Make Speculators Pay for Wall Street Meltdown

September 26th, 2008

PAYING FOR THE BAILOUT: Make Wall Street Pay

By Chuck Collins, Dedrick Muhammad, Sarah Anderson and Sam Pizzigati

Institute for Policy Studies and Working Group on Extreme Inequality

  • Don’t finance the bailout with more debt
  • Make Wall Street speculators pay now
  • Raise $900 billion in new revenue
  • Stimulate Main Street and the real economy

    As Congress debates the particulars of the inevitable bailout, one key question has gone largely unexplored: Who will pay for this mess?

    Lawmakers in Congress appear to have assumed that the federal government will simply borrow more money to foot the bill for the bailout. The national debt ceiling will rise to a whopping $11.3 trillion, up from $8 trillion a year ago.

    But this rush to borrowing merely shifts the bailout burden onto the backs of future taxpayers. Congress needs to change course — and develop a “pay as we go” plan that makes Wall Street pay. The lion’s share of bailout funding should come from the high-finance gamblers and the wealthy CEOs who have so profited from our casino economy.

    Funding the Bailout: Basic Principles

    • Wall Street and speculators should pay now for the mess they created.
    • Instead of borrowing from the super-wealthy beneficiaries of the casino economy, we should tax them.
    • Any bailout should stimulate the real economy with investments in Main Street, not just Wall Street.

    Broadening the Bailout Dollars

    The debate over the bailout has so far concentrated on the $700 billion purchase of “troubled assets” proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. A real “bailout” would also target the troubled households of working American families. A $200 billion “Main Street Stimulus Package” could bolster the real economy and those left vulnerable by the subprime mortgage meltdown. This package should include:

     

    • A $130 billion annual investment in renewable energy to stimulate good jobs anchored in local economies and reduce our dependency on oil.
    • A $50 billion outlay to help keep people in foreclosed homes through refinancing and creating new homeownership and housing opportunities. These funds could also help those locked out of the American Dream to purchase homes through non-speculative mortgage programs.
    • A $20 billion aid package to states to address the squeeze on state and local government services that declining tax revenues are now forcing.

     

    A Responsible Plan to Pay For Recovery: $900 billion in New Revenue

    Below is our ten-point program to pay for this broader bailout. This plan would generate $900 billion a year until the costs of the bailout and stimulus program are paid for.

    1. A Securities Transaction Tax: $100 Billion

    A fair plan to pay for the bailout should include a modest financial transactions tax on the buying and selling of stock and other financial products. A penny on every $4 invested would generate $100 billion a year. Other European countries already tax stock transactions, and these transaction taxes effectively discourage speculation.

    2. A Wealth Tax Surcharge on Households with $10 million: $300 billion

    Congress should institute a modest wealth tax surcharge on households with net worth over $10 million. These households currently own and control over 20 percent of the nation’s private wealth. They have realized huge gains from the manipulation of capital markets and the asset bubbles that created the current crisis. A modest surcharge — no more than 3 percent — could generate over $300 billion.

    3. A Corporate Minimum Income Tax: $60 Billion

    In August, the Government Accountability Office reported that two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no income taxes between 1998 and 2005. These corporations paid nothing toward our shared expenses of defense, environmental protection, public health, and education. Ordinary taxpayers should not be left holding this bag. A minimum corporate income tax should contribute toward the bailout.

    4. A ‘Disgorgement’ Recovery from Profligate CEOs: $40 Billion

    Until several weeks ago, top CEOs and managers were collecting massive salaries and fees while they told the rest of us that “everything is fine.” These CEOs gorged themselves and have taken the money and run. The four biggest investment banks on Wall Street shelled out $30 billion in bonuses last year. One of them, Lehman Brothers, has just gone under. Another, Bear Stearns, was bailed out earlier this year. To help pay for recovery, the new Treasury authority should seek the payback of executive compensation inappropriately extracted in the years before the Wall Street meltdown.

     

    5. An Income Tax Surcharge on Incomes over $5 Million: $105 Billion

    A portion of the bailout cost should be financed with an emergency income tax surcharge on incomes over $5 million. Wealthy investors have been the big winners in the unregulated bubble economy. They have watched their incomes skyrocket over the last 25 years. Meanwhile, President George W. Bush has cut their taxes for seven years. Instituting a 50 percent tax rate on income over $5 million and a 70 percent rate on income over $10 million would generate $105 billion a year until the bailout is paid for.

    6. An End to Overseas Corporate Tax Havens: $100 Billion

    Congress should close down corporate tax havens that allow corporations to game the system and cut their taxes, sometimes to zero. This step would generate $100 billion from profitable companies that have paid no taxes over the last decade.

    7. The Elimination of Subsidies for Excessive CEO Pay: $20 Billion

    As taxpayers, we subsidize excessive CEO pay, through a host of tax loopholes, to the tune of $20 billion a year. Congress should close these loopholes, including the accounting gimmicks that permit companies to report one set of earnings to shareholders and another lower number to Uncle Sam.

    8. The Elimination of the Tax Preference for Capital Gains: $95 Billion

    The mega windfalls that Wall Street executives have pocketed over recent years will be generating additional income, in the form of dividends and capital games, for years to come. Under current tax law, dividend and capital gains income faces a mere 15 percent tax rate while income from actual work can be taxed at rates that go up to 35 percent. Taxing wealth and work at the same rates would generate $95 billion a year in revenue.

    9. A Progressive Inheritance Tax: $60 Billion

    In the near future, the moguls of the past quarter-century will be passing off the scene and leaving behind dynastic-size fortunes. A portion of this wealth should be taxed. A progressive estate tax on estates over $2 million — $4 million for a couple — could generate $60 billion a year in the short term and much more in outlying decades.

    10. The Elimination of the Mansion Subsidy: $20 Billion

    Wealthy taxpayers can currently deduct their mansion mortgage interest off their taxes. The richest 2 percent of U.S. households do not need to be subsidized by American taxpayers. Capping the home mortgage interest deduction on that portion of mortgage payments that exceeds $200,000 per year would generate $20 billion a year.

     

     

    4 Responses

    1. Ricky_O

      Moving discussions forward:

      I would suggest that we begin with the House Republican proposal, strip it of any tax credits or similar inclusions (including Paulsons get-out-of-jail provision), and then take the $350B proposed by the majority and apply that to Ginnie Mae and have it dedicated to refinancing the foreclosures. Remember, these adjustable mortgages will be adjusting for the next TWO YEARS. We are not out of the woods. (You need to look at what OPTIONS ARMS are; and how many there are out there.)

      This would allow Wall Street to pay their own way. It would unclog the credit lines. It would strip the pork out of the original proposal. It would use public funds to help the people (just like Roosevelt did, after Hoover’s bail-out of 1931 failed miserably.) It would greatly reduce the future negative impact of the outstanding and pending foreclosures. It would start the economy again. It would put mortgage lending back onto the tracks of responsible lending. It would be the least burden to the American tax payer, large and small.

      Last night I listened to the podium statements from both sides of the four caucuses working on the bail-out proposal of Bush and Secretary Paulson.
      Bearing in mind that I’m a very left leaning Independent, I have to say, the option presented, which made the most sense to me, was that of the House Republicans:
      Instead of hundreds of billions of dollars for a BAIL-OUT, they are suggesting that Wall Street be given a WORK-OUT, not a bail-out (where they pay the costs) in the form of an insurance program, that guarantees the bad debt packages, the premiums of which are paid for by Wall Street. As they stated, the government already knows how to do it because they are already doing it with Ginnie Mae. They set up a new program, the bad debts are insured, and the credit pipeline gets unclogged.

      So I ask myself, why are the house dems, the senate dems, the senate repubs, Bush, and Paulson not agreeing? Why indeed? Could it be that certain special interests are once again being put before the good of the American Public? Paulson says the insurance proposal won’t work. He doesn’t say why; but then again, his plan took all of three type-written pages to explain. Paulson was also the one requiring that he be held harmless from any future scrutiny by any court or governmental agency; in other words a life-long get out of jail card. And why would he need one of those? And why would he be asking for one up front??

      More importantly, Mr. Reid made public statements earlier today (Friday, 9/26) stating that the policy they are pursuing in discussions and negotiations, is the one the president proposed. Why are they using that as a basis? The president hasn’t any financial background nor expertise. Why aren’t the congressional committee members drafting their own proposal, one based on the wants of the People? Are they concerned that the president will veto it? It think not. Not even he wants to go down in history as the president who stated the Great Depression II. It is doubtful he will veto any measure, given the international pressure he is under. I sincerely have to believe that last Thursday, the red phone in his office rang and it was Beijing calling. Their message was probably quite clear: you have a month before we call your notes due; and we are NOT going to loose any money!

      I think they need to stop trying to hide the efforts to do favors for the rich fat-cats, and Bush’s and Paulson’s friends on Wall Street, who are looking for one last big score from the White House before their term is up. Bush knows his day is over. Paulson knows he’s out in six weeks. They could both care less whether the American People are saddled with another trillion dollars in debt. They’ve already been able to gut the treasury for nine trillion so far; one last trillion is just a final homerun in the last inning of the eight year ballgame they’ve been running on us.

      That leaves us with how do we take care of the mortgages that are about to foreclose. I would suggest that we begin with the House Republican proposal, strip it of any tax credits or similar inclusions, and then take the $350B proposed by the majority and apply that to Ginnie Mae and have it dedicated to refinancing the foreclosures. Remember, these adjustable mortgages will be adjusting for the next TWO YEARS. We are not out of the woods. (You need to look at what OPTIONS ARMS are; and how many there are out there.)

      I could be wrong, but after being willing to listen to both sides, this option has the most merit so far.

    2. efrhen

      more and more taxes.What do you think the wealthy will do an corporations will do? Well they will LEAVE the country and establish themselves in countries where they wont have to hand out their wealth to the public. %70 Tax? you are dreaming. Your tax list is THE formula for destroying America

    3. Ben Leet

      This is a great plan. The wealthiest one percent of households owns 33.4% of the national wealth, which is about $17 trillion, and it averages to about $16 million per household. (They own more than the bottom 91% of households, and earn each year more than the bottom 60% of households.) The bottom 50% own 2.5% of national net worth, and their average net worth is less than $25,000. The ratio of net worth is one to 668, about. If the wealthy were taxed a surtax on wealth over $16 million at the rate of 6.25% that would raise a $trillion, which is more than the $300 million you propose. This surtax would be progressively applied, but it would take on average $1 million from the average $16 million of the net worth of that top one percent. This amount would fund much needed infrastructure projects, school building, green energy, electric car conversion, paraprofessionals in the classroom, childcare, and so on.
      And I think Peter Dorman at EconoSpeak.org has the best “Plan B” which sets up a “bank” or financial entity with government money, leverages the base to about $3 trillion, restarts the financial system, and allows bad banks to collapse without any expense to taxpayers. Then the worries about “bad assets” or “a bad bank” would disappear. My comment is 6 months too late, but your proposal is still needed and deserves wide publicity.

    4. Joanne Forma

      WHAT TO DO WITH THE BANKS?

      TURN THEM INTO CREDIT UNIONS!!

    Leave a Comment

    Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.