Frank Luntz’s New Talking Point: “Checkbook Tax”

[babylonsister]

Now listen for the parroting by the gop who depend on this guy for any new ideas. It's coming. ;)

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/2010-elections/frank-luntzs-new-talking-point-checkbook-tax/

Frank Luntz’s New Talking Point: “Checkbook Tax”

Let no one underestimate Frank Luntz’s capacity for crafting a resonant talking point. And now that financial reg reform is moving forward, he’s got a new one for opponents to wield: “Checkbook tax.”

Luntz didn’t make a big show of announcing this latest concoction. It’s buried way down in this piece he wrote for The Huffington Post about how financial reform is not a slam dunk by any means for Dems. Here’s the key bit:

The Democrats supporting the current legislation have assured an anxious electorate that whatever funds are used to create whatever regulatory scheme created will come from the banks, not the taxpayers. Let me emphasize that so that even casual readers will catch it: the Democrats promise that you won’t pay for their legislation, banks will.

Really?

Since when have corporations ever paid taxes, fees or penalties? Employees end up paying in the form of lower salaries and benefits. Customers end up paying in the form of higher costs.

And in this case, every account holder will be forced to pay higher fees on their checking account and savings account. That’s you, my friendly reader. Can you say “checkbook tax”? I can, and I think lots of candidates will be saying it come November.

If Luntz says lots of candidates will be using the phrase “checkbook tax” to describe the alleged fees that will be passed on to consumers, we should take him at his word.

In a sense, this represents an evolution in Luntz’s thinking, and even possibly a concession on his part. In his much-discussed original memo instructing opponents of financial reform on how to talk about it, he urged them to use the phrase “taxpayer-funded bailouts,” ignoring the argument altogether that banks, not taxpayers, are funding the bank liquidation fund. Now Luntz is at least acknowledging this argument — but he’s replaced it with the new claim that taxpayers will still pick up the tab when big institutions pass on costs in the form of a “checkbook tax.”

It’ll be interesting to track the evolution of this talking point and to see if candidates start using it on the trail.

[sui generis]

1. actually what it means is

middle class and working class customers at the big banks will close their accounts and move along to community banks and credit unions.

That is how free markets are supposed to work.

100% of sales and service "fees" passed along to the customer are discretionary, by the way. If the bank believes you are a valuable customer (and I wrote those algorithms for the top 20) or if you have a medium to high attrition risk, then you can ask them to waive any fee and they almost always will. If they don't, then leave. It's that simple.

Inconvenient maybe, but simple.

[high density]

2. So, simply: eliminate all business taxes and regulation

Because consumers eventually end up paying for it. I'm sure that will work well.

[greyshade]

3. Why bother taxing corporations?

I see a fallacy here: there is no use taxing corporations because they will inevitably pass the cost on to the consumer.

Frankly, taxes should be part of business operating expenses, whether it's a global conglomerate or a local mom and pop business. The companies that pass too much of the cost to consumers will lose in the Free Market.

There is no "checkbook tax." This would be another "Bank Fee." Consumers, who are fed up with fees enough, could opt to move to a Credit Union. The government isn't making you pay this - it's the choice of the Bankers, who would opt to hit the little guy with a fee rather than control executive compensation.

[rasputin1952]

10. There is a difference when some corp nets say 3 billion...

before you add in what they saved on taxes and what they got from Uncle Sam in subsidies...If a corp nets billions, why should they get any help from the government they say they hate?

I know farmers out here in Nebraska that complain about a single mother getting $300 a month and food stamps, but nary a peep when they go to the bank to cash in their $335,000 subsidy check for allowing their land to go fallow for a year or two. Why should they get anything for doing absolutely nothing? Most farms are either corps or part of a co-op these days...I see $40,000 pickups with "Farm" plates, but I never see those in the field, i see 1958 Ford's and Chevy's in the fields. They don't pay taxes on gas for the farm either, I really want to know if those trips to Omaha from O'Neill are farm business, or going to a place where they can save another few bucks on their clothes?

[flpoljunkie]

4. If we get a strong and independent consumer protection agency, banks won't be able to blackmail us

with hidden an exorbitant fees. We, too, must support Bernie Sanders usury amendment, capping credit card rates at 15%, if he gets to bring it up for a vote.

[gravity]

5. Bring it on

I rather be on the side of Wall Street Reform than "Checkbook Tax"

Explaining that banks are greedy and will pass all the taxes on to its customers is not a strong argument against reform.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Similar to the one Limbaugh peddles for not cutting taxes on rich, so folks don't lose their jobs

Tragically, if you are willing to lie to people, and keep repeating the lies--like Limbaugh and the Republicans and their water carriers do--a lot of uninformed people will believe you.

[gravity]

8. The only people who believe that are hardcore GOP

Those in the middle are for cutting taxes because they don't like paying taxes. It sells itself without complicated logic.

The checkbook tax isn't as easy to sell because it requires much more BS to make it work no matter how much Limbaugh repeats it.

The Democrats argument is much stronger saying that we are taxing banks because we used our tax money to bail them out. It is simple and to the point.

[enki23]

7. i'm open to simply taxing the fuck out of rich people instead. it's worked pretty well in the past.

alternately, i'm open to simply confiscating it from them, redistributing, and starting over. you know, if the first proposal doesn't meet with their fucking approval.

[Writer]

9. Now that just doesn't work.

The phrase sounds redundant, and therefore, overwrought. Checkbooks are items that people already don't like - to associate that with a tax is only compounding the fact that they don't like checkbooks.

Now if it were something that people have a positive or neutral feeling about, like checking ACCOUNTS, then the phrase might carry more political punch. But to be honest, it sounds like a ploy to the ear. Insincere and cynical.

[tledford]

11. Solution: make it illegal to pass this on to consumers.

And any violations result in the execution by firing squad of the "C" level officers and Board of Directors of the institution. No trial required.

These people have screwed us over long enough.

[mwooldri]

20. Wish the phone company didn't pass those fees on either.

Universal Service Fee. Number Portability Fee. 911 Fee.

You see a lot of these fees at the bottom of your phone bill - even the cell phone bills. The telecoms companies tell you they're government imposed fees but they're not - the government impose these fees on the telecoms companies and they are choosing to pass them on to you.

The thing is - ALL the phone companies do it.

I don't think there will be a "checkbook tax" any time soon, because as soon as some megabank thinks about doing it it will alienate customers, driving them to the banks that won't charge this extra fee.

Plus who operates a checkbook much these days anyway? Lots of places won't take checks anymore. But there will be a cost squeeze somewhere. Problem is the megabanks know just how hard to squeeze before the pips start squeaking.

[The Damned]

12. Franz Kuntz?

Never could understand his novels!

[quiet.american]

13. I often wonder how this guy doesn't look at himself in the mirror and throw up. nt

[LiberalFighter]

14. GOP + Credit Card + S&M

[BrklynLiberal]

15. Are the Dems going to allow the repukes to frame the issue..AGAIN!!!????

[thereismore]

16. His full-time job is to come up with names. "death tax", "fair tax", "checkbook tax." Swine. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

18. and the repukes listen to him, and are constantly able to frame the issues

which the Democrats appear helpless at doing.

HINT: GEORGE LAKOFF!!!!!

[kenfrequed]

17. Feh

I would ask when is the mainstream media going to call out this PR peddler POS but that would be a complete waste of time.

[mwooldri]

19. Not going to happen.

Remember all that credit card law reform? It's hitting regular checking accounts in other ways too - fees that are to be assessed have to be "reasonable"... so the fed is already on to this and if any bank is going to hike their fees well... not only will the feds be on them, so will their customers.

Also all the big banks offer a "free checking" account. They may well whittle down some services offered with them but to abandon them altogether is akin to which bank is going to shoot themselves in the foot first? If the megabank I bank with (as a backup to my Credit Union) wants to start charging me a fee, well they've lost out on a longtime customer.

[dtotire]

21. Simon Johnson Gave Him A Good Rebuttal

here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/frank-luntz-hasnt-read-i1_b_556546.html

[BlueIdaho]

22. Whatever - how do we counter his propaganda?

This guy's no divinely inspired genius - so lets put our thinking caps on and gang. How can we turn this to our favor?

Something like this?

Republican's want Get Out of Jail Free Cards for their bankster buddies.

[Cha]

24. Here's a rebuttal to that from the poster's link upthread..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/frank-luntz-hasnt-read-i1_b_556546.html

[BlueIdaho]

28. Thank you very much. nt.

[Jennicut]

23. Well gee, maybe cosumers can say screw it to the big banks and not do business with them

any longer. I mean, most people go around and look for banks that don't have ATM fees anymore. Easiest solution is to go to a credit union instead, which many people have already done.
Also, this argument basically is saying that if we try and hold big banks accountable because they will go and screw over the little people. Say what? He is admitting that this version of so called capitalism that exists out there right now is basically crap because it hurts everyday people. No duh. No shit Sherlock. In trying to make such a convoluted argument against financial reform, he has turned himself into...a stinking liberal! Welcome to the freaking club dumbass. Luntzfail.

[11 Bravo]

25. Frank Luntz is to honesty what William Kristol is to accuracy. If Kristol thinks it ...

it's wrong. If Luntz says it .. it's a lie.

[KingFlorez]

26. That's a leap

It must have taken him hours to come up with that one. The banking industry is competitive enough where you can take your money out and put it elsewhere if your current bank is going up on it's fees.

[donco6]

27. Why would it cost any more?

No one is more regulated than a school district, but new regs don't necessarily mean more work for us. It may mean changing what we do or when we do it. Why the assumption?