, you don't have to tax wall street to give to main street. you just have to let them go bankrupt. you have to make people understand risk. make them aware that when they put their money in the bank it is not entirely safe. this will mean that people will only deposit in solid, don't just lend to anyone, banks or they'll demand higher interest in the riskier ones. they will also think twice before they invest in bloated pensions and healthcare schemes. they'll be very careful to live within their means and diversify their savings. individuals will also re-examine their relationships with people around them (their children, parents, relatives and neighbors) in the knowledge that one day they might need them.
i am totally in agreement about personal responsibility, but the bailout did benefit wall street at the expense of taxpayers. it would just be recovering some of the money lost. i don't think that our government will let wall street fail as they are too intertwined, no matter how much it costs. i absolutely agree that people should think more carefully about their family and their relationships because in the end family is what you truly have to count on, not the government.
i am not a fan of wealth redistribution since it pits people against each other, but shouldn't the people who created the greatest part of the financial problem facing america pay the most? is this a good or bad idea?
Bad idea. Not to be TOO simplistic, but..
The more expensive something is to do, the less people will do it. The effect of a measure like the one Cuban suggests would be that fewer people would buy stocks, and/or the people who invest would buy fewer shares. Mutual funds (the largest holders of MOST corporate stocks) would pass those costs onto their investors, increasing the cost borne by 401(k) plansd, IRAs, and other investment plans. No, not a good idea in my opinion.
no, wall street created the problem with their derivative deals because it got too big financially to get out from under and that is why they turned to congress to bail them out. of course congress complied, with the exception of a few decent members of congress who would not allow themselves to be bullied.
Bad idea. Not to be TOO simplistic, but..
The more expensive something is to do, the less people will do it. The effect of a measure like the one Cuban suggests would be that fewer people would buy stocks, and/or the people who invest would buy fewer shares. Mutual funds (the largest holders of MOST corporate stocks) would pass those costs onto their investors, increasing the cost borne by 401(k) plansd, IRAs, and other investment plans. No, not a good idea in my opinion.
i don't know what is a good idea really, but it seems unfair to make the taxpayers pay since they had absolutely nothing to do with the problem. (with the exception of a few mortgage holders who are also going to be bailed out evidently). i seriously doubt that 10 cents a share is going to slow down the stock market.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
