Reduce the debt one transaction at a time

[Skull Pilot]

Spitzer

Here is the idea: A tax of less than half a percent on every $100 of stock sales or sales of other financial instruments including bonds, derivatives, and options. The tax could raise anywhere from $170 billion to $350 billion per year depending how it was applied. Extend that over 10 years, and we are raising almost what the White House and Republicans agree needs to be raised in order to accomplish the objectives of a grand bargain.

But there is an added benefit here: Trading in the equity and debt markets has gone wild over the past few years. High-speed trading and speculation have overtaken the economically legitimate reasons for our desire to have highly liquid markets: the capacity to raise capital and then allocate it efficiently among sectors and companies. The trading that has emerged over the past few years is not serving that purpose—it is a casino enterprise driven by hidden pools and computer algorithms that do not seek to hold capital for longer than an instant.

We are all used to paying a sales tax when we buy things—almost 9 percent here in New York City. The application of this concept to the financial sector could solve our need for revenue, bring some sanity back into the financial sector, and give us a way to raise the revenue we need to run the government in a fiscally responsible way. Maybe this is the old idea that we need folks in D.C. to pay attention to again.

Will that apply to everyone who buys stocks and mutual funds for their IRAs and retirement plans too?

 

[rightwinger]

cause I don't dew stocks.

In buying stocks you are buying part of a company. Same as with commodities

If the kid buying $200 Nikes pays $18 in tax what is wrong with the guy buying $200 in stock paying a $1 sales tax?

The $18 tax does not reduce the intrinsic value of the sneakers. A tax on a transaction of financial instruments does. Also think of it as the sneakers being taxed every time they are put on, not just when bought.

Sure it does
You are forced to pay $218 for $200 sneakers

You don't pay sales tax on sneakers everytime you put them on, only every time you sell them

Question: If you pay a sales commission on that $200 stock purchase, what is so foreign about paying a small additional tax?

 

[martybegan]

In buying stocks you are buying part of a company. Same as with commodities

If the kid buying $200 Nikes pays $18 in tax what is wrong with the guy buying $200 in stock paying a $1 sales tax?

The $18 tax does not reduce the intrinsic value of the sneakers. A tax on a transaction of financial instruments does. Also think of it as the sneakers being taxed every time they are put on, not just when bought.

Sure it does
You are forced to pay $218 for $200 sneakers

You don't pay sales tax on sneakers everytime you put them on, only every time you sell them

Question: If you pay a sales commission on that $200 stock purchase, what is so foreign about paying a small additional tax?

you are Not getting it. Financial instruments may be meant to be traded, alot. So every time you trade you dock more value off of the instrument, because each party selling or buying it it has to take into account the cost of doing the trade. Sneakers dont get sold over and over again, stocks do. their value is tied to thier tradeability, so any impediment to thier trading lowers thier value.

Do you want to create a stock market crash?

 

[DiamondDave]

In buying stocks you are buying part of a company. Same as with commodities

If the kid buying $200 Nikes pays $18 in tax what is wrong with the guy buying $200 in stock paying a $1 sales tax?

The $18 tax does not reduce the intrinsic value of the sneakers. A tax on a transaction of financial instruments does. Also think of it as the sneakers being taxed every time they are put on, not just when bought.

Sure it does
You are forced to pay $218 for $200 sneakers

You don't pay sales tax on sneakers everytime you put them on, only every time you sell them

Question: If you pay a sales commission on that $200 stock purchase, what is so foreign about paying a small additional tax?

Because you want more tax for more spending or already extraordinary spending

JUST CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING AND STOP TAXING MORE AND MORE

 

[Freemason9]

Utter fucking nonsense... never do these progressive Socialists EVER consider spending less... except on the military.

They take $1 and spend $3.. then they need $2 so they can spend $4.

You see? There's the problem. You guys whine about oppressive govenment, and then you want to give the "defense" agencies blank checks.

That's inviting a police state.

That is NOT what I said.... I can at least acknowledge there is waste in the defense budget as well as everywhere else. The libs see waste only in the defense budget. The mere mention of reforming entitlements and other wasteful/needless programs sends them into apoplectic shock.

I know that a GIANT component of our federal budget is consumed by defense spending and many, many various "security" components. I see at least a $400 billion savings potential there. And, FWIW, I also strongly object to many entitlements--including Social Security Disability Insurance (which is greatly abused), Aid to Dependent Children (I believe poor people should not have children), and farm subsidies (talk about entitlements!).

However--you should be prepared if you jerk the "safety net" away from America's vast throngs of the impoverished underclasses. They will be angry. What do you propose to do about the masses of starving, homeless, rioting looters? Build more prison camps? Concentration camps?

Without good paying jobs, the problem just gets worse.

Any solution that is workable needs to be a complete solution. You can't just jerk billions of dollars away from the impoverished masses and expect no ramifications.

This is not a simple, trivial issue. Aristocracies tend to be overthrown if they are too inhumane towards the masses. And, sooner or later, Americans will understand that they have become debt slaves to their owners. They may not like that.

 

[occupied]

Been in favor of this for years, if nothing else it will destroy the terrible practice of high frequency trading by the big brokerages.

 

[DiamondDave]

Been in favor of this for years, if nothing else it will destroy the terrible practice of high frequency trading by the big brokerages.

Because you and ones like you must continually infringe on the freedom of others... well, unless it is a freedom you like or that benefits you

 

[rightwinger]

The $18 tax does not reduce the intrinsic value of the sneakers. A tax on a transaction of financial instruments does. Also think of it as the sneakers being taxed every time they are put on, not just when bought.

Sure it does
You are forced to pay $218 for $200 sneakers

You don't pay sales tax on sneakers everytime you put them on, only every time you sell them

Question: If you pay a sales commission on that $200 stock purchase, what is so foreign about paying a small additional tax?

you are Not getting it. Financial instruments may be meant to be traded, alot. So every time you trade you dock more value off of the instrument, because each party selling or buying it it has to take into account the cost of doing the trade. Sneakers dont get sold over and over again, stocks do. their value is tied to thier tradeability, so any impediment to thier trading lowers thier value.

Do you want to create a stock market crash?

Are there brokerage commissions on every one of those transactions?

Do they crash the market?

 

[Freemason9]

Been in favor of this for years, if nothing else it will destroy the terrible practice of high frequency trading by the big brokerages.

Because you and ones like you must continually infringe on the freedom of others... well, unless it is a freedom you like or that benefits you

Uh, I don't think that manipulation of financial markets qualifies as a constitutional right. I mean, would you consider usury laws as an "infringement" upon freedoms? Hell, freedom doesn't imply you can just fuck about in any manner you see as personally beneficial.

 

[kwc57]

Ya know, most of the Indian tribes here in Oklahoma have casinos and are making money hand over fist. They are soveriegn nations, so the liberals can't get their hands on that money very easily. Perhaps Obama could nationalize Las Vegas and all of our problems would be solved.

 

[ba1614]

Ya know, most of the Indian tribes here in Oklahoma have casinos and are making money hand over fist. They are soveriegn nations, so the liberals can't get their hands on that money very easily. Perhaps Obama could nationalize Las Vegas and all of our problems would be solved.

Don't give him any ideas.

 

[rightwinger]

Ya know, most of the Indian tribes here in Oklahoma have casinos and are making money hand over fist. They are soveriegn nations, so the liberals can't get their hands on that money very easily. Perhaps Obama could nationalize Las Vegas and all of our problems would be solved.

Vegas sucks

Have government run national sports betting on NFL games. The Superbowl alone will balance the budget

 

[occupied]

Been in favor of this for years, if nothing else it will destroy the terrible practice of high frequency trading by the big brokerages.

Because you and ones like you must continually infringe on the freedom of others... well, unless it is a freedom you like or that benefits you

If high frequency trading/skimming off the top of the markets is freedom then it's too much freedom. After your comment I am not even sure you know what the hell you are defending.

 

[KissMy]

That would definitely take care of the computerized high frequency front running trading problem plaguing this country.

I would even like to see a half a cent tax on emails. It would really hit those spammers hard. It would kill those 200+ spam emails I have to go through every day. Hell I email less than 100 a month. That would cost me less than $5 a year. That is one tax I would be happy to pay.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Authoritarians are so creative!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Been in favor of this for years, if nothing else it will destroy the terrible practice of high frequency trading by the big brokerages.

There's already a penalty for that with a two tiered capital gains tax so why do you want more punishment?

 

[occupied]

Been in favor of this for years, if nothing else it will destroy the terrible practice of high frequency trading by the big brokerages.

There's already a penalty for that with a two tiered capital gains tax so why do you want more punishment?

I don't want a penalty, I want it to stop along with all the other scams by the big brokerage houses that do nothing but suck liquidity from the markets and money from the economy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Been in favor of this for years, if nothing else it will destroy the terrible practice of high frequency trading by the big brokerages.

Because you and ones like you must continually infringe on the freedom of others... well, unless it is a freedom you like or that benefits you

If high frequency trading/skimming off the top of the markets is freedom then it's too much freedom. After your comment I am not even sure you know what the hell you are defending.

So again.. freedoms you like and freedoms that benefit you are ok... got it... all others, fuck 'em

I am defending both the positives and negatives of freedom... all aspects that comes with it.. unlike you who seems to want to pick and choose freedoms subjectively for some

 

[DiamondDave]

Ya know, most of the Indian tribes here in Oklahoma have casinos and are making money hand over fist. They are soveriegn nations, so the liberals can't get their hands on that money very easily. Perhaps Obama could nationalize Las Vegas and all of our problems would be solved.

Vegas sucks

Have government run national sports betting on NFL games. The Superbowl alone will balance the budget

Support for yet another government tentacle.... Stalin would be proud

 

[Freemason9]

Because you and ones like you must continually infringe on the freedom of others... well, unless it is a freedom you like or that benefits you

If high frequency trading/skimming off the top of the markets is freedom then it's too much freedom. After your comment I am not even sure you know what the hell you are defending.

So again.. freedoms you like and freedoms that benefit you are ok... got it... all others, fuck 'em

I am defending both the positives and negatives of freedom... all aspects that comes with it.. unlike you who seems to want to pick and choose freedoms subjectively for some

"Freedom" is basically a handy bit of rhetoric for propagandists. Surely you don't support ALL freedoms, though . . . such as the freedom to murder, rape, loot, shit on your neighbor's porch, pick your nose in public, etc., etc.

And in the end, you should remember that true freedom is another way of saying that you have nothing left to lose.

Death is the only true freedom we experience. Living involves rules and compliance. Get used to it.