QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: twofishQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaAt the Federal level, the US system is already strongly skewed to taxing fatcats both in rate structure and in actual tax revenues. Poor people in the U.S. don't pay any income tax, only their share of the flow-through of corporate income taxes on consumer goods.So it seems that a taxpayer bailout wouldn't be such a bad thing, socially speaking.Perhaps, perhaps not. Whether the bail-out is socially good/bad depends on the extent that added taxation stifles the economic growth needed to pay off these accumulated deficits. If the bail-out increases the perceived risk of default of the US, increases unemployment rates, hurts the dollar (causing inflation of imported goods), then the bailout might be socially bad. On the other hand, no one could argue that the collapse of the financial system would be socially good, so a bailout is probably the lesser of the two evils.At the very least, a taxpayer-funded bailout is largely fair because, in many ways, the American consumers/taxpayers only got what they asked for -- cheap money to buy big houses, big cars, and lots of Chinese-made consumer products. Where did all the "lost" billions, now trillions go? The "lost" money went into the pockets of tens of millions of consumers/taxpayers that sold or refinanced houses, borrowed to buy SUVs, and lived life on their credit cards. The money then filtered down to the millions of consumers/taxpayers that make/renovate houses, build cars, and make/sell consumer products. Every user of debt in the the U.S. (and the people they buy from) owns a piece of this problem because every one of them benefited in recent years from the flood of easy money in the system. For all the talk of excessive executive compensation and greedy Wall Street players, very little of this lost money ended up in the pockets of the so-called fat cats.The housing bubble was one massive (ultimately government-funded) economic stimulus package which definitely succeeded (in the short-term) of lifting the U.S. out of the post dotcom, post 9/11 slump. And I suspect that the amount of "benefit" given to the average consumer during the years of the housing/credit bubble is not too different from the effective tax rate of that consumer (i.e., richer, bigger-home-owning people benefited much more than poorer renters). Naturally, some have benefited or suffered unfairly, but to the first order of magnitude, future taxpayers will only be paying off their own debts from their own housing-bubble party.I agree something needs to be done. But the current approach leaves the taxpayers with all the downside risk with very little upside. Here is nice anlaysis of the plan. Perhaps inject capital in exchange for equity: something like this the other day.