Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (89988)	5/9/2012 4:14:14 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 220315

Brazil's secret fiscal weapon: the tax "lion "When it comes to collecting taxes, Brazilians are really good. They are probably some of the best in the world," said Italo Lombardi, an analyst with Standard Chartered in New York. In Brazil, groups of armed agents fly around the country by helicopter, pounding on doors and instilling fear in the hearts of those who break the law. They're not the police - they're from the tax agency. The Federal Revenue Service, which has gained global renown for its tough and creative tactics, will be one of the most important keys to Brazil's economic prospects in 2012. President Dilma Rousseff is counting on the agency's tax-collecting prowess to help her government meet ambitious budget targets without smothering the country's suddenly brittle economy. The agency, known as "The Lion" for its official emblem as well as its ferocious pursuit of tax dodgers, deploys everything from gun-toting operatives to meters on beer kegs in breweries to ensure that individuals and companies fully declare, and pay, their share to the government. Recent operations have had names like "Black Panther" and "Delta" that are usually more associated with army special forces. The agency even uses helicopters to size up millionaires' homes and make sure they are consistent with their tax returns. Message 28134759

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (89988)	5/9/2012 9:17:29 PM
From: Maurice Winn	4 Recommendations Respond to of 220315

"Hard working" people or even lazy ones who trust governments are likely to be disappointed and deserve to be if they expect taxpayers to fulfill politicians' promises. < Aside it seems that something is very wrong with your moral standing and logic if you think that money loaned cannot be returned or money deposited in trust by hard working people can be wasted without repercussion. > Mqurice

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (89988)	5/9/2012 9:39:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220315

I feel sorry for you as you cannot differentiate between a BANK who accepts depositor money and the duty that comes with it, to a regular private regulated financial business that seeks higher return with certain risk. If these banks felt such a "duty" to their depositors, they wouldn't be using those deposits as collateral for their risky, UNREGULATED, derivative bets. nakedcapitalism.com "to a regular private regulated financial business that seeks higher return with certain risk." That pretty much disappeared in the US with the overturn of Glass Steagall over the past 40 years. Used to be that so-called "private" investment banks invested their own, or the money of sophisticated investors. If they lost money there was no FDIC to back them up, and direct gov't bailout (TARP) would have been politically impossible. But now these investment banks have access to the Fed Window at nearly 0%, as well as their depositor's money. If they lose, it now becomes "systemic risk" and "too big to fail". And the US Treasury has issued Trillions in new debt so that those banks will have a place to park it and make 2-3% at Taxpayer expense. And on top of that, their "proprietary" (speculative) trading operations are ALSO financed by these cheap Fed money. Now talk to me about "moral standing".. Please tell me that Taxpayers have an obligation to bail out banks that are getting 0% loans from the Fed and "rent-seeking" on the backs of taxpayers instead of expanding their private lending into the economy. As for asserting that I implied "money loaned cannot be returned", this is what FDIC is all about. Banks pay an insurance premium for the FDIC to insure deposits in the US for $250K. Basically this is a "loan guarantee" because every depositor is actually lending money to these FDIC insured banks. And I don't know many "working folks" who have $250K left in their savings. In sum, we have PLENTY of banks (regionals, S&Ls, and Credit Unions primarily) that are quite healthy and don't receive money at the Fed Window. More importantly, they primarily lend at the local economic level. They seldom involved themselves in derivatives, or securitizing their loan portfolio. Maybe they should be supported to take over a greater lending role in the financial sector, and just let the "zombie" banks wither on the vine. Hawk