Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Taxing the Rich


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#31    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,318 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:54 PM

View PostRafterman, 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.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#32    joc

joc

    Adminstrator of Cosmic Blues

  • Member
  • 12,688 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milky Way Galaxy 3rd planet

  • They're wearing steel that's bright and true
    They carry news that must get through
    They choose the path where no-one goes

Posted 11 November 2012 - 04:09 PM

View Postquestionmark, 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.

Posted Image
once i believed that starlight could guide me home
now i know that light is old and stars are cold

ReverbNation

#33    Gromdor

Gromdor

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 11 November 2012 - 04:49 PM

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.


#34    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 11 November 2012 - 04:50 PM

View Postquestionmark, 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.


#35    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,172 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 11 November 2012 - 05:10 PM

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

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#36    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,898 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:30 PM

View Postquestionmark, 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)

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#37    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,898 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:33 PM

View PostBabe 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.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#38    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,318 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:42 PM

View PostDieChecker, 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.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#39    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,898 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:00 PM

View Postquestionmark, 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!

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#40    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:00 PM

View PostDieChecker, 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.


#41    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,975 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:16 PM

View PostBabe 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.

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#42    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,898 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:01 AM

View PostHarte, 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.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#43    Gromdor

Gromdor

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:18 AM

View PostDieChecker, 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.


#44    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,318 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:34 PM

View PostGromdor, on 13 November 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

  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.

correct, because if you have the faster computer you can "make" the price, or benefit from your own trades by altering the price. Before computers that was called fraud.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#45    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:20 PM

View PostHarte, 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.

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

I know about this proposal only in the most general terms, so I don't know the answer to your question.

As a non-stock market type person, it seems like a good idea to be talked about.  I used to play the market, but do not any more.  It seems to be a type of gambling to me, and that's fine.  I don't condemn it, but it seems the opportunity to get a fair amount of revenue rather painlessly.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users