"Elizabeth Warren's New Bill Could Save Taxpayers Billions"

[applegrove]

Elizabeth Warren's New Bill Could Save Taxpayers Billions

By Erika Eichelberger at Mother Jones

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/01/elizabeth-warrens-new-bill-could-save-taxpayers-billions

"SNIP...................................



Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a bill with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) that aims to make government settlements with corporations more transparent and fair. It could end up saving taxpayers billions of dollars.

When banks and other corporations are accused of breaking the law, the government often settles cases instead of going to trial. In the wake of the financial crisis, for example, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and government banking watchdogs have settled cases against banks that helped tank the economy. Regulatory agencies have argued that settlements are adequate tools to enforce the law, but Warren has protested. She notes that many settlements are tax-deductible. Other deals are confidential, meaning the public has no idea whether the terms of the agreement are fair.

Warren's bill would discourage tax-deductible settlements by forcing federal agencies to explain why certain settlements are confidential, and to publicly disclose the terms of nonconfidential agreements so that taxpayers can see how much settlement tax-deductibility is costing them.





....................................SNIP"

[Scuba]

1. Don't you wish all congress-critters fought this hard for you?

[Phlem]

9. A giant Hell Yes! This would be another world!

seems like the only way to fight back is by vote and a few good senators.



-p

[avaistheone1]

25. If that happened it certainly would elevate this country.

k&r

[global1]

2. I Heard The Other Day For The First Time That These Big Settlements Are Tax Deductible......

Bottom line they really don't hurt the company as they just deduct it and it's us taxpayers that wind up screwed.

I like that Warren wants to discourage tax deductible settlements - but she should go further and they should be totally not allowed at all.

Then these companies would think twice about what they do and they would have to pay the consequences if they stepped out of line and incurred a fine or settlement.

Maybe it would hurt some of these offending companies so much that they would be forced out of business - going belly up. That way they would almost self regulate as the companies that cause the most damage would be out of business and not around to continue to offend.

I wonder what that would do to competition as well? Wouldn't it be great that such companies would have to market themselves as never incurring a fine. We run our business within the laws - not like our competitors.

We need to put the offending companies out of business. It will be good for all of us.

[mother earth]

3. I love EW too, and agree, it simply is not enough. Why are they offered anything deductible?

Hell, the deduction actually encourages continued screwing over... oopsie, another tax deduction. It boggles the mind, I too had no idea these penalties were tax deductible. That's incentive, not punitive by any stretch of the imagination.

[TexasBushwhacker]

6. It's deductible because it's a business related expense

The thing is, the penalties are against corporations but the decision makers in those corporations walk away scott free. It seems to me that the punishment should be against the corporation AND the executives responsible.

[merrily]

13. Yes. Including jail time.

[TexasBushwhacker]

19. I agree. Until these executives start doing jail time

and having their personal assets seized, they are going to keep playing the odds that they won't get caught.

While they're at it, they need to pass a financial transaction tax. Other countries have them and it seems only fair that Wall Street and the big banks should pre-fund their next bailout, because you know their is going to be another bailout. We had one until 1966. I don't know why they got rid of it. I know some bills have been proposed, but none have been passed.

[merrily]

20. Yep

I don't know why they got rid of it.

They got rid of it for the same reason they let corporations off so easily and rarely go against the officers and directors at all. It's the plutocrat's world. We're just living in it and funding it with our tax payments

[Half-Century Man]

10. Wasn't there some sort of legislation about profiting from criminal activity?

Make the entire management of financial institutions forfeit all compensation when they break the law. Make the entire management libel to discourage ambivalence.

What about asset seizure?

Instead of a one time, tax deductible, fine. What about 85% tax rates for X years as a sentence? What about a suspension of tax exemptions or deductions for all corporate officers, contractors, and corporate partners (companies owned by criminal organization/ Members of any "board of directors"/ affiliated PACs)?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Lizzy Warren had an axe,

Gave the bankers forty whacks
When she saw what she had done
She gave "free" traders forty one

[polichick]

8. Perfect!

[riqster]

24. DUzy!

Bravo.

[ctsnowman]

29. Exactly!

[Vincardog]

5. Can she put a "hold" on the TPP? I would love it if she did.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. My guess is not

But it wouldn't shock me. She was one of only 4 senators, Republican or Democratic, to oppose Obama's nominee for Trade Representative, in large part because he told her he'd continue to keep negotiations a secret from the public:

She also had a petition to stop fast-track status for treaties, i think it got passed anyway:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/congress-dont-renew-fast?source=s.fwd&r_by=9499144

[Progressive dog]

27. The petition is current and it is not Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, (who happens to share my name!)

[99Forever]

7. Go Sen.Warren.

Awsome.

[merrily]

11. All right!

I have been holding back some on Senator Warren, exercising more skepticism and more "show me" than I have tended to do in the past. I was determined not to fall for talk alone, be it campaign speeches, or questioning during a Senate hearing. But, more and more, she has "shown me." All along I secretly hoped she would.

[applegrove]

12. Yes. I was cautious at first. She seems to be a new FDR. Cutting through the bullshit of the

powerful interests in the interest of everday people.

[merrily]

15. I will have to think more before I can fully appreciate the FDR comparison, but

I think she was smart to partner with Coburn on this--he's willing to take risks at this point--and it's certainly more than "just words."

[JaneyVee]

14. Those tax and spend liberals at it again!

[merrily]

16. I know you are joking, but,

sometimes, I envy the freedom Republicans have to ignore facts and history.

[JaneyVee]

18. I know. It must be so g-damn easy to be a Republican. Just take the

Asshole side of any debate.

[annabanana]

21. Ya gotta love the way

this gal thinks!

[Enthusiast]

22. Recommended X 1000!

[WillyT]

23. HUGE K & R !!!

[wryter2000]

26. Coburn sponsored this?

[bucolic_frolic]

28. Yes, once they're on their way out the door

they don't need to hold the corporate line as tightly for the campaign contributions

I'll give him this: Coburn's always against spending

But tax deductibility of fines and penalties should be
not just transparent, but ended, kaput, finis, illegal!