_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00062-000 | Prostitution | Common prostitution is not a biblical conflict |
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00047-000 | Prostitution | Prostitutes are vulnerable because they lack labor protections |
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00032-000 | Prostitution | Legalization won't reduce rape, as prostitution is itself a form of rape |
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00017-000 | Prostitution | Governments must protect the moral and physical health of citizens from prostitution. |
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00002-000 | Prostitution | Countries that legalize prostitution will suffer from sex tourism. |
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00108-000 | Legalizing prostitution would increase government revenue. | A tax on the fee charged by a prostitute, and the imposition of income tax on the earnings of prostitutes would generate revenue. |
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00093-000 | Legal prostitution increases rates of rape | Prostitution is an industry inherently vulnerable to rape. Legalization may increase demand for prostitution, and thus expand an industry with inherent risks of rape. This is likely to increase the rate of rape. |
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00078-000 | Individuals must cede some rights for safety, including right to prostitute. | In a democratic society, each individual cedes some rights to the government under the promise that the government will protect them from danger. |
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00063-000 | Prostitution | Governments should not set moral sexual standards regarding prostitutes |
87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00048-000 | Prostitution | Justness of free markets and sex do not justify prostitution. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00071-000 | In the short term it might eliminate drug dealers on our streets but do any of us really think that whatever multinational corporation ends of cornering the drug market will have a problem trading with the existing cartels | That are paying their people pennies a day and pass the savings on to us? Corporations have proven that they have no problems trading for blood diamonds, Nigerian oil or United Fruit I doubt they would have any problem dealing with Pablo Escavar. What we would instead be doing is giving the existing gangs in third world countries an air legitimacy to hur there citizens. Even the present gangs could still survive moving into the rising demand for harsher drugs like heroin or cocaine. The preset drug dealers would also almost certainly find a niche market bootlegging to get around these high taxes that would be placed on the product. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00056-000 | Lower prices due to legalization of drugs will increase consumption | This will be the case among all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. Addicts will still steal to fund their habit, because they want all the drugs they can get, and because addiction means they find it hard to hold down regular jobs. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00041-000 | Cost-benefit analysis. | What is more important for the state, society, and individuals: Few pleasurable moments while an individual takes a drug, or months of suffering when his/her family fall apart, hours, during which are "innocent bystanders" in danger, seconds, during which another person dies in a car crash caused by a drug addict? |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00026-000 | Legalization of drugs | Legalizing drugs is the least bad option |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00011-000 | Legalization of drugs | By legalizing drugs, the state can regulate the sale |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00064-000 | The state can tax the sale of legalized drugs and use the revenue for treatment programs | - The global drug industry is massive, cited by some sources as in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Currently, governments do not obtain any revenue from the blackmarket trade in drugs, and treatment is difficult to justify as it appears to be spending ordinary taxpayers’ money on junkies. But, if drug-use is legalized, governments could tax the sale of drugs and use the revenue to advance treatment and fight consumption. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00049-000 | The negative effects of drug-use make it morally wrong and appropriate for governments to ban. | - The effects of marijuana-use include, dullness during the "high", increased appetite, lower sex-drive, and impaired short-term memory. Putting one's own body through this experience is morally wrong, and legitimizes state intervention against drug-use. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00034-000 | Legalization of drugs | The state is justified in protecting individuals from their own drug-consumption. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00019-000 | Legalization of drugs | Legalization of drugs will remove the rebellious glamor of it |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00004-000 | Legalization of drugs | It is wrong for governments to obtain tax-revenue from immoral behavior. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00057-000 | The legalization of drugs will increase consumption | If a consumer can go to their local drug store around the corner to obtain drugs with greater ease, they are more likely to do so. Obtaining drugs illegally is much more difficult, albeit far too easy. Finding a drug dealer, arranging a time to meet in a secure area, and running all the various risks of dealing illegally are inconveniences that will be removed by legalization, with the likely result of increased consumption. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00042-000 | Drugs are not a free choice. | Doing drugs may be a free choice once, twice... but after a certain period the drug user is no longer to choose for himself/herself. Thus the state has the right to protect the individual's freedoms in the long term. Besides, most drug users are under the age of 25, therefore are subject to peer pressure, media influence, etc. much more than elder people. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00027-000 | Legalization of drugs | Prohibition also costs lives. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00012-000 | Legalization of drugs | Legalization enables measurement of abuser populations. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00065-000 | There is no contradiction in being pro-legalization yet anti-drug use | - Legalization is in the best interests of fighting drug consumption. First, it will decrease the "rebellious glamor" of consumption. Second, it will free up substantial funding that is being spent on wars on drugs to be better spent on weaning drug addicts off of drugs. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00050-000 | Legalization would send the wrong message that drug-use is acceptable. | Consumption is wrong and should never be authorized. Legalising drugs would only make them appear more acceptable. This would undermine health campaigns by suggesting that drugs are not too harmful or even harmless. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00035-000 | Legalization of drugs | Drug-use does not directly harm others, so it should be legalized |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00020-000 | Legalization of drugs | Legalization would change drug consumption from a criminal to a health issue |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00005-000 | Legalization of drugs | It is unfair to tax one product differently than another. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00058-000 | No deterrence. | Approximately 6-15% of people do not do drugs simply because they are illegal. If we scrap this deterrence, these people are likely to try drugs and - at least some of them - become addicted. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00043-000 | Drugs can have a beneficial mind-expanding capacity. | Many drugs are used by philosophically inclined individuals for the purpose of expanding their minds and better understanding and seeing the world around them. Hallucinogenic drugs such as peyote and psilocybin-containing mushrooms are commonly cited by users as deepening their understanding of the surrounding world. Given the complexity of the world humans live in, and the very limited ability of our natural senses to perceive this reality, it is not unreasonable to claim that drugs can have a beneficial effect in opening the eyes of humans to this greater reality. In any case, who is to claim that such drugs don't have a beneficial effect in this way? It seems to be a subjective matter that makes it impossible for a government to claim that drug-consumption is always immoral. Rather, the morality of drug-use seems to depend largely on the intentions of the drug-user. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00028-000 | Legalization of drugs | Legal drug consumption blurs the line drawn against illegal drug consumption |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00013-000 | Legalization of drugs | "Forbidden fruit" concept is nonsense. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00066-000 | It is unfair to tax one product differently than another. | Taxing one product, such as recreational drugs, differently than another product, such as prescription drugs, places an unfair burden on one segment of consumers. It could be claimed that drug users have the right to not pay the tax simply by not purchasing the drugs, but this gets away from the fact that citizens should be treated equally under the law. People have the right to choose what they consume. The use of taxes to control behaviour is wrong and it is not the role of the government to decide how its citizens should behave. It is for the citizens to decide what acceptable behaviour is and for the government to implement those limitations while also not restricting basic rights. It is also important to note that imbalanced taxes show favouritism to one segment of producers vs. another. Naturally, people favour less expensive products over more expensive ones, which means that government can create unnatural market conditions that favour products that are taxed less. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00051-000 | Drug prohibition does not correlate with decreased use | "How to stop the drug wars." The Economist. Mar 5th 2009: "fear [of legalisation] is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates." |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00036-000 | Legalization of drugs | Individuals have the right to control their bodies and consume drugs |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00021-000 | Legalization of drugs | Drug prohibition does not correlate with decreased use |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00006-000 | Legalization of drugs | There is no contradiction in being pro-legalization yet anti-drug use |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00059-000 | "Forbidden fruit" concept is nonsense. | People do not do drugs because they are illegal, they do drugs because they are a quick and easy way out of problems. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00044-000 | Many things are harmful to individuals, but aren't made illegal. | The legal drugs tobacco and alcohol have a devastating consequence on society, and yet they are legal. How then can many other drugs be illegal on the basis that they are bad for society? This would appear to be an arbitrary application of this criterion, especially when the scientific evidence strongly suggests that some of the illegal drugs (e.g. cannabis, MDMA ('ecstasy') and psilocybin mushrooms) are actually less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00029-000 | Legalization of drugs | Many things are harmful to individuals, but aren't made illegal. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00014-000 | Legalization of drugs | No deterrence. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00067-000 | It is wrong for governments to obtain tax-revenue from immoral behavior. | Governments should not be attempting to obtain tax-revenue from an illicit, immoral behavior. If obtaining revenue were the focus of government behavior, than a wide-array of taxes would be raised on tax-payer's back and immoral state-sanctioned industries would emerge. The end (raising tax-revenues) cannot justify the means (state-sanctioning of immoral behavior). |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00052-000 | Legalization would change drug consumption from a criminal to a health issue | - Drug consumption is principally an activity that is bad for the consumer's health, like eating fatty foods. It is in the consumer's health interests to cut-back or quite. Therefore, the state should be involved in helping individuals quite, opposed to punishing them with criminal convictions. If the state directs more resources to helping individuals break their addiction opposed to fighting the "war on drugs", consumption can be more effectively reduced. If the state focuses on helping individuals quite as opposed to punishing them into quiting, the long-term effect on reducing consumption will be greater. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00037-000 | Individuals have the right to control their bodies and consume drugs | Individuals have sovereignty over their own bodies and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00022-000 | Legalization of drugs | Legalization would send the wrong message that drug-use is acceptable. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00007-000 | Legalization of drugs | The state can tax the sale of legalized drugs and use the revenue for treatment programs |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00060-000 | Legalization enables measurement of abuser populations. | Under prohibition no proper studies can be done because we can't take proper measurements of the supply side, we don't know who is using what. Knowing what is gonig on ins the first basic requirement for reducing the potential for harm. It is only by legalising drugs that the supply side can be properly controlled and regulated. This would mean selling drugs in known quantities and known purity levels from licenced venues by accountable people. Under a legal regime we could have such measures as age limits for sales. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00045-000 | Legal drug consumption blurs the line drawn against illegal drug consumption | - Psychoactive drugs are widely available and consumed in societies today. With powerful drugs such as Aderral, why should other drugs be deemed illegal? And, particularly with the emergence of "neuroenhancing" drugs to improve the brain activity of "healthy" individuals, it seems that the distinction being made against some currently-illegalized-drugs is subjective and blurry. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00030-000 | Legalization of drugs | Drugs can have a beneficial mind-expanding capacity. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00015-000 | Legalization of drugs | The legalization of drugs will increase consumption |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00000-000 | Legalization of drugs | In the short term it might eliminate drug dealers on our streets but do any of us really think that whatever multinational corporation ends of cornering the drug market will have a problem trading with the existing cartels |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00068-000 | If taxes are too high, they are ineffective, | because black market won't be eliminated. Any proposed benefits are thereby significantly diminished. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00053-000 | Legalization of drugs will remove the rebellious glamor of it | - Teenagers are often attracted to rebellious activities as their freedoms as individuals are expanded and the as the control of parents recedes. Much research indicates that placing limitations on teenage activities may actually produce the unintended result, encouraging the teenager to rebelliously disobey and break the limitations. Similarly, placing legal limitations on the consumption of marijuana may actually motivate teenagers to consumer the drug as a glamorous act of rebellion. This is flushed out by statistics suggesting that cannabis use in the UK has actually declined since its classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00038-000 | Drug-use does not directly harm others, so it should be legalized | - Indirect social harm is not a sufficient criteria for illegalizing something. By this logic, smoking would certainly be illegalized given the death-toll it has created. The only appropriate criteria for illegalization is whether drug-use directly violates the rights of other citizens. But it does not. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00023-000 | Legalization of drugs | The negative effects of drug-use make it morally wrong and appropriate for governments to ban. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00008-000 | Legalization of drugs | We have to look at there evidence of times that this has been attempted |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00061-000 | By legalizing drugs, the state can regulate the sale | - Those who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal or not. Therefore, by legalizing drugs, a government can help regulate the sale of drugs to control the environment of the transaction and ensure that the harmful effects of drug use are minimized. Government could, for example, make sure that the drugs begin sold are clean and not adulterated (“cut”) with other dangerous substances. This will minimise the risk to users. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00046-000 | Prohibition also costs lives. | Because the chances of any given drug user getting caught are miniscule (which means that the deterrent effect of the law is also marginal), there is a lucrative market to be supplied, which organised crime is happy to fill. As a result, we have well-funded, well armed gangsters fighting for territory in our cities, and large sums of money going to terrorist groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, or FARC in Colombia. Anyone killed in the crossfire between drug dealer gangs, who only exist because of a drug's illegality, or killed by terrorist groups funded by drug money, is a victim of our drug laws, rather than drugs per se. If you are going to talk about morality, you have to be able to answer the question: how many innocent people are you prepared to see killed in order to enforce your moral viewpoint? |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00031-000 | Legalization of drugs | Drugs are not a free choice. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00016-000 | Legalization of drugs | Lower prices due to legalization of drugs will increase consumption |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00001-000 | Legalization of drugs | An immoral drug-trade should be confined to criminal-agents rather than governments. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00069-000 | Legalizing drugs would eliminate an industry that drives gangs and criminal activities | - Price controls would mean that addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business, starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. The hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended, starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result peace and development could be brought to unstable drug-producing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00054-000 | The state can tax the sale of legalized drugs and use the revenue for treatment programs | - By taxing legal drug sales, governments could use the revenues to help improve treatment and lower consumption. This is currently done with cigarettes to good effect. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00039-000 | The state is justified in protecting individuals from their own drug-consumption. | The state has the authority vested in it by the people to protect individuals from doing harm to themselves and others. The need to assume this responsibility is especially heightened if the individual is not aware of the risks, or is addicted and thus not making informed choices. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00024-000 | Legalization of drugs | Hedonistic drug-use is morally repugnant. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00009-000 | Legalization of drugs | There is no such thing as a safe drug (regulated by the state). |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00062-000 | There is no such thing as a safe drug (regulated by the state). | In practice this usually just means making drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers. In addition, the offer of “purer” drugs will encourage many who are currently put off by the uncertain risks of drug taking to begin drug abuse. It also implicates governments in drug-taking by making them the guarantor of purity standards. Furthermore, the state can provide services like needle exchanges to minimise the secondary risks of drug use without legalising drugs themselves. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00047-000 | Attempting to alter with drug-use the God-given human state-of-mind is immoral. | Humans perceive the world how they do for a specific reason; God or nature determined it is the way human are supposed to perceive the world. To attempt to diverge from this natural, God-given perception of the world is to diverge from the intended course of human-perception. This divergence is morally repugnant. It is also symptomatic of a desire to pursue more than what God or nature has naturally given to us. This culture of "more, more, more" is morally wrong. We should be content with our natural mental state and have the discipline to eliminate eliminate any discontentment with that state-of-mind without resorting to drug-use. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00032-000 | Legalization of drugs | Cost-benefit analysis. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00017-000 | Legalization of drugs | No matter what, deterrence does not work. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00002-000 | Legalization of drugs | Legalizing drugs would eliminate an industry that drives gangs and criminal activities |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00070-000 | An immoral drug-trade should be confined to criminal-agents rather than governments. | Technically speaking, legalizing drugs will reduce "crime" in the simple sense that drugs will no longer be illegal and selling drugs will no longer be a crime. But, this does not eliminate the immorality of drug consumption and of the drug trade. Rather, it would simply transfer the immorality from "criminals" to state-sanctioned agents. While it would reduce "crime", it would undermine the moral legitimacy of the state. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00055-000 | No matter what, deterrence does not work. | Drug users are not fully rational and do not study law before taking drugs. Moreover, most people who do drugs do so no matter whether they are legal or not. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00040-000 | The state is justified in protecting society from drug-users. | Drug-use affects the user, their families, children, communities and society at large, and the state must legislate to protect these wider interests. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00025-000 | Legalization of drugs | Attempting to alter with drug-use the God-given human state-of-mind is immoral. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00010-000 | Legalization of drugs | Regulated legalization of drugs will improve public health |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00063-000 | We have to look at there evidence of times that this has been attempted | . The government takes no effort to moniter the dangerious effects of thc, a substance known to be linked to schizophrenia in for example the Netherlands, this has allowed the harmful effects of the drug to rise significantly throughout te period that it has been legal there. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00048-000 | Hedonistic drug-use is morally repugnant. | Drugs are typically used because the "high" feels good or is pleasurable in some way. Such hedonism is morally repugnant largely because it is so base and too easily obtained. Deeper satisfaction in life can only be attained through discipline, intellect, and hard-work. The hedonistic experience involved in drug-use exists at the polar opposite side of the spectrum from these historic moral principles. Recognizing this, governments have a legitimate cause to illegalize drug use. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00033-000 | Legalization of drugs | The state is justified in protecting society from drug-users. |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00018-000 | Legalization of drugs | The state can tax the sale of legalized drugs and use the revenue for treatment programs |
a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00003-000 | Legalization of drugs | If taxes are too high, they are ineffective, |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00011-000 | 2010 US bank tax | Bank tax will help reduce large US deficit |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00030-000 | Bank tax will be passed on to consumers | Jeffrey Miron. "Bailing out the Banks Was Wrong, but New Tax Won't Make It Right." Investor's Business Daily. January 14, 2010: "The tax will not fall solely or even mainly on its desired political target, the shareholders and highly paid executives of large financial firms. The true burden of a tax often lands far from its intended target as the target attempts to shift the burden. [...] In this case, higher taxes mean higher costs and therefore higher prices, so customers (borrowers) will bear some of the burden of the tax." |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00015-000 | 2010 US bank tax | 2010 bank tax is pure populism |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00000-000 | 2010 US bank tax | Bank tax unfairly targets biggest 50 banks |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00034-000 | Bank tax counter-acts expansionary effect of bailout | "The Bank Tax." Gregory Mankiw Blog. January 15, 2010: "One thing we have learned over the past couple years is that Washington is not going to let large financial institutions fail. The bailouts of the past will surely lead people to expect bailouts in the future. Bailouts are a specific type of subsidy--a contingent subsidy, but a subsidy nonetheless. [...] In the presence of a government subsidy, firms tend to over-expand beyond the point of economic efficiency. In particular, the expectation of a bailout when things go wrong will lead large financial institutions to grow too much and take on too much risk. [...] we can offset the effects of the subsidy with a tax. If well written, the new tax law would counteract the effects of the implicit subsidies from expected future bailouts." |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00019-000 | 2010 US bank tax | Bank tax recoups profits made on backs of taxpayers |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00004-000 | 2010 US bank tax | Bank tax is not too great of a burden on banks |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00038-000 | Bank tax is not too great of a burden on banks | Peter Eavis. "Obama's gentle bank tax." Wall Street Journal. January 14, 2010: "Will Obama's bank tax be that taxing for the banks? [...] Let's say the administration wants to raise about $100 billion over 10 years by taxing market debt. Paying out $10 billion a year is no sweat for an industry that, according to Goldman Sachs, made $250 billion in earnings before taxes and loan-loss provisions last year. And it won't drive up their funding costs by much. Goldman estimates $5.5 trillion of nondeposit liabilities at large banks. To get to $100 billion in 10 years on that sum would mean the banks paying a manageable 0.2 percentage point extra a year." |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00023-000 | Bank tax recoups taxpayer bailout of banks | Jill Schlesinger. "Bank Tax, TARP Tax: Obama's "We Want Our Money Back Fees." Huffington Post. January 14, 2010: "The rationale behind the tax/fee is basically this: the banks took us to the edge of the abyss because of their excessive risk-taking. Only massive amounts of emergency taxpayer money saved the system from total collapse. Although many of the big banks have already repaid TARP and in doing so, the government made money on those specific investments, there will still be money lost in the plan. The fee attempts to recoup those losses over the next years." |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00008-000 | 2010 US bank tax | Bank tax counter-acts expansionary effect of bailout |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00027-000 | 2010 bank tax is pure populism | Republican National Committee Chairman Mel Martinez said on January 15, 2010: "The basis for [the bank tax] is populism. It’s very popular to whack the banks and talk about bonuses and get every dime paid back even though it’s already happening."[2] |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00012-000 | 2010 US bank tax | Bank tax will be passed on to consumers |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00031-000 | Bank tax will help reduce large US deficit | French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said on January 15, 2010 that U.S. President Barack Obama was justified to propose a bank tax: "[U.S. banks] have dug a $117 billion hole and President Obama is justifiably saying he wants that hole plugged."[3] |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00016-000 | 2010 US bank tax | Bank tax will not crimp lending to taxpayers |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00001-000 | 2010 US bank tax | Why tax banks and not other bailed-out institutions? |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00035-000 | 2010 bank tax will deter future risk-taking by banks | "Obama's bank tax will only work if there's a master plan in place." Telegraph. January 14, 2010: "The Obama bank levy is intended to do more than punish banks. It will, if it works, not only make banks pay retrospectively for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) but change their behaviour in the future. The message that state bail-outs will not be cost free should act as a deterrent and the favourable treatment of deposit-taking institutions is designed to make some sorts of business – those the government wishes to encourage – more desirable than others." |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00020-000 | 2010 US bank tax | Bank tax recoups taxpayer bailout of banks |
36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00005-000 | 2010 US bank tax | 2010 bank tax puts US banks at disadvantage globally |