227 replies to this topic

[Mr. Smith]

Harte, on 11 November 2012 - 03:09 AM, said:

Read closely.

"They" are Republicans and Democrats.

Ninja claimed the Republicans "kept the war off the books" when in fact it was mostly a bipartisan decision to do that.

Harte

Ah. I stand corrected.

[Rafterman]

Babe Ruth, on 10 November 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

The smartest and most fair tax would be a tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, as some European jurisdictions apparently do.  Just 1% on those many many transactions could generate several billion a year, and maybe cut down on some of the gambling that goes on there.

That will do so much considering we're $16 trillion in debt.  But sure, let's go ahead and tax one of the few economic drivers in this country that seems to be working.

The thing that I find comical about this discussion is that how the Obama Administration actually consider $250K a year wealthy.  And here's the rub, when these taxes are implemented and they do NOTHING other than feed the Washington spending pig, who will we then go after?  Who will be "wealthy" then?  Eventually we'll be talking about $100K a year being wealthy.  And then pretty soon anyone that has more than you will be considered "wealthy".

[questionmark]

Rafterman, on 11 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

That will do so much considering we're $16 trillion in debt.  But sure, let's go ahead and tax one of the few economic drivers in this country that seems to be working.

The thing that I find comical about this discussion is that how the Obama Administration actually consider $250K a year wealthy.  And here's the rub, when these taxes are implemented and they do NOTHING other than feed the Washington spending pig, who will we then go after?  Who will be "wealthy" then?  Eventually we'll be talking about $100K a year being wealthy.  And then pretty soon anyone that has more than you will be considered "wealthy".

lets see, there are about 150-200,000 high speed transactions per second on a normal trading day. Taxing each with 1 cent that could be $20,000 per second, which would be half of the federal debt increase.

[joc]

questionmark, on 11 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

lets see, there are about 150-200,000 high speed transactions per second on a normal trading day. Taxing each with 1 cent that could be $20,000 per second, which would be half of the federal debt increase.

Really, if we did that, we wouldn't need to even file taxes.  The only ones's actually 'filing' tax returns would be businesses.

[Gromdor]

High speed stock transactions worry me to a degree.  I know it is nice for wall streets pocketbooks to be able to make money by conducting transactions micro-seconds before the rest of the market, but the idea of a computer sell-off of all my retirements faster than a broker can push the off button is somewhat disturbing.  Or even worse, the havoc that terrorists/hackers could do if they got access to the system with even a simple virus.  (A fictitious example of this would be what Bane did to Bruce Wayne in the Batman movie.  Just replace Bane with say the Iranian's and Bruce Wayne with everyones 401k's and you get the idea)

That being said. I think the purpose of the tax would be to discourage this form of trading more than as a legitimate source of revenue.

[Babe Ruth]

questionmark, on 11 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

lets see, there are about 150-200,000 high speed transactions per second on a normal trading day. Taxing each with 1 cent that could be $20,000 per second, which would be half of the federal debt increase.

I don't know if you intended sarcasm, but I think the tax would work out to be more than a penny, as it would be simply a percentage of the transaction.

But thanks for the number on how many financial transactions there are with the high speed trading.

We must start somewhere if revenue is to be increased, and this seems like a logical place to start.  Far better than an increase in the income tax on wages.

[Br Cornelius]

Europe will push ahead with the Robin Hood tax. This will give America the excuse to follow its lead.

Br Cornelius

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 11 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

lets see, there are about 150-200,000 high speed transactions per second on a normal trading day. Taxing each with 1 cent that could be $20,000 per second, which would be half of the federal debt increase.

Isn't that going to be $200,000 divided by 100 cents? = 2000 dollars per second, or (assuming a 7.5 million second work-year) about 15 billion a year.

You'd have to charge like 25 cents a transaction to get some real money. (approx $375 billion per year)

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 11 November 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

I don't know if you intended sarcasm, but I think the tax would work out to be more than a penny, as it would be simply a percentage of the transaction.

But thanks for the number on how many financial transactions there are with the high speed trading.

We must start somewhere if revenue is to be increased, and this seems like a logical place to start.  Far better than an increase in the income tax on wages.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats would allow a percentage charge system. The Republicans because it is a tax on something that has already been taxed. And the Democrats because many of the percentage tax would wipe out the profits of the Elderly and Unions, and not to mention just about every Non-Profit out there.

[questionmark]

DieChecker, on 11 November 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Isn't that going to be $200,000 divided by 100 cents? = 2000 dollars per second, or (assuming a 7.5 million second work-year) about 15 billion a year.

You'd have to charge like 25 cents a transaction to get some real money. (approx $375 billion per year)

you are correct on that one, looks like I misplaced a 0 somewhere significant, I just wonder if it is in the quick trading transactions, cause I did not come up with this one, I copied it.

Edit: found the bug, we are talking orders of more than one share, or transactions were we were supposing that we could bang a cent per share on as taxes.

Edited by questionmark, 11 November 2012 - 08:55 PM.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 11 November 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

you are correct on that one, looks like I misplaced a 0 somewhere significant, I just wonder if it is in the quick trading transactions, cause I did not come up with this one, I copied it.

Edit: found the bug, we are talking orders of more than one share, or transactions were we were supposing that we could bang a cent per share on as taxes.

Ahh... a cent per share. That would provide a few bucket fulls of Revenue!

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker, on 11 November 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats would allow a percentage charge system. The Republicans because it is a tax on something that has already been taxed. And the Democrats because many of the percentage tax would wipe out the profits of the Elderly and Unions, and not to mention just about every Non-Profit out there.

As it was discussed last year, percentage was used.  At one point it was 1%, and then in another discussion it was .5%

Either way, I think it is a potential for significant revenue, and the only people paying are those who are basically just gambling anyway.

We are going to have to bite the bullet before long, and all options should be on the table, especially and including serious spending cuts.

[Harte]

Babe Ruth, on 10 November 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

The smartest and most fair tax would be a tax on financial transactions on Wall Street, as some European jurisdictions apparently do.  Just 1% on those many many transactions could generate several billion a year, and maybe cut down on some of the gambling that goes on there.

I like the idea, but 1% is far too much.

Many of those transactions represent gains of far less than that, and many represent losses.

The net effect would be to reduce the number of transactions made that represent gains, and then you'd merely be mostly taxing transactions that already represent losses.  This also could cause a reduction in the number of "loser" transactions.

Also, do you take the tax from the account that's buying/selling or from the broker's corporation?  If the latter, then why would you assume that this tax wouldn't be passed on as a fee increase, paid for by stockholders that haven't bought or sold a single stock in that tax year?

Harte

Edited by Harte, 12 November 2012 - 04:17 PM.

[DieChecker]

Harte, on 12 November 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

I like the idea, but 1% is far too much.

Many of those transactions represent gains of far less than that, and many represent losses.

The net effect would be to reduce the number of transactions made that represent gains, and then you'd merely be mostly taxing transactions that already represent losses.  This also could cause a reduction in the number of "loser" transactions.

I have to agree. The whole point of the super fast transactions is that they gain only a tiny bit, but with all of them added together they come out with a combined significant gross gain. If each was taxed, then the gain would immediately disappear and then the number of transactions would drop significantly, and the Revenue would dry up almost immediately.

Edited by DieChecker, 13 November 2012 - 03:02 AM.

[Gromdor]

DieChecker, on 13 November 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

I have to agree. The whole point of the super fast transactions is that they gain only a tiny bit, but with all of them added together they come out with a combined significant gross gain. If each was taxed, then the gain would immediately disappear and then the number of transactions would drop significantly, and the Revenue would dry up almost immediately.

  This is why I think the tax is more to discourage high frequency trading, than to actually generate revenue.  The idea is to prevent massive market fluctuations from high frequency trading.  People would be forced to invest in a company's growth/profit over a longer term instead of siphoning money from the system itself.