Let us say I am making $200,000 a year and paying 10% tax on that. My take home would be about $180,000.  So I wouldn’t want to exert myself a little harder to make, say, $300,000 because I would be in a higher tax bracket. For $300,000 I would pay the same 10% on the first $200,000 (Take home $180,000)  and, say, 20% on the next $100,000 (Take home $80,000). Because then I would be taking home only $260,000 instead of $180,000 and there isn’t any incentive in the world that would make me exert that extra effort.

I wouldn’t want to move into the top 2% of earners in the US because I would have to pay more taxes for making more money. Nevermind that I am earning such a comfortable income because I am using the social infrastructure this country has developed with tax dollars. No, I have gotten to this level on my own and nobody gave me anything along the way and they shouldn’t expect me to give back to some imaginary community that makes it all possible.

Yeah, that sounds straight enough.

The Nation is tracking how the bailout is proceeding.  It continues to ring so wrong.

This bit

But, if you look more closely at Paulson’s transaction, the
taxpayers were taken for a ride–a very expensive ride. They paid $125
billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5
billion. That means half of the public’s money was a straight-out gift
to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return.

is very irksome, but the private investor they are invoking is Warren Buffett, who was only putting up a few billion into Goldman-Sachs. And then they extend the analogy of the deal Buffett made with GS to cover all nine institutions, something I don’t think is quite fair.

But the upshot is that we appear to have the wolves in charge of the foxes in charge of the chicken coop. And the wolves are preparing for one last plunder before they retire. I don’t trust the administration to monitor and manage the bailout, I don’t trust the Congress to provide oversight on the wolves. I don’t expect the Justice Department to initiate criminal prosecutions in a timely fashion. I don’t trust the Republicans to do anything other than plunder the US treasury as best they can. And I don’t trust the Democrats to provide any ‘check and balance’ to stop the Republicans. (Hell, they may even join the bandwagon.) It would be nice to be pleasantly surprised.

Banks to Continue Paying Dividends

Here we are, bailing out all these banks who are so badly in need of capital in order to operate and do their banking thing, and they want to pay out over half of the money we are rescuing them with to the investors who goaded them into their malfeasant ways in the first place.

And then there’s this:

Ed Yingling, chief executive of the American Bankers Association, said he was increasingly hearing from banking executives who feel they should not be forced to accept money with so many strings attached. He said these banks don’t need the money, but they are willing to use it to increase lending, so long as they are not punished for doing so.

Are we forcing banks to accept federal money?

The more I hear about this entire venture, the more it stinks. I think the best idea is to take the $700 Billion and create a separate banking system. Let the new banks put liquidity into the system and let the old banks die. (I heard this proposed earlier this month (Oct 10?) on CNN or MSNBC but my google-fu is not not working and I can’t find a link to it. It sounded like a very workable idea. There was even a way for the government to gracefully bow out of the banking business once the foundation was set.)