The Price of Success

President Obama’s recently proposed bank tax is open to a myriad of questions concerning how common property should or should not be utilized. If one were to apply Aristotle’s ideas on the nature of property to our 21^st century economy, “taxpayer dollars” could be viewed as commonly held property to be used in common, in so much as they are derived from the earnings of all (or almost all) of the citizens and are intended to be used for the benefit of said citizens. This being said, I am not sure how Aristotle would view the concept of the government having the final say in how all of those assets are distributed. A recent article in the New York Times concerning a possible constitutional challenge to the bank tax outlines the banking industries objections. The question is whether the tax would unfairly target large banks, forcing them to cover losses incurred by nonbanking recipients of bailout money, which Aristotle would undoubtedly consider to be public property to be used for the public good. The intention of the tax is to recoup losses from TARP and other bailout plans, but its structure would ensured that the largest burden falls on those industries that have been the most stable (Those who have the ability to pay; the large, relatively stable banks), while giving hedge funds and the automotive industry another reprieve from responsibility. This may not be the most equitable distribution of common property, but it is probably the best way to increase the overall public good (that is the intention at least) so it is likely that Aristotle would lean in favor of this decision, even though his views on usury would tend to express disdain for the entire concept of modern banking.