Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
RavenHawk

Taxing the Rich

226 posts in this topic

That link kind of proves Ninja's argument. 5 years into the war they authorize a bill to pay a tiny fraction of the worthless wars' continued cost. And where did the money come from..??

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes for everybody are set to rise Jan. 1 due to the expiration of the Bush tax rates and other measures. That, combined with the triggering of automatic defense and domestic spending cuts, amount to what is known in Washington as the "fiscal cliff" -- an austerity blow so severe that a Congressional Budget Office report warned this week that it would cause a recession and drive unemployment up to 9.1 percent.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2Bs1vFh3g

I guess no body really wants to worked anymore:)

I say GOOD!! If Obama and the Boyz need to fix this, then they will be forced to Bipartisanship. Maybe that will bust the idiot dam that has been keeping the overly proud from working on the (50% Republican) nations business. If the taxes and cuts go into effect, it will 100% fall on Obama, as all of those taxes and cuts were signed off on his Watch. Maybe 2008 was Bush's Recession, but 2013 will be Obama's Recession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say GOOD!! If Obama and the Boyz need to fix this, then they will be forced to Bipartisanship. Maybe that will bust the idiot dam that has been keeping the overly proud from working on the (50% Republican) nations business. If the taxes and cuts go into effect, it will 100% fall on Obama, as all of those taxes and cuts were signed off on his Watch. Maybe 2008 was Bush's Recession, but 2013 will be Obama's Recession.

No it won't be. You know this guy..it is a never ending blame game...the story line will always be: Bush destroyed the nation so badly not even Obama could fix it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the subject has been deflected skillfully, so I’ll just ask the Obama followers this real simply. For what purpose does milking the rich of $75 billion achieve in the big scheme of starting up this economy and/or paying down the debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the subject has been deflected skillfully, so I'll just ask the Obama followers this real simply. For what purpose does milking the rich of $75 billion achieve in the big scheme of starting up this economy and/or paying down the debt?

I'm not an Obama follower, and I'm not sure how you're defining "the rich", but it seems that if reducing the national debt or making the government solvent are actual goals, then revenue enhancement is part of the equation, with spending cuts being the other part.

A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about money! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an Obama follower,

Ok, fine.

and I'm not sure how you're defining "the rich",

Why do I feel like you are not paying attention? The definition that is being used covers the top 2%. Those are the ones that are being targeted.

but it seems that if reducing the national debt or making the government solvent are actual goals, then revenue enhancement is part of the equation,

Maybe you just don’t comprehend the difference between $75 billion and $16 trillion??? What is needed is in the hundreds of Billions and all we need to initially cut down is maybe $5 trillion. At $500 billion per years would be 10 years. So now, all you need is $425 billion. Defense is already being drastically cut ($400 billion over 10 years?). That’s another $40 billion. But where are funds supporting Obamacare coming from?

with spending cuts being the other part.

Why? It makes no sense. Do one or the other, not both. This is no compromise. It is inefficient and stupid.

A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about money! :tu:

Then list what the other “here”s and “there”s are. If you could do that and guarantee that it goes *ONLY* to paying down the debt, then you might have some supporters. But as it stands now, it is only a power play to cause the GOP to cave so that Obama can come back with more taxes. That has been his MO. That’s politics as usual in Washington. People need to be aware of how things are done.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t want this thread to just slide into oblivion. My previous post has not been answered. And of that, the main point needs to be reiterated; that raising taxes on the top 2% will only collect about $75 billion a year. This is chicken feed. Obama must think that it is worth driving over the cliff for. He may be clothed in eminence power but that doesn’t mean that he is a dictator. He’s actually a lame duck and must work with the Republicans for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want this thread to just slide into oblivion. My previous post has not been answered. And of that, the main point needs to be reiterated; that raising taxes on the top 2% will only collect about $75 billion a year. This is chicken feed. Obama must think that it is worth driving over the cliff for. He may be clothed in eminence power but that doesn't mean that he is a dictator. He's actually a lame duck and must work with the Republicans for once.

I'm back! :tu:

In fact, he IS a dictator, if one may define a dictator as one who can order and execute the death of a citizen or person without any due process. Semantics I guess, but his assault on the US Constitution makes him a domestic enemy, as described in the oath he took but refuses to honor.

I digress.

I am no economist, but at the moment my house is paid off and I don't owe anybody any money. The mess that is the US budgetary process has been a joke for many many years.

OK, you define the rich as the top 2%, I assume, by income tax information.

I'm sure you are aware that the federal government was fairly solvent for decades BEFORE there was an income tax. The point is that to balance a budget, one must spend less than one takes in, or at least no more than one takes in.

So I don't understand your suggestion that revenue is not part of the equation or that spending is not either. You seem to offer an extremely over-simplified view of this issue that has partisan undertones. Maybe I'm misreading what you're posting?

Increase the revenue and cut the spending. It works for me, and why won't it work for the government?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.