The counter-argument is that Goldman raised a lot of capital very cheaply (backed by explicit and implicit government guarantees - Goldman was surely \"too big to fail\"; Fed policy has kept interest rates very low, making it cheap to borrow), and then took big risks to make huge trading profits. Since the risk of loss was borne by the taxpayer, and all the gains would accrue to Goldman, there is an argument that says that it would be \"fair\" in this case to tax the bankers\' bonuses heavily. (Normally I am all for wealth creation and less concerned about wealth redistribution, but in this case I can see the merits of that argument.)