Democrats propose "transaction tax" on financial transactions. (Poll)

[pknopp]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.

The altrnative to Trump was Xiden and the Dems....who are adding massively more then Trump and the GOP.

The Republicans had a long list of candidates in 2016 when they chose Trump. When a candidate does the opposite of what he promised they should loose support also.

Under Trump we had $8 trillion in debt. Trump supporters voted for more of that and now complain about the debt. The complaints fall on deaf ears.

The debt will always continue to rise until the largest drivers of debt are addressed...entitlements. Only one party, the GOP has attempted to address the issues.

Nobody is more entitled than the war machinery.

Seeing that the citizens can eat and or see a doctor when they need to, bad. Lying our way into wars with countries that do nothing to us, good.

I think most people voting for President...at least on the Conservative side, realize that a President can't do anything all on his own. So when a President promises to cut the debt, we know that he still has to deal with Congress. Trump did propose budget after budget that cut spending

The military is not, the largest driver of debt...entitlements are. That's a well known fact, and will continue to drive the debt until reformed. THe military budget is discretionary and can be cut and raised at will...entitlements are not.

There is nothing stopping a citizen from eating or seeing a doctor when they want to. Entitlements don't provide that right to people...they have always had it.

Many can not afford to see a doctor when they need to. It's kinda ironic how it's often times noted that those in the military often times have to rely on food stamps.

You want to take away the food stamps but still send them off to fight useless wars that benefit no one other than corporations.

If you live off base the military gives you an allowance for housing and meals.

Address the issue.

The Military and Food Stamps

You want to remove that while still sending them off to fight useless wars.

What makes you think I am in favor of any wars be they useless or not?

Because you refuse to demand they end. Because you argue with me when I say we need to do that.

How do you know what I refuse to do or not?

I have never been in favor of any war the US has been involved in since WWII.

And where have i argued with you about wars? If you want to tell me what i said then use the fucking quote function and stop making shit up

And yet you argue when I say cut the military. That was my position here. Why are you arguing with me as opposed to agreeing with me?

If you are going to tell me what I said USE THE FUCKING QUOTE FUNCTION.

I said nothing about cutting the military

I did and here you are still arguing with me.

you are making up statements and attributing them to me and you say I am arguing with you?

So if you want to tell me what I said

USE THE FUCKING QUOTE FUNCTION

Great, we agree we need to cut the size of the military and bring them home.

 

[struth]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.

The altrnative to Trump was Xiden and the Dems....who are adding massively more then Trump and the GOP.

The Republicans had a long list of candidates in 2016 when they chose Trump. When a candidate does the opposite of what he promised they should loose support also.

Under Trump we had $8 trillion in debt. Trump supporters voted for more of that and now complain about the debt. The complaints fall on deaf ears.

The debt will always continue to rise until the largest drivers of debt are addressed...entitlements. Only one party, the GOP has attempted to address the issues.

Nobody is more entitled than the war machinery.

Seeing that the citizens can eat and or see a doctor when they need to, bad. Lying our way into wars with countries that do nothing to us, good.

I think most people voting for President...at least on the Conservative side, realize that a President can't do anything all on his own. So when a President promises to cut the debt, we know that he still has to deal with Congress. Trump did propose budget after budget that cut spending

The military is not, the largest driver of debt...entitlements are. That's a well known fact, and will continue to drive the debt until reformed. THe military budget is discretionary and can be cut and raised at will...entitlements are not.

There is nothing stopping a citizen from eating or seeing a doctor when they want to. Entitlements don't provide that right to people...they have always had it.

Many can not afford to see a doctor when they need to. It's kinda ironic how it's often times noted that those in the military often times have to rely on food stamps.

You want to take away the food stamps but still send them off to fight useless wars that benefit no one other than corporations.

If you live off base the military gives you an allowance for housing and meals.

Address the issue.

The Military and Food Stamps

You want to remove that while still sending them off to fight useless wars.

What makes you think I am in favor of any wars be they useless or not?

Because you refuse to demand they end. Because you argue with me when I say we need to do that.

How do you know what I refuse to do or not?

I have never been in favor of any war the US has been involved in since WWII.

And where have i argued with you about wars? If you want to tell me what i said then use the fucking quote function and stop making shit up

And yet you argue when I say cut the military. That was my position here. Why are you arguing with me as opposed to agreeing with me?

If you are going to tell me what I said USE THE FUCKING QUOTE FUNCTION.

I said nothing about cutting the military

I did and here you are still arguing with me.

you are making up statements and attributing them to me and you say I am arguing with you?

So if you want to tell me what I said

USE THE FUCKING QUOTE FUNCTION

Great, we agree we need to cut the size of the military and bring them home.

No we don't...that's what I support...you however voted against Trump who was doing that, in favor of Xiden...the war monger and foreign policy disaster, who only wants to spend spend spend

 

[Nostra]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.

Why did you support and vote for Commie Stein, who ran on the Green New Deal, which would have cost $110 TRILLION. She offered no way to pay for it.

pknopp will keep dodging this.............

I explained this. Not my fault you ignored what I said.

Yeah, your explanation is that you were completely clueless as to what she ran on, yet still voted for her. You have told others (including me) that we have no standing on talking about debt because we have voted for people who have no plan to end the debt. You voted for a clown who ran on racking up $110 TRILLION in debt, you raving lunatic!

What an idiot.

 

[struth]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.

Why did you support and vote for Commie Stein, who ran on the Green New Deal, which would have cost $110 TRILLION. She offered no way to pay for it.

pknopp will keep dodging this.............

I explained this. Not my fault you ignored what I said.

Yeah, your explanation is that you were completely clueless as to what she ran on, yet still voted for her. You have told others (including me) that we have no standing on talking about debt because we have voted for people who have no plan to end the debt. You voted for a clown who ran on racking up $110 TRILLION in debt, you raving lunatic!

What an idiot.

Yep....it was the heart of Dr. Stein's freaking campaign! The Dems have merely copied her plan....

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

I never thought that I'd ever be on the same side as Ilhan Omar, but here we are.
I support the proposed transaction tax. It will hit the high-speed traders more than me or other "buy and hold" investors.

The argument against it is that high-speed traders will just move off-shore to do their trades, fine.
They are nothing but leeches stealing our 401k investments.

Senate Democrats reintroduce bill to create financial transaction tax

A group of Democratic senators on Thursday reintroduced legislation to create a financial transaction tax, arguing that such a tax would help to reduce economic inequality.The bill would establish …

thehill.com

Congress wants to tax stock trades. Investors shouldn't fret. | Brookings

Aaron Klein makes the case for a financial transaction tax.

www.brookings.edu

"This (transaction tax) makes financial markets fairer and possibly less volatile. As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society. HFTs account for roughly half all stock trades and much of their business model would be threatened by the proposed transactions tax.
Under current law, someone selling or buying $1,000 of stock pays just over two cents in transaction taxes. This existing fee raises over $1.5 billion per year. The proposal would add a tax of $1 to that transaction."

I suggested this on a British forum after the financial crisis and everybody laughed and then recently on here to similar disdain. It was considered by the EU but needed international backing but the US was dead against it.

Just a 0.10% levy on all profitable transactions would wipe out all countries' deficits within a year. If you join a gambling website like Betfair (which trading on the stock exchange basically is) you are required to pay 5% commission so why should the stock exchange be exempt?

Objections are just the usual dumb ideologically based right-wing "we should live our lives free of charge" attitude.

 

[Nostra]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.

Why did you support and vote for Commie Stein, who ran on the Green New Deal, which would have cost $110 TRILLION. She offered no way to pay for it.

pknopp will keep dodging this.............

I explained this. Not my fault you ignored what I said.

Yeah, your explanation is that you were completely clueless as to what she ran on, yet still voted for her. You have told others (including me) that we have no standing on talking about debt because we have voted for people who have no plan to end the debt. You voted for a clown who ran on racking up $110 TRILLION in debt, you raving lunatic!

What an idiot.

Yep....it was the heart of Dr. Stein's freaking campaign! The Dems have merely copied her plan....

Yep. And pknopp thinks he can look down on others for voting for people who didn't have a plan to eliminate the debt.

Fucking idiot.

 

[pknopp]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.

Why did you support and vote for Commie Stein, who ran on the Green New Deal, which would have cost $110 TRILLION. She offered no way to pay for it.

pknopp will keep dodging this.............

I explained this. Not my fault you ignored what I said.

Yeah, your explanation is that you were completely clueless as to what she ran on, yet still voted for her.

I noted I voted for her because she was willing to get arrested over her beliefs. I respect that. Any third party politician would have been a better choice than Trump or Hillary.

You have told others (including me) that we have no standing on talking about debt because we have voted for people who have no plan to end the debt. You voted for a clown who ran on racking up $110 TRILLION in debt, you raving lunatic!

What an idiot.

Nobody I voted for has added a penny to the debt.

 

[Nostra]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.

Why did you support and vote for Commie Stein, who ran on the Green New Deal, which would have cost $110 TRILLION. She offered no way to pay for it.

pknopp will keep dodging this.............

I explained this. Not my fault you ignored what I said.

Yeah, your explanation is that you were completely clueless as to what she ran on, yet still voted for her.

I noted I voted for her because she was willing to get arrested over her beliefs. I respect that. Any third party politician would have been a better choice than Trump or Hillary.

You have told others (including me) that we have no standing on talking about debt because we have voted for people who have no plan to end the debt. You voted for a clown who ran on racking up $110 TRILLION in debt, you raving lunatic!

What an idiot.

Nobody I voted for has added a penny to the debt.

So? Voting for her because she has no problem breaking laws doesn't change the fact you should STFU about who someone else voted for because of positions on the debt.

Moron.

 

[Nostra]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.

Why did you support and vote for Commie Stein, who ran on the Green New Deal, which would have cost $110 TRILLION. She offered no way to pay for it.

pknopp will keep dodging this.............

I explained this. Not my fault you ignored what I said.

Yeah, your explanation is that you were completely clueless as to what she ran on, yet still voted for her.

I noted I voted for her because she was willing to get arrested over her beliefs. I respect that. Any third party politician would have been a better choice than Trump or Hillary.

You have told others (including me) that we have no standing on talking about debt because we have voted for people who have no plan to end the debt. You voted for a clown who ran on racking up $110 TRILLION in debt, you raving lunatic!

What an idiot.

Nobody I voted for has added a penny to the debt.

Nobody I voted for has added a penny to the debt.

More lies by you. Link us up to Bob Barr never voting for any spending bill.

GO!

ETA: He voted for the Iraq War. Did that not run up some debt pknopp

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I agree

Right now the super wealthy are only taxed on their income. They are clever enough not to claim income. We cannot touch their wealth.
A small fee on transactions (like a sales tax) will open up their wealth to taxation

It is not the super wealthy that do day trading.
Sure they take part in it, but only to a small degree.

They don't have to. They have computers to do their trading.

And??
I use computers to trade. I am certainly not super wealthy.
In fact, you can't trade without computers.
Every time I buy a stock, I install what is called a "stop loss".
So let's say I buy a stock @ $30/share. I believe it will go up, but it mat not. It may in fact lose.
So I will set an automatic stop/loss at say $28.50 to protect myself.
With a transaction tax, I would still pay taxes even though I loss.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just a 0.10% levy on all profitable transactions would wipe out all countries' deficits within a year.

Just the profitable ones? On the purchase cost or the sale cost?

How much would be raised?

 

[pknopp]

I agree

Right now the super wealthy are only taxed on their income. They are clever enough not to claim income. We cannot touch their wealth.
A small fee on transactions (like a sales tax) will open up their wealth to taxation

It is not the super wealthy that do day trading.
Sure they take part in it, but only to a small degree.

They don't have to. They have computers to do their trading.

And??
I use computers to trade.

Use computers to trade. Have computers to do their trades. Two different things.

 

[Esdraelon]

OMG
These fuckin loons will tax orgasms if they could.
Goddamn authoritarians!

You prefer just giving money away and adding to the debt?

Trump's Road to Socialism | Tho Bishop

No

So what we have here is a proposal to start paying for things and you are still against that?

I'm just curious... we're at nearly 30 TRILLION in red ink. We're spending around 1-2 T$ more PER YEAR. You folks HAVE to understand that we're facing an economic collapse in the NEAR term, yeah? If not, can you explain how we avoid it?

 

[Mac-7]

Why is it the government's responsibility to choose which farming businesses stay solvent?

Because the American people demand food security

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Use computers to trade. Have computers to do their trades. Two different things.

No it isn't.
I also employ automatic buys... that $30/share again... I have been watching it, it is now at $29.80.... I think it will go lower, but I can't sit and watch it all day. So I set an autobuy at say $28..if/when it gets there - a computer automatically buys it. It may also automatically sell it later if I set a stop/loss in that buy.
You can also set price sells. Let's say I believe it will only get to $33 before bears start selling it off.
So for me, two trades happened automatically. And I would have to pay the government two sets of taxes on one set of income.

As someone else said here - this is just another example of the corporate Democrats protecting the interest of the wealthy while screwing the middle class.
It is the WEALTHY that are complaining about stock instability. They want to be the only ones to manipulate the markets. And are employing the Democrats to help them do it.

 

[struth]

Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?

Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE

Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.

Why did you support and vote for Commie Stein, who ran on the Green New Deal, which would have cost $110 TRILLION. She offered no way to pay for it.

pknopp will keep dodging this.............

I explained this. Not my fault you ignored what I said.

Yeah, your explanation is that you were completely clueless as to what she ran on, yet still voted for her.

I noted I voted for her because she was willing to get arrested over her beliefs. I respect that. Any third party politician would have been a better choice than Trump or Hillary.

You have told others (including me) that we have no standing on talking about debt because we have voted for people who have no plan to end the debt. You voted for a clown who ran on racking up $110 TRILLION in debt, you raving lunatic!

What an idiot.

Nobody I voted for has added a penny to the debt.

1) So you voted for someone willing to add trillions to the debt, and massively increase the scope and role of Govt in the private sector....because they were willing to get arrested for that?

really...throws a giant wrench in your "libertarian" gimmick

2) Bob Barr never voted for anything that raised the debt? Okkk....

What's worse is you openly voted for Stein....who WANTED TO MASSIVELY INCREASE the debt.....it was the hallmark of her campaign...and you supported that.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Just a 0.10% levy on all profitable transactions would wipe out all countries' deficits within a year.

Just the profitable ones? On the purchase cost or the sale cost?

How much would be raised?

On the actual profit made.
Trillions would be raised per annum although the figures I saw back in 2008 would have substantially increased.

It won't be wars that bring down the western developed nations, it will be debt just as it brought down the soviet union. History will repeat itself and reverse itself with Communist China ready to pick up the pieces.

 

[kyzr]

3. When we buy a stock the money transfers to the company.

Are here's the root of your ignorance on the issue.

You think that every buy or sale of IBM stock has IBM as the counterparty.

I don't care who sells the stock, my point is that it takes 3-days for money to transfer for normal buys and sells. See link below.
So how is it that HFTs can buy and sell stocks in microseconds? The SEC appears to be enabling the HFTs theft?!

How Long for Funds to Clear After Selling Stocks?

The Securities and Exchange Commission has specific rules concerning how long it takes for the sale of stock to become official and the funds made available. The current rules call for a three-day settlement, which means it will take at least three days from the time you sell stock until the...

finance.zacks.com

"The Securities and Exchange Commission has specific rules concerning how long it takes for the sale of stock to become official and the funds made available. The current rules call for a three-day settlement, which means it will take at least three days from the time you sell stock until the money is available."

 

[kyzr]

I never thought that I'd ever be on the same side as Ilhan Omar, but here we are.
I support the proposed transaction tax. It will hit the high-speed traders more than me or other "buy and hold" investors.

The argument against it is that high-speed traders will just move off-shore to do their trades, fine.
They are nothing but leeches stealing our 401k investments.

Senate Democrats reintroduce bill to create financial transaction tax

A group of Democratic senators on Thursday reintroduced legislation to create a financial transaction tax, arguing that such a tax would help to reduce economic inequality.The bill would establish …

thehill.com

Congress wants to tax stock trades. Investors shouldn't fret. | Brookings

Aaron Klein makes the case for a financial transaction tax.

www.brookings.edu

"This (transaction tax) makes financial markets fairer and possibly less volatile. As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society. HFTs account for roughly half all stock trades and much of their business model would be threatened by the proposed transactions tax.
Under current law, someone selling or buying $1,000 of stock pays just over two cents in transaction taxes. This existing fee raises over $1.5 billion per year. The proposal would add a tax of $1 to that transaction."

I suggested this on a British forum after the financial crisis and everybody laughed and then recently on here to similar disdain. It was considered by the EU but needed international backing but the US was dead against it.

Just a 0.10% levy on all profitable transactions would wipe out all countries' deficits within a year. If you join a gambling website like Betfair (which trading on the stock exchange basically is) you are required to pay 5% commission so why should the stock exchange be exempt?

Objections are just the usual dumb ideologically based right-wing "we should live our lives free of charge" attitude.

As Bruce Willis said in "Die Hard" "Welcome to the party!".
We're outnumbered, so reply to anyone who opposes the transaction tax.

 

[kyzr]

Investors buy and hold stock in a company to provide CAPITAL to grow the company.
HFTs use computers to buy/sell in microseconds stealing that CAPITAL.

So if I place an order to buy 10,000 shares of GE, HFTs are stealing
capital from GE or stealing capital from me?

Feel free to explain either scenario that applies.

The HFT computers know how to steal money from investors, its what they do, its all they do.

You seem to be coming from the "zero-sum-game" theory of economics. Not every gain implies someone else's loss.

IMHO when investors buy stocks, and HFTs remove some of that capital via computerized algorithms, that money they removed hurts investors' 401Ks. HFTs make no products, and provide no services, they just rake in investor's cash.

How are they removing it? They are buying it with money, (capitol), and then reselling it, where someone else is buying it with more capitol

People buy stock as an investment, betting that the company will use the money to grow over time.
HFTs buy and sell stock in microseconds using computers to steal the other people's investment.
See the difference? Investors vs thieves.

you have let to explain why it's thief when they are in fact buying, with money, something for sale, and then selling it for money in return.

People buy stocks to make money, some long term, some short term...not sure why you think you have the right to tell people they can't purchase something, or sell their property....and frankly support a tax on people simply doing that.

This tax is going to do nothing but hurt the working class. Sad you support that

1. You're not getting that HFTs are not "buying and selling" anything. Its all computerized theft done in microseconds.
2. In post #446 I'm proposing that instead of a "transaction tax" that a new law that requires a 48-hr holding period before the stock could be sold. This way money actually transfers back and forth to the company, and then back to the HFTs. Instead of computerized theft in microseconds.
3. Its a matter of fairness. Our 401Ks don't buy/sell in microseconds. Our money stays invested, the HFTs don't "invest" they just steal.
4. You are not taking into account that the money HFTs steal would be returned to investors. The tax won't be noticed by most investors.

It is not theft it is a purchase and a sale it doesn't matter how quickly it's done

So why don't you tell me how much was "stolen" from your portfolio because someone mad e a purchase and a sale in less than a second?

1. Its NOT a purchase/sale if no money changes hands, its computerized theft. Thats why a 48-hr holding period works too.
2. You can lookup how much HFTs made in the last 20-years. That is money that should be in our 401Ks.

1) of course money changes hands...it might be fast, but it happens. You can't sell something you don't have ownership interest in, and nobody is going to sell you a stock without getting paid.
2) that's just silly...you want Govt to now come in and tell people they have to have a waiting period to sell something? What if there is a massive downturn within that period due to whatever.,..all you are going to do is screw the little guy that has most of his saving tied up in the market.
3) you can always invest in otherways, and more then one way then just a 401K. Fairness? I don'tthink it's fair I don't get a 401K because I am self employed. So why don't we just do away with 401Ks? And your employer can't match you. K? That seems fair
4) hahah that's complete BS...the investors will be the ones taxed on their transactions...it's going to hit investors directly.

1) already addressed
2) what in the world are you talking about? Why should that be in your 401K? when someone else makes money buying and selling something, that's not money that should be yours. You do realize that 401Ks are but one, of many many different tools and ways to invest in the market right?

How can money change hands in microseconds? Bullshit.
Here is an SEC rule for us, it takes three fucking days for our buys/sells to become "official".
So how the fuck can HFTs do them in microseconds?

How Long for Funds to Clear After Selling Stocks?

The Securities and Exchange Commission has specific rules concerning how long it takes for the sale of stock to become official and the funds made available. The current rules call for a three-day settlement, which means it will take at least three days from the time you sell stock until the...

finance.zacks.com

The Securities and Exchange Commission has specific rules concerning how long it takes for the sale of stock to become official and the funds made available. The current rules call for a three-day settlement, which means it will take at least three days from the time you sell stock until the money is available.