Taxes!

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
edit: Wow, found this:

The tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 to 15%, or to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets (See progressive tax).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax

Still, it doesn’t seem to be 0%. Where are you getting that from?[/quote]
Here yah go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States%5B/quote%5D

Thank you for pointing that out. Looks like they changed it from 5% to 0% in 2008.

Yeah, I’d eliminate that, absolutely. No reason for poor people to have their labor taxed at a higher rate than cap gains.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.[/quote]

I’m sure it’s better for society if $1MM is split among 100,000 people, instead of having it go to one person.

If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.

The concentration of massive amounts of wealth — at the expense of many — has never led to a good ending.

BTW, I would put Bill Gates in an entirely different category than traders. At least he *worked* to earn his money (monopolies, notwithstanding).

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.[/quote]

I’m sure it’s better for society if $1MM is split among 100,000 people, instead of having it go to one person.

If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.

The concentration of massive amounts of wealth — at the expense of many — has never led to a good ending.

BTW, I would put Bill Gates in an entirely different category than traders. At least he *worked* to earn his money (monopolies, notwithstanding).

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.[/quote]

I’m sure it’s better for society if $1MM is split among 100,000 people, instead of having it go to one person.

If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.

The concentration of massive amounts of wealth — at the expense of many — has never led to a good ending.

BTW, I would put Bill Gates in an entirely different category than traders. At least he *worked* to earn his money (monopolies, notwithstanding).

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.[/quote]

I’m sure it’s better for society if $1MM is split among 100,000 people, instead of having it go to one person.

If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.

The concentration of massive amounts of wealth — at the expense of many — has never led to a good ending.

BTW, I would put Bill Gates in an entirely different category than traders. At least he *worked* to earn his money (monopolies, notwithstanding).

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]The high-frequency traders DO bother me because of the sheer volume they control, and the leverage that they use. The HFT crowd would indeed be affected by what I propose because they make well into the millions/billions per year — and not a cent of that benefitted society, BTW.[/quote]
Those who control millions/billions have PLENTY of ways to get around any tax law you propose. They have the tools that non of us small fries have, including a team of tax lawyers/planners to help them pay the least tax possible.

BTW, I don’t agree that not a cent of that benefitted society. I’m sure they hire maids, gardeners, private school teachers/tutors for their kids, pilots to fly their private planes, etc. Those people wouldn’t have those jobs if it wasn’t for those pesky cents. That haven’t even taken into their philanthropy efforts. Bill Gates have given over $28 Billions to charity, he’ll donate more after he die. I read somewhere that he’ll be leaving only a few hundred millions to his only child. Which means the rest of his wealth (currently around $56B) will go to charity. Warren Buffett have already pledge 99% of his wealth to charity. He has called on other Billionaires to join him to give $600B to charity. I’m pretty sure those $600B will benefit society just a little bit.[/quote]

I’m sure it’s better for society if $1MM is split among 100,000 people, instead of having it go to one person.

If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.

The concentration of massive amounts of wealth — at the expense of many — has never led to a good ending.

BTW, I would put Bill Gates in an entirely different category than traders. At least he *worked* to earn his money (monopolies, notwithstanding).

[Anonymous]

[quote]If you log into your etrade account, and purchase 100 shares of Ford, it does nothing to further economic development. It has no effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant. It provides no new capital. Same logic applies to the billions of dollars that are traded daily on the world’s exchanges for common stocks, mutual funds, ETF’s or the secondary markets for fixed income securities. IPO’s, initial direct investments in new companies provides that capital. A tiny fraction of the total invested capital.[/quote]

This is an oversimplification. True, trading shares that have already been issued do not directly provide additional capital. What it does provide is liquidity – something that is essential in capital markets.

If there were not an active market for a security, investors would be reluctant to buy it because they would be concerned that they may have trouble selling it later. IPOs and other offerings would be much more difficult, and happen far less often.

A big reason that publicly-traded companies can issue stock/bonds/whatever to raise capital is that the buyers of these securities are confident that they are purchasing a liquid investment. The existence of active markets is what gives them this confidence.

So the vast majority of trading does not directly raise capital, but it does very much “have an effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant.” The liquidity of Ford’s stock makes it possible for Ford to issue more.

Securities markets do not exist simply to provide a venue for gambling. This is a popular myth, but completely incorrect.

One of the biggest reasons that the US is the most prosperous economy in history is that we have the most established and, in fact, transparent markets that have ever existed. These markets give companies the ability to easily raise capital, expand their business, and (this one’s for you CAR!) hire more employees.

[Anonymous]

[quote]If you log into your etrade account, and purchase 100 shares of Ford, it does nothing to further economic development. It has no effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant. It provides no new capital. Same logic applies to the billions of dollars that are traded daily on the world’s exchanges for common stocks, mutual funds, ETF’s or the secondary markets for fixed income securities. IPO’s, initial direct investments in new companies provides that capital. A tiny fraction of the total invested capital.[/quote]

This is an oversimplification. True, trading shares that have already been issued do not directly provide additional capital. What it does provide is liquidity – something that is essential in capital markets.

If there were not an active market for a security, investors would be reluctant to buy it because they would be concerned that they may have trouble selling it later. IPOs and other offerings would be much more difficult, and happen far less often.

A big reason that publicly-traded companies can issue stock/bonds/whatever to raise capital is that the buyers of these securities are confident that they are purchasing a liquid investment. The existence of active markets is what gives them this confidence.

So the vast majority of trading does not directly raise capital, but it does very much “have an effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant.” The liquidity of Ford’s stock makes it possible for Ford to issue more.

Securities markets do not exist simply to provide a venue for gambling. This is a popular myth, but completely incorrect.

One of the biggest reasons that the US is the most prosperous economy in history is that we have the most established and, in fact, transparent markets that have ever existed. These markets give companies the ability to easily raise capital, expand their business, and (this one’s for you CAR!) hire more employees.

[Anonymous]

[quote]If you log into your etrade account, and purchase 100 shares of Ford, it does nothing to further economic development. It has no effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant. It provides no new capital. Same logic applies to the billions of dollars that are traded daily on the world’s exchanges for common stocks, mutual funds, ETF’s or the secondary markets for fixed income securities. IPO’s, initial direct investments in new companies provides that capital. A tiny fraction of the total invested capital.[/quote]

This is an oversimplification. True, trading shares that have already been issued do not directly provide additional capital. What it does provide is liquidity – something that is essential in capital markets.

If there were not an active market for a security, investors would be reluctant to buy it because they would be concerned that they may have trouble selling it later. IPOs and other offerings would be much more difficult, and happen far less often.

A big reason that publicly-traded companies can issue stock/bonds/whatever to raise capital is that the buyers of these securities are confident that they are purchasing a liquid investment. The existence of active markets is what gives them this confidence.

So the vast majority of trading does not directly raise capital, but it does very much “have an effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant.” The liquidity of Ford’s stock makes it possible for Ford to issue more.

Securities markets do not exist simply to provide a venue for gambling. This is a popular myth, but completely incorrect.

One of the biggest reasons that the US is the most prosperous economy in history is that we have the most established and, in fact, transparent markets that have ever existed. These markets give companies the ability to easily raise capital, expand their business, and (this one’s for you CAR!) hire more employees.

[Anonymous]

[quote]If you log into your etrade account, and purchase 100 shares of Ford, it does nothing to further economic development. It has no effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant. It provides no new capital. Same logic applies to the billions of dollars that are traded daily on the world’s exchanges for common stocks, mutual funds, ETF’s or the secondary markets for fixed income securities. IPO’s, initial direct investments in new companies provides that capital. A tiny fraction of the total invested capital.[/quote]

This is an oversimplification. True, trading shares that have already been issued do not directly provide additional capital. What it does provide is liquidity – something that is essential in capital markets.

If there were not an active market for a security, investors would be reluctant to buy it because they would be concerned that they may have trouble selling it later. IPOs and other offerings would be much more difficult, and happen far less often.

A big reason that publicly-traded companies can issue stock/bonds/whatever to raise capital is that the buyers of these securities are confident that they are purchasing a liquid investment. The existence of active markets is what gives them this confidence.

So the vast majority of trading does not directly raise capital, but it does very much “have an effect on whether Ford expands their workforce or opens a new plant.” The liquidity of Ford’s stock makes it possible for Ford to issue more.

Securities markets do not exist simply to provide a venue for gambling. This is a popular myth, but completely incorrect.

One of the biggest reasons that the US is the most prosperous economy in history is that we have the most established and, in fact, transparent markets that have ever existed. These markets give companies the ability to easily raise capital, expand their business, and (this one’s for you CAR!) hire more employees.

[Author]

Posts