Friday, January 8, 2010

'Withdrawal Tax': How to Stick It to the Big Banks That Got Bailed Out, and Make Money While You're at It. Pass It On!

I've been saying this to everyone I know but very few have actually done it. Arianna Huffington is now coming out with a drive to change your bank. Will you listen now?! tb

by Gary North

The Huffington Post has come up with a nice little protest movement. Let's pull our money out of the bailed-out banks and put it in local banks that lend to locals. Who are the locals? People just like us.

This makes sense economically. If you ever want a loan, get it from your own banker. If it's a local bank, you will be treated well.

The FDIC insures all accounts up to $250,000. Your money is as safe in a local bank as a bailed-out mega-bank.

The folks at Huffington are on the Left. But we can all agree when we see insider bailouts like the ones in September and October 2008.

They have produced a video. This video is biased, mean-spirited, and simplistic; I love it! The more of these low-budget YouTube videos on the Big Bank bailout, the better.

Continue reading......... Please!!!!


  1. yep, tb, its catching on; here's the article from salon promoting the same move...fortunately for me, the community banks ive always dealt with are sound, and i dont have to consider moving from one of those government supported zombies...

  2. A Modest Amendment Proposal To The "Move Your Money" Campaign: Increase Your Withholding Exemptions - Over the past few months, Arianna Huffington has initiated a grass roots campaign called "Move your money" whose purpose is to forcefully shift an allocation of the deposit base from the TBTFs which have captured the government via the Wall Street-D.C. lobby complex. While we hope this campaign succeeds, we are somewhat skeptical that it will achieve its goal. First, the logistics of transferring one's account are non-trivial and can be daunting to most people. Second, the overarching problem lies not so much with the banks themselves, as with the one supreme enabler of not just artificial "profitability engineering" but of the broad range of market interventions, which will ultimately result in the collapse of America. Just today we demonstrated that the US monthly budget deficit hit an all time record, which, paradoxically, and completely counter-intuitively was accompanied by a record drop in the interest rate paid on public marketable debt. This is an artificial and perverted relationship which will soon breaks, and when it does the suffering will truly begin. Yet therein lies the rub: as the Administration, with the full complicity of the Treasury, borrows deeper into the red and consigns America's future to a 3rd world fate, can now only be stopped by precipitating a full systematic reset of a Treasury-Fed duopoly set on testing whether or not America can default. Unfortunately, the guinea pigs in this experiment are some 300+ million Americans. We suggest a simpler solution to facilitate this the much needed reset: increase your tax withholding exemptions (a far simpler process to moving one's deposit account), thereby forcing the treasury to tip its hand on just how much debt it will need, as it pretends to have some semblance of authority over an out of control budgetary situation.

  3. I don't agree that transferring one's account is 'non-trivial' and 'daunting'. It really is nothing more than going down to the new bank, filling out an application and giving them some money. Some people might have certain electronic deposits and withdrawals, online bill pay, etc, that will need to be transferred that will take a little time and effort, but that's all. I my mind the only daunting part is deciding whether it's important enough to someone. So is he suggesting that most people are simply too lazy to make the effort?

    His argument that the problem is not with the banks themselves but with the market interventions ignores the back room dealings and collusion between the banks and the 'interventionists'.

    But if he wants to suggest delaying payment to the IRS by changing our withholdings, well I'm OK with that, but do both. The impact might be that much greater. The problem with it is that when the IRS starts seeing this occurring they will unilaterally change everyones back, or as in the case of CA, increase withholdings to collect more upfront money.

    Last week something dawned on me about the "Move You Money" campaign. The intent is to get enough people to withdraw enough money from the big banks to hurt them by reducing their balances on deposit which in turn hurts their reserve requirements. But what if they already have anticipated that and that is why they have received so much in bailout dollars already? (estimates are now in the $24.5 trillion range). Anything we do to withdraw our money from them will not hurt them at all if they can constantly return to the trough to get more. Coupled with the control that the IRS has, are we therefore in a no-win situation here?