How is that the "only alternative"?  Higher taxes do absolutely nothing to "clean up the mess".  It would have been better all things considered to let these loser banks fail totally, and then help create clean ones run by experienced underlings who a) are getting a career break of a lifetime and b) know how the last crew ran it into a ditch.

Instead we tell the same jerks who blew it, go ahead, you're too important to punish with dissolution. Sooner or later we'll get tired of it, and we'd have saved a bundle if it were sooner.

But higher taxes won't remove them - in fact it will do the opposite, let them pretend they're "good citizens"

"How is that the "only alternative"?"

What other alternative is there?

"We we could scale back government from such corruption and behemoth, oppressive size."

I would agree, but it would result in more corporate cronyism.

It is a sad fact behemoth government is necessary to keep behemoth corporations in check.

"Higher taxes do absolutely nothing to "clean up the mess".

This Robinhood tax repairs some of the damage: the rich suffered less financial losses per capita than did the poor and middle class.   If government decreased taxes on the poor and middle class respectively, such a tax then would restore wealth inequality levels to what they were pre-2007.  This would still not be conducive to better representative liberal democracy, but would be better than where we currently are.

Angry shareholders and the courts keep behemoth corporations in check, and destroys their organization when they fail.

Behemoth corporations propped up forever by tax dollars is the worst case scenario because it undermines the very currency in your pocket. 
JP Chase has already lost 5 billion dollars in stupid risky trading.
GM continues to make cars nobody but govt will order.
Why not? Why improve? They're backed by the Federal Reserve!

"This Robinhood tax repairs some of the damage: the rich suffered less financial losses per capita than did the poor and middle class.   If government decreased taxes on the poor and middle class respectively, such a tax then would restore wealth inequality levels to what they were pre-2007.  This would still not be conducive to better representative liberal democracy, but would be better than where we currently are."

""The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny," -- Calvin Coolidge

You are a thief looking to steal.  You are lower than the thief who steals food from the hands of a child -- such a thief just wants food to eat.  You want to steal so that your victim does not enjoy the fruits of his labor, and, to compliment yourself on the finesse of your theivery.

They are now.  This President makes illegal demands on boards to appease lefty anger at their wealth, then abuses his office to waive prosecution of corporate boards that follow him.  The boards know they're gonna get paid millions whether they obey or not, because they only have a certain number of years at the company...and the feds will bailout the company when the President's bonehead idea fails.  The President claims credit for trying, blames the board for failing, and the board takes a few dozen million and slips into anonymity.  Best racket since Frank Costello squeezed labor unions and passed the black tax to the consumer

And taxing the rich gives them more gas money, lowers rent? of course not.  So how does it help?  It doesn't -- unless you want to destroy anybody with more than yourself so nobody has a better time of it.

The solution is to grow the economy not destroy it further.

Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet: http://www.moneycontrol.com/smementor/news/indian-markets/super-rich-hold-32-trillionoffshore-havens-733767.html

xeno syndicated,

You meant to reference loss as a proportion of wealth but phrased it as net loss.

Learn English. Your inability to say what you meant to say is not my fault, nor is there any reason why I shouldn't correct your mistakes. You're going to ignore me because I corrected your mistake? Good for you. I'll continue to correct your mistakes.

"Grow the economy by taxing the rich who have suffered less while at the same time relieve the tax burden of the poor and middle classes.  This is the simplest short term measure that would be effective."

You fail to comprehend the fact that taxing the rich hurts the economy. You don't even argue that the government could redistribute it to greater effect--which is ridiculous--you just don't make any argument at all. It's completely lost on you that people spending what they earned is good for the economy. It's completely lost on you that people working harder in order to attain better rewards (short and long term) is good for the economy.

"In the long, term, of course it would be a completely new economic paradigm as we should be exploring in the other thread instead of resorting to slander and insult so as to repress said discussion."

There's no discussion. You're not making arguments. You're just giving us baseless conjecture.

Why are you thanking [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie? Literally the only possible way that information could help your baseless, vague, meaningless proposals would be if you were arguing for a global government which could confiscate those funds. Are you?

> The Yell wrote:

> The last time "Wealth disparity" narrowed in the USA was the 1970s, when the rich preferred to buy bonds and clip coupons instead of rebuilding American factories to compete with Japan. 

>Oddly enough, people weren't celebrating this victory, and they were focused on the Rust Belt of dying American industries...

That narrowing of wealth disparity was insignificant: it was a period when people still had jobs, the process of outsourcing was just starting; as you say, American industries were 'dying' - not yet dead.

The significant narrowing of wealth disparity occurred ww2 / post ww2.

"That narrowing of wealth disparity was insignificant: it was a period when people still had jobs, the process of outsourcing was just starting; as you say, American industries were 'dying' - not yet dead."

The Americans of the 1970s didn't think the "malaise" was "insignificant".