home

A Stray Thought: Why Not A Tax Cut to Incentivize Purchases of Toxic Assets?

Before we throw trillions of dollars to Wall Street with the Geithner Plan, why not try throwing billions of dollars of tax credits to Wall Street and other private players by providing a lower tax rate (say 10% or even 5%) on capital gains on their investment in the toxic assets (or all mortgage backed securities?)

Obviously such a plan would create an artificially higher price for these assets due such special tax treatment. But so does the Geithner Plan. And the cost to the government (and taxpayers) would surely be less. The talk from Geithner and his supporters is that there is insufficient incentive for the private sector to invest in the toxic assets, due to current market conditions. How about trying a less expensive incentive first? Anyway, just a though off the top of my head.

Speaking for me only

< Eric Cantor Is Right About The Geithner Plan | BoA Analyst: Geithner Plan Won't Work >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Better than the govt.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    buying this wothless paper, hell yeah.

    I still say let the banks eat that sh*t though, it's their problem, call their bluff.  If they wanna stop lending money over it, we'll see how long they live without the revenue generated by lending, and if necessary the government can loan money directly to businesses and individuals for the purposes of job creation...I trust small business X to pay it back it back before the greed-mongers anyway.

    It's getting ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:26:47 PM EST
    How much more money do they want us to throw at it? What's stopping more assets from becoming toxic? Are we going to buy those also?

    Only people getting my money these days are the farmers and small mom and pop retailers in my 'hood. Main St seems to be getting a big FU from the admin . . . .

    Parent

    Hedge funds buy no asssets without leverage. (none / 0) (#1)
    by steviez314 on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    None.  Whether it's stocks, bonds, real estate, theyneed leverage to operate.

    Right now there is none, not from the banks or anywhere else.  So the gov't is providing the leverage, as Shiela Bair said today, no more than 6-1, which is relatively prudent.

    Capital gains tax rates wouldn't change the need for leverage.

    So (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:10:28 PM EST
    What happened to the market BEFORE? If it is as you say, then the entire financial sector is insolvent already.

    I think you are wrong.

    Parent

    I'm not sure what you're saying. (none / 0) (#3)
    by steviez314 on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:15:42 PM EST
    There is de-leveraging taking place.  I don't think it is happening at the speed that would cause insolvency.

    In any case, there is no NEW leverage out there.  That's what the gov't is trying to do.  TALF is providing leverage for credit card, student loans, car loans, etc.

    The Geithner Plan is providing new leverage for the private investors to buy the bank debt.

    Parent

    So you (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:26:42 PM EST
    do not accept the "lack of incentives" explanation.

    I still do not believe you. To say people are deleveraging is NOT to say there is no money available for investment. we want to direct that investment to these toxic assets.

    A tax cut is a way to direct that capital in that direction.

    Using fancy words like "deleveraging" only obfuscate the point - no one is buying these assets. The problem is, if you want to accept it as a problem, how can you get them to do it?

    I repeat, if you are correct, then what is the point of "private skin" then?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    frankly it's a better idea than what's been offered but I don't know if it would work. Is there a market for the toxic assets at all?

    It's a beautiful idea (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:11:38 AM EST
    Except for one thing and you already know this.  It isn't enough incentive to even begin to think of buying the sh!tp*le.

    Yup, not enough incentive (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:13:29 AM EST
    to encourage purchasing this horribly undervalued assets. I'm getting a headache again.

    Parent
    Oops.....these assets (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 07:14:05 AM EST
    Please pass the coffee.