A painless way to solve our growing debt:

[Wry Catcher]

CrusaderFrank chastised me for calling others stupid. I always take his suggesting to heart, or the colon. In this case let me say your post is ridiculous, an echo and thoughtless.

At least my post had a point beyond disparagement.

How about responding to the op with a substantive remark?

I made perfectly legitimate and concise response. Audit and shrink government. Deal with that.

I have! Now explain how that impacts the economy, unemployment and the deficit. Do you really think cutting jobs or entitlements are free? The Federal Government MAY benefit some, but a I doubt it; yet, every state, county, parish, city and town, school district and special district will suffer.

Every necessary job the gov attempts can be done more efficiently in the private sector. Every gov job that is cut frees up that much more money for the private sector and that freed money grows.

Bullshit.

Bridges and tunnels are major projects planned by governments and put out to bid. Private sector companies bid on the project and generally come in over budget and rarely on time.

I was involved in the planning and building of a jail, the private sector is no better and sometimes much worse than public sector in planning and competing projects.

Light rail, commuter rail, buses and street cars are examples of public and private collaborations, and just a few of many types of projects.

Knock of the bullshit, it's not credible with those of us who have experience working on major projects.

 

[hortysir]

tax the purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.

See and read:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/a-sales-tax-on-wall-street-transactions/?_r=0

Now vote:

How about taxing all purchases? Equally, at the same rate?

Why should some pay more than others?

Some pay more than others now. Do you want those who have no money to invest to pay taxes on milk and bread? Is that what you are suggesting?

The more money you make, the more stuff you buy, the more taxes you pay.

Do you have facts to prove your assertion?

Not an assertion
A proposal
A flat consumption tax

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

At least my post had a point beyond disparagement.

How about responding to the op with a substantive remark?

I made perfectly legitimate and concise response. Audit and shrink government. Deal with that.

I have! Now explain how that impacts the economy, unemployment and the deficit. Do you really think cutting jobs or entitlements are free? The Federal Government MAY benefit some, but a I doubt it; yet, every state, county, parish, city and town, school district and special district will suffer.

Every necessary job the gov attempts can be done more efficiently in the private sector. Every gov job that is cut frees up that much more money for the private sector and that freed money grows.

Bullshit.

Bridges and tunnels are major projects planned by governments and put out to bid. Private sector companies bid on the project and generally come in over budget and rarely on time.

I was involved in the planning and building of a jail, the private sector is no better and sometimes much worse than public sector in planning and competing projects.

Light rail, commuter rail, buses and street cars are examples of public and private collaborations, and just a few of many types of projects.

Knock of the bullshit, it's not credible with those of us who have experience working on major projects.

You conveniently pick the most rudimentary and staple of gov jobs. That's a fraction of the waste and still gets less than it needs.
I'm talking about the employees of the department of the redundancy department, etc.

 

[gipper]

Limit the fed gov to doing only what is specifically outlined in the Constitution. Eliminate the fed income tax. Reduce military spending dramatically. Close all foreign bases.

Leave everything else to the states.

Seems you object to Federalism and want to return to the 18th Century and the Articles of Confederation. I don't, and I suspect anyone with some knowledge of why the Articles where tossed under the bus agree with me and not you.

Yeah...because everyone knows the central government limits itself to performing only those things outlined in the Constitution.

 

[Mac1958]

tax the purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.

Ugh.

While my kneejerk reaction is to scream bloody murder, I can see this having merit as a way to not only raise funds but also to slow down the moderate and high frequency trading behaviors that can damage and distort markets.

I'd like to see what this would look like if different types of securities were treated differently. Derivatives, for example, might be taxed at a higher rate than mutual funds, stuff like that. And the "slippery slope" argument is definitely a fair one.

Ugh. I'd have to see a specific plan...
.

 

[Wry Catcher]

tax the purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.

Ugh.

While my kneejerk reaction is to scream bloody murder, I can see this having merit as a way to not only raise funds but also to slow down the moderate and high frequency trading behaviors that can damage and distort markets.

I'd like to see what this would look like if different types of securities were treated differently. Derivatives, for example, might be taxed at a higher rate than mutual funds, stuff like that. And the "slippery slope" argument is definitely a fair one.

Ugh. I'd have to see a specific plan...
.

Your sage comments are a start, to bad you're one of the few who thinks and does not emote.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Limit the fed gov to doing only what is specifically outlined in the Constitution. Eliminate the fed income tax. Reduce military spending dramatically. Close all foreign bases.

Leave everything else to the states.

Seems you object to Federalism and want to return to the 18th Century and the Articles of Confederation. I don't, and I suspect anyone with some knowledge of why the Articles where tossed under the bus agree with me and not you.

Yeah...because everyone knows the central government limits itself to performing only those things outlined in the Constitution.

The COTUS has too much ambiguity for anyone - including Justices of the Supreme Court - to agree on what is and what is not Constitutional. Only parrots who have no background in ConLaw and arrogant partisans claim to have such power.

 

[gipper]

Limit the fed gov to doing only what is specifically outlined in the Constitution. Eliminate the fed income tax. Reduce military spending dramatically. Close all foreign bases.

Leave everything else to the states.

Seems you object to Federalism and want to return to the 18th Century and the Articles of Confederation. I don't, and I suspect anyone with some knowledge of why the Articles where tossed under the bus agree with me and not you.

Yeah...because everyone knows the central government limits itself to performing only those things outlined in the Constitution.

The COTUS has too much ambiguity for anyone - including Justices of the Supreme Court - to agree on what is and what is not Constitutional. Only parrots who have no background in ConLaw and arrogant partisans claim to have such power.

Oh brother!

I suppose you THINK the Constitution is a LIVING document...

What you fail to comprehend is, if the power elite can make the Constitution mean anything they want, than it is meaningless...which it has become thanks to foolish people like you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Limit the fed gov to doing only what is specifically outlined in the Constitution. Eliminate the fed income tax. Reduce military spending dramatically. Close all foreign bases.

Leave everything else to the states.

Seems you object to Federalism and want to return to the 18th Century and the Articles of Confederation. I don't, and I suspect anyone with some knowledge of why the Articles where tossed under the bus agree with me and not you.

Yeah...because everyone knows the central government limits itself to performing only those things outlined in the Constitution.

The COTUS has too much ambiguity for anyone - including Justices of the Supreme Court - to agree on what is and what is not Constitutional. Only parrots who have no background in ConLaw and arrogant partisans claim to have such power.

Oh brother!

I suppose you THINK the Constitution is a LIVING document...

What you fail to comprehend is, if the power elite can make the Constitution mean anything they want, than it is meaningless...which it has become thanks to foolish people like you.

I've taken ConLaw, have you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've taken ConLaw, have you?

That's so -very- plain in any and every conversation you've ever had about gun control - especially those you run away from.

 

[2aguy]

At least my post had a point beyond disparagement.

How about responding to the op with a substantive remark?

I made perfectly legitimate and concise response. Audit and shrink government. Deal with that.

I have! Now explain how that impacts the economy, unemployment and the deficit. Do you really think cutting jobs or entitlements are free? The Federal Government MAY benefit some, but a I doubt it; yet, every state, county, parish, city and town, school district and special district will suffer.

Every necessary job the gov attempts can be done more efficiently in the private sector. Every gov job that is cut frees up that much more money for the private sector and that freed money grows.

Bullshit.

Bridges and tunnels are major projects planned by governments and put out to bid. Private sector companies bid on the project and generally come in over budget and rarely on time.

I was involved in the planning and building of a jail, the private sector is no better and sometimes much worse than public sector in planning and competing projects.

Light rail, commuter rail, buses and street cars are examples of public and private collaborations, and just a few of many types of projects.

Knock of the bullshit, it's not credible with those of us who have experience working on major projects.

You know what the problem with that equation with the prison was…..a private sector company working for the government….then you have no accountability. If the private sector company is working for another private sector company, the company that hired them has incentives to make sure the work is done on time, at cost and up to specification……the government is not accountable so they have no urgency to make sure the private sector company is doing what it was hired to do.

It is government that is the problem…again.

 

[2aguy]

tax the purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.

Ugh.

While my kneejerk reaction is to scream bloody murder, I can see this having merit as a way to not only raise funds but also to slow down the moderate and high frequency trading behaviors that can damage and distort markets.

I'd like to see what this would look like if different types of securities were treated differently. Derivatives, for example, might be taxed at a higher rate than mutual funds, stuff like that. And the "slippery slope" argument is definitely a fair one.

Ugh. I'd have to see a specific plan...
.

as much as you want to be accommodating…..our national debt is not a problem of not enough taxes bringing in not enough revenue….it has always been and will always be the government spending too much money.

Let's say you tax stocks, bonds and other financial instruments….and that tax money goes where…….to the very politicians who over spent us into 18 trillion dollars in debt..


The solution is not to come up with more ways to take money from the people who earned it…it is to find ways to limit the spending of the greedy, corrupt politicians who will always spend all the money you give them, and then spend even more you didn't give them….

 

[M14 Shooter]

as much as you want to be accommodating…..our national debt is not a problem of not enough taxes bringing in not enough revenue….it has always been and will always be the government spending too much money.

People like WC refuse to understand this - they believe that (non-defense) spending cannot be cut because doing so will be "too painful" foe someone.
It is impossible to meaningfully discuss a problem with someone who refuses to understand the problem.

 

[gipper]

Limit the fed gov to doing only what is specifically outlined in the Constitution. Eliminate the fed income tax. Reduce military spending dramatically. Close all foreign bases.

Leave everything else to the states.

Seems you object to Federalism and want to return to the 18th Century and the Articles of Confederation. I don't, and I suspect anyone with some knowledge of why the Articles where tossed under the bus agree with me and not you.

Yeah...because everyone knows the central government limits itself to performing only those things outlined in the Constitution.

The COTUS has too much ambiguity for anyone - including Justices of the Supreme Court - to agree on what is and what is not Constitutional. Only parrots who have no background in ConLaw and arrogant partisans claim to have such power.

Oh brother!

I suppose you THINK the Constitution is a LIVING document...

What you fail to comprehend is, if the power elite can make the Constitution mean anything they want, than it is meaningless...which it has become thanks to foolish people like you.

I've taken ConLaw, have you?

good for you. That may explain your complete and utter ignorance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I didn't say anything about percentages,

So you didn't even read the article you linked to.

Figures.

in fact my opinion is to charge a nominal fee for every transactions, big or small. Say .25 cents per purchase or sale.

The article links to a number of sources, this thread is about an idea, an idea to raise money to reduce the deficit and maybe the debt.

The fee could be structured to keep the hands of Congress off of the revenue and go directly to the repurchase of treasury bills.

This Communism rhetoric is bullshit; though I know nothing about the author, I find the idea intriguing and worthy of discussing. Doing nothing seems to be the plan of the current congress, and the right seems to feel only cutting health care, social security and other social benefits & harming the poor, aged and infirm is the best way to go.

You linked an article advocating a sales tax on all trades;

The Marxist kvnt starts with;

{Most of us pay state and local sales taxes on most things we buy, and most casino gambling is subject to state taxes ranging from up to 6.75 percent in Nevada to 55 percent on slot machines in Pennsylvania.}

Then supposedly moderates to;

{Further, a sales tax on Wall Street of 0.5 percent could raise up to $175 billion in tax revenue a year, even if, by discouraging frequent trades, it cuts the total number of transactions in half.}

But she is lying; as leftists do; Nevada and Pennsylvania tax the revenue of the casinos, not the bets.

What this Communist is doing, as advocating for an assault on the U.S. Economy with the purpose of destroying it - which has been the dream of the left since the days of Lenin.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What this Communist is doing, as advocating for an assault on the U.S. Economy with the purpose of destroying it - which has been the dream of the left since the days of Lenin.

Taxing stock transactions will result in money coming out of the market and moving to other investments.
Those that support this idea are either too dumb to see this, or have this as their goal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Taxing stock transactions will result in money coming out of the market and moving to other investments.
Those that support this idea are either too dumb to see this, or have this as their goal.

Realistically I agree. But even if this were not the case, diverting capital from ventures that build the economy, into the mindless maw of government is insane. I actually don't have a problem with a transaction fee - a fixed fee - imposed on trading in order to cool down some of the absurd and reactionary moves, but an actual sales tax is counterproductive to a healthy economy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Taxing stock transactions will result in money coming out of the market and moving to other investments.
Those that support this idea are either too dumb to see this, or have this as their goal.

Realistically I agree. But even if this were not the case, diverting capital from ventures that build the economy, into the mindless maw of government is insane. I actually don't have a problem with a transaction fee - a fixed fee - imposed on trading in order to cool down some of the absurd and reactionary moves, but an actual sales tax is counterproductive to a healthy economy.

Taxing investment serves to dis-incent and therefore diminish investment.
Why do liberals what to diminish investment?
-That- list is long.

 

[Wry Catcher]

5 Reasons the World Is Catching on to the Financial Transaction Tax

It's very hard to have a real discussion/debate on issues when the same jerks flood the thread calling serious posters idiots.

Trading Shares in Milliseconds | MIT Technology Review

Consider this from the above link, and how it impacts most investors:

"By the end of the day, his computers will have bought and sold about 60 million to 80 million shares, with the heaviest activity in the last hour of trading, from three to four in the afternoon. Tradeworx and similar firms around the country will race to close billions of bets that hinge on things like tiny differences between the prices of shares in an exchange-traded fund holding the S&P 500 and the individual shares that make up the same index. The profits go to the company with the fastest hardware and the best algorithms–advantages that enable it to spot and exploit subtle market patterns ahead of everyone else. At the end of a typical day, the Tradeworx high-speed business holds no shares at all. Come Monday, Narang will look to trade millions more shares. It seems like a lot, and it is, but Narang estimates that he’s probably only somewhere in the middle of the top 50 traders by volume."

If every trade, for example one share or 100, is charged a fee of .25 cents, an enormous amount of revenue can be captured reducing the debt and potentially stabilizing the market.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Taxing stock transactions will result in money coming out of the market and moving to other investments.
Those that support this idea are either too dumb to see this, or have this as their goal.

Realistically I agree. But even if this were not the case, diverting capital from ventures that build the economy, into the mindless maw of government is insane. I actually don't have a problem with a transaction fee - a fixed fee - imposed on trading in order to cool down some of the absurd and reactionary moves, but an actual sales tax is counterproductive to a healthy economy.

Taxing investment serves to dis-incent and therefore diminish investment.
Why do liberals what to diminish investment?
-That- list is long.

\
Please join the Neo Know Nothing Party, it's where you belong.