There is at least one convincing theory that the 2008 crash was caused in (large) part by the US forcing clamping down on undisclosed foreign accounts. This had the immediate effect of slowing/freezing the flow of billions of $ that previously had been invested around the world (in things like mortgage-backed-securities). The timing is close enough to support the theory.

The Powers-that-Be and their buddies (like Mr. Buffet) are only too happy to tax the top 0.001 - 1%, because they know that:

1. The top 1% (themselves included) won't lose out on the deal because they have so many ways to buy influence and rig the system. Worst case, they'll just leave the country and still be just fine. Mr. Buffet will always pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, you can bet on that.

2. Frog in warming water. Once we tax the "rich people", expanding it to the top 10% is cake and will inevitably happen. Top 10% is well into the middle class (top 50% = everyone who pays income tax). This will most likely happen because revenue from the top 0.001% didn't meet forecasts (because they figured out ways to avoid it), so the tax has to be "made more effective".

I wish we had mark-to-market tax during the dot com boom.

All of those rank-and-file programmers and sysadmins at dot-com startups who got filthy rich just for showing up to work would have deservedly gotten huge tax bills, instead of avoiding taxes by saying they were only excessively rich "on paper". And it would have served them right, they didn't really deserve all that money. I never got rich working at my super-stable no-risk boring 8-5 3-weeks-of-vacation 401k-matching job.

Also, all those people in California would have had to pay taxes on their $1MM run-down houses that they only paid $100K for. They wouldn't have been able to avoid taxes just by refusing to sell their houses, or worse, actually steal our tax money through sophisticated tax-deductible schemes called "home equity loans" set up by their fancy high-paid bankers.

Bonuses can be paid on short-term gains
Oblivious to long-term risks
Because banks can exploit short-term risk
Oblivious to long-term risk
Because when risks come home to roost
They know that they'll be rescued
Because the crisis (and ambulance-chasing media) will rile up the citizenry
Who will call for "someone to do something"
And the Federal Government will step in to save the day
With help from a place called the Federal Reserve
Which is some kind of group that has "something to do with money"
And through deliberate obfuscation and obscured data is almost impossible to understand
Run by some people who sure sound smart (or at least boring)
And so must know what needs to be done in such a crisis
And even when I hear something about "The Fed"
Giving (or maybe it was loaning, I wasn't paying attention) trillions to "stabilize" and "liquidize"
I'm sure they did it for the right reasons
Because that's what everyone with them keeps saying
And since there was no "Big Bank Bailout Tax" bill, it must be OK
Because it doesn't affect me (as far as I can tell)
(Though it will, but it'll be called "unexpectedly high inflation" and I'll have no idea)

If there was no Federal Reserve
Whose "elastic" money can be created at will
(Not even requiring paper or printing, just typing)
(And not at all like my money, which I have to work hard for)
Then when a broker made an big bad investment
They would cause their company to lose a lot of money
Or even go out of business
(Which happens to anyone else who screws up)
But to save the company
The government would have to find money
Because they'd have to use real money
Which they'd have to take from someone else
(Since governments can only take real money or make fake money)
And they'd have to convince a lot of people that saving the company
Is more important than paying for kids college or eating or taking a vacation
Which would be like a "Big Bank Bailout Tax"
And would affect me
So I would probably care a lot, and say "No"

Because if a broker is making big bad investments
He shouldn't be working as a broker
And his boss shouldn't be letting him risk the company
And the company's president and board should care too
Because they'll lose their jobs if the broker makes big bad investments
And they can't count on being saved from their own stupidity
So if a broker makes a big bad investment
It's probably a good thing that the company goes out of business
So everyone knows those guys are bozos
And won't let them do it again
Rather than being saved by the Federal Reserve
And using that money to pay themselves bonuses
Because their big bad investment paid off
Just as well as they had all expected