TAX TAX TAX and more TAX

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=Aecetia]I must have missed it. I thought flu said, buy and ship from abroad. I would support VAT if it completely replaced both State and Federal Income Tax.

Today I heard that the new financial bill that is making the rounds may have a transaction tax built in for certain trades: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called for the creation of a tax on financial transaction to help reduce the deficit.

“At a time when the deficit is rising, we must find ways to reduce the debt without putting a heavy burden on average Americans or cutting necessary services,” he said. “A small transaction tax can raise substantial funds with virtually no effect on middle-class families. And it has the added effect of dampening down overly speculative trading, which is partially to blame for the recent economic crash.” Harkin joined Wall Street and economic experts as well as labor leaders and consumer advocates in calling for the tax.

That should put a damper on the recovery.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/92801-harkin-calls-for-tax-on-financial-transactions%5B/quote%5D

Actually, many canadians at the border do just this. They get all their auto repair, big purchases done in the States to escape all the VAT/provicial taxes. Of course, they have to be careful about re-entry into canada, because if it’s so obvious, they end up paying customs at the border.

I’m looking forward to some Senator proposing a
savings tax or cash-in-the-mattress-tax for people making $200k single/$250k married…

The bill would be something like: if you hold on to cash longer than a year without spending it, whether it is in a 0% interest account or in your mattress, you have to pay taxes on it…. Heck, it would stimulate spending, wouldn’t it?[/quote]

That’s what Brian wants to do with his “wealth tax.” 😉

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]Sk,

I must be missing something. Doesn’t the cash end up in the seller’s checking account?

BTW, stock exchanges do not provide any way to trade one stock directly for another. That would be incredibly complicated…

Back to the interesting stuff:

By “pt” do you mean basis points (1/100 of a percent)? Imposing a 25 cent transaction fee on a $10K trade would definitely change the behavior of high frequency trading systems (this is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I’m not arguing against such a fee, I’m just making the point that liquidity is a good thing in markets. It benefits *all* participants, from the high-volume trader to the individual investor. Taxes on transactions will take some of this benefit away. But it may be a good tradeoff with the right parameters.[/quote]

You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa.

1/4 pt is .25%. $2.50 on a $1,000 trade. Serious investors will bitch, but not flinch. Specially if it’s only one side of the trade. Many day traders will flinch. But it would be like the casinos on some cruise ships, where the blackjack dealer stays on a soft 17. Some gamblers will still sit down at the table, despite the reduced odds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]Sk,

I must be missing something. Doesn’t the cash end up in the seller’s checking account?

BTW, stock exchanges do not provide any way to trade one stock directly for another. That would be incredibly complicated…

Back to the interesting stuff:

By “pt” do you mean basis points (1/100 of a percent)? Imposing a 25 cent transaction fee on a $10K trade would definitely change the behavior of high frequency trading systems (this is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I’m not arguing against such a fee, I’m just making the point that liquidity is a good thing in markets. It benefits *all* participants, from the high-volume trader to the individual investor. Taxes on transactions will take some of this benefit away. But it may be a good tradeoff with the right parameters.[/quote]

You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa.

1/4 pt is .25%. $2.50 on a $1,000 trade. Serious investors will bitch, but not flinch. Specially if it’s only one side of the trade. Many day traders will flinch. But it would be like the casinos on some cruise ships, where the blackjack dealer stays on a soft 17. Some gamblers will still sit down at the table, despite the reduced odds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]Sk,

I must be missing something. Doesn’t the cash end up in the seller’s checking account?

BTW, stock exchanges do not provide any way to trade one stock directly for another. That would be incredibly complicated…

Back to the interesting stuff:

By “pt” do you mean basis points (1/100 of a percent)? Imposing a 25 cent transaction fee on a $10K trade would definitely change the behavior of high frequency trading systems (this is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I’m not arguing against such a fee, I’m just making the point that liquidity is a good thing in markets. It benefits *all* participants, from the high-volume trader to the individual investor. Taxes on transactions will take some of this benefit away. But it may be a good tradeoff with the right parameters.[/quote]

You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa.

1/4 pt is .25%. $2.50 on a $1,000 trade. Serious investors will bitch, but not flinch. Specially if it’s only one side of the trade. Many day traders will flinch. But it would be like the casinos on some cruise ships, where the blackjack dealer stays on a soft 17. Some gamblers will still sit down at the table, despite the reduced odds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]Sk,

I must be missing something. Doesn’t the cash end up in the seller’s checking account?

BTW, stock exchanges do not provide any way to trade one stock directly for another. That would be incredibly complicated…

Back to the interesting stuff:

By “pt” do you mean basis points (1/100 of a percent)? Imposing a 25 cent transaction fee on a $10K trade would definitely change the behavior of high frequency trading systems (this is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I’m not arguing against such a fee, I’m just making the point that liquidity is a good thing in markets. It benefits *all* participants, from the high-volume trader to the individual investor. Taxes on transactions will take some of this benefit away. But it may be a good tradeoff with the right parameters.[/quote]

You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa.

1/4 pt is .25%. $2.50 on a $1,000 trade. Serious investors will bitch, but not flinch. Specially if it’s only one side of the trade. Many day traders will flinch. But it would be like the casinos on some cruise ships, where the blackjack dealer stays on a soft 17. Some gamblers will still sit down at the table, despite the reduced odds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]Sk,

I must be missing something. Doesn’t the cash end up in the seller’s checking account?

BTW, stock exchanges do not provide any way to trade one stock directly for another. That would be incredibly complicated…

Back to the interesting stuff:

By “pt” do you mean basis points (1/100 of a percent)? Imposing a 25 cent transaction fee on a $10K trade would definitely change the behavior of high frequency trading systems (this is not necessarily a bad thing.)

I’m not arguing against such a fee, I’m just making the point that liquidity is a good thing in markets. It benefits *all* participants, from the high-volume trader to the individual investor. Taxes on transactions will take some of this benefit away. But it may be a good tradeoff with the right parameters.[/quote]

You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa.

1/4 pt is .25%. $2.50 on a $1,000 trade. Serious investors will bitch, but not flinch. Specially if it’s only one side of the trade. Many day traders will flinch. But it would be like the casinos on some cruise ships, where the blackjack dealer stays on a soft 17. Some gamblers will still sit down at the table, despite the reduced odds.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Brian,

You know I’m one of the more left-leaning posters on this blog, but even I have to question your constant assertion that anyone who disagrees with Obama must be a racist.

[/quote]

I never said that. Disagreement with Obama doesn’t equate to racism.

I said that there is racism in the right wing especially from Whites in the lower social economy rungs. How much is there? I don’t know.

I was addressing gandalf assertion that the Tea Party idiots “includes lots of average means white people who mainly can’t get over the fact the President of the U.S. is a black dude.”

I’m sure that there are plenty of smart Tea Partiers who are not idiots and not racists also.

Racism is part life. I don’t see anything wrong with talking about it.

I believe that racism is one element of the opposition to Obama. How strong is it? I don’t know. But it’s there.

If one is not racist, then one should not have problems discussing racism.

[quote=CA renter]
Sure, there are racists out there, but that doesn’t mean that every time we disagree that we’re doing so for some irrational or emotional reason.
[/quote]

I completely agree with you.

[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, whenever people bring up the race issue, they just lost the debate.
[/quote]

We’ll just disagree here.

Race is important. In my opinion, if you ignore it, then you’re not facing reality head on.

[quote=CA renter]
Let’s debate the **issues** and let facts and logic speak for themselves. Are you in?
[/quote]

Yes, facts and logic should be given the most weight.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Brian,

You know I’m one of the more left-leaning posters on this blog, but even I have to question your constant assertion that anyone who disagrees with Obama must be a racist.

[/quote]

I never said that. Disagreement with Obama doesn’t equate to racism.

I said that there is racism in the right wing especially from Whites in the lower social economy rungs. How much is there? I don’t know.

I was addressing gandalf assertion that the Tea Party idiots “includes lots of average means white people who mainly can’t get over the fact the President of the U.S. is a black dude.”

I’m sure that there are plenty of smart Tea Partiers who are not idiots and not racists also.

Racism is part life. I don’t see anything wrong with talking about it.

I believe that racism is one element of the opposition to Obama. How strong is it? I don’t know. But it’s there.

If one is not racist, then one should not have problems discussing racism.

[quote=CA renter]
Sure, there are racists out there, but that doesn’t mean that every time we disagree that we’re doing so for some irrational or emotional reason.
[/quote]

I completely agree with you.

[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, whenever people bring up the race issue, they just lost the debate.
[/quote]

We’ll just disagree here.

Race is important. In my opinion, if you ignore it, then you’re not facing reality head on.

[quote=CA renter]
Let’s debate the **issues** and let facts and logic speak for themselves. Are you in?
[/quote]

Yes, facts and logic should be given the most weight.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Brian,

You know I’m one of the more left-leaning posters on this blog, but even I have to question your constant assertion that anyone who disagrees with Obama must be a racist.

[/quote]

I never said that. Disagreement with Obama doesn’t equate to racism.

I said that there is racism in the right wing especially from Whites in the lower social economy rungs. How much is there? I don’t know.

I was addressing gandalf assertion that the Tea Party idiots “includes lots of average means white people who mainly can’t get over the fact the President of the U.S. is a black dude.”

I’m sure that there are plenty of smart Tea Partiers who are not idiots and not racists also.

Racism is part life. I don’t see anything wrong with talking about it.

I believe that racism is one element of the opposition to Obama. How strong is it? I don’t know. But it’s there.

If one is not racist, then one should not have problems discussing racism.

[quote=CA renter]
Sure, there are racists out there, but that doesn’t mean that every time we disagree that we’re doing so for some irrational or emotional reason.
[/quote]

I completely agree with you.

[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, whenever people bring up the race issue, they just lost the debate.
[/quote]

We’ll just disagree here.

Race is important. In my opinion, if you ignore it, then you’re not facing reality head on.

[quote=CA renter]
Let’s debate the **issues** and let facts and logic speak for themselves. Are you in?
[/quote]

Yes, facts and logic should be given the most weight.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Brian,

You know I’m one of the more left-leaning posters on this blog, but even I have to question your constant assertion that anyone who disagrees with Obama must be a racist.

[/quote]

I never said that. Disagreement with Obama doesn’t equate to racism.

I said that there is racism in the right wing especially from Whites in the lower social economy rungs. How much is there? I don’t know.

I was addressing gandalf assertion that the Tea Party idiots “includes lots of average means white people who mainly can’t get over the fact the President of the U.S. is a black dude.”

I’m sure that there are plenty of smart Tea Partiers who are not idiots and not racists also.

Racism is part life. I don’t see anything wrong with talking about it.

I believe that racism is one element of the opposition to Obama. How strong is it? I don’t know. But it’s there.

If one is not racist, then one should not have problems discussing racism.

[quote=CA renter]
Sure, there are racists out there, but that doesn’t mean that every time we disagree that we’re doing so for some irrational or emotional reason.
[/quote]

I completely agree with you.

[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, whenever people bring up the race issue, they just lost the debate.
[/quote]

We’ll just disagree here.

Race is important. In my opinion, if you ignore it, then you’re not facing reality head on.

[quote=CA renter]
Let’s debate the **issues** and let facts and logic speak for themselves. Are you in?
[/quote]

Yes, facts and logic should be given the most weight.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Brian,

You know I’m one of the more left-leaning posters on this blog, but even I have to question your constant assertion that anyone who disagrees with Obama must be a racist.

[/quote]

I never said that. Disagreement with Obama doesn’t equate to racism.

I said that there is racism in the right wing especially from Whites in the lower social economy rungs. How much is there? I don’t know.

I was addressing gandalf assertion that the Tea Party idiots “includes lots of average means white people who mainly can’t get over the fact the President of the U.S. is a black dude.”

I’m sure that there are plenty of smart Tea Partiers who are not idiots and not racists also.

Racism is part life. I don’t see anything wrong with talking about it.

I believe that racism is one element of the opposition to Obama. How strong is it? I don’t know. But it’s there.

If one is not racist, then one should not have problems discussing racism.

[quote=CA renter]
Sure, there are racists out there, but that doesn’t mean that every time we disagree that we’re doing so for some irrational or emotional reason.
[/quote]

I completely agree with you.

[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, whenever people bring up the race issue, they just lost the debate.
[/quote]

We’ll just disagree here.

Race is important. In my opinion, if you ignore it, then you’re not facing reality head on.

[quote=CA renter]
Let’s debate the **issues** and let facts and logic speak for themselves. Are you in?
[/quote]

Yes, facts and logic should be given the most weight.

[danielwis]

I blame Bush and the Republicans. When you over spend when times are good, while at the same time cutting taxes, thus growing the deficit, you leave no room for when times are bad. That’s what Bush and the Republicans did. They ran the thing into the shit hole, after inheriting a budget surplus, and then claimed that democrats spent too much fixing the god awful mess they left. They drive the car in the ditch, and then bitch that democrats paid too much and took too long to pull it out. Pick your analogy. Its the same old crap.

[danielwis]

I blame Bush and the Republicans. When you over spend when times are good, while at the same time cutting taxes, thus growing the deficit, you leave no room for when times are bad. That’s what Bush and the Republicans did. They ran the thing into the shit hole, after inheriting a budget surplus, and then claimed that democrats spent too much fixing the god awful mess they left. They drive the car in the ditch, and then bitch that democrats paid too much and took too long to pull it out. Pick your analogy. Its the same old crap.

[danielwis]

I blame Bush and the Republicans. When you over spend when times are good, while at the same time cutting taxes, thus growing the deficit, you leave no room for when times are bad. That’s what Bush and the Republicans did. They ran the thing into the shit hole, after inheriting a budget surplus, and then claimed that democrats spent too much fixing the god awful mess they left. They drive the car in the ditch, and then bitch that democrats paid too much and took too long to pull it out. Pick your analogy. Its the same old crap.

[danielwis]

I blame Bush and the Republicans. When you over spend when times are good, while at the same time cutting taxes, thus growing the deficit, you leave no room for when times are bad. That’s what Bush and the Republicans did. They ran the thing into the shit hole, after inheriting a budget surplus, and then claimed that democrats spent too much fixing the god awful mess they left. They drive the car in the ditch, and then bitch that democrats paid too much and took too long to pull it out. Pick your analogy. Its the same old crap.

[Author]

Posts