1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today

H.R. 676, “The United States National Health Insurance Act,”
Or “Expanded & Improved Medicare For All”
Introduced by Rep. John Conyers, Jr.& Dennis Kucinich

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program

Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
Close corporate tax loopholes
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners

http://www.brightfuse.com/Groups/hr676-universal-health-care-



An active group with events pushing this idea can be found here.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
 
http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676faq

http://www.johnconyers.com/healthcare

These links might be of use. I think this bill has been floating around for a few years. I wonder if adding the transaction tax is something recent or if it has always been in the bill.

Looking back, it was there last year, only then it was 1/3 of a point. I guess the concern is: will they pass the bill now, and in it's present form? There are a lot of dems in congress these days.

The second link has lot's of info, including supporters.
 
An idea to use when replying to the pro-tax crowd is that the billions of dollars collected is money that would have gone into a US Company's stock but is now being diverted to the US Government. It's pulling billions of dollars away from US Corporations at a time when they're laying off employees & are having a difficult enough time raising capital.

Also, the idea that many people including retirees have online brokerage accounts and they too will get penalized, not just the hyperactive daytraders like us.
 
Quote from seasideheights:



Proposed Funding For USNHI Program

Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
Close corporate tax loopholes
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners

More...


By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.

Look at how much we pay now.


The state of the economy during the Great Depression led to passage of the Social Security Act in 1935. This law provided payments known as "unemployment compensation" to workers who lost their jobs. Other sections of the Act gave public aid to the aged, the needy, the handicapped, and to certain minors. These programs were financed by a 2 percent tax, one half of which was subtracted directly from an employee's paycheck and one half collected from employers on the employee's behalf. The tax was levied on the first $3,000 of the employee's salary or wage..................

Look at how much we pay now.


1/4 percent trans tax. Why not make it an even 10 percent since it's so harmless.

Pigs at the trough.
 
Quote from wjk:

I wouldn't be surprised if similar motives were behind the PDT rules, even at the expense of the brokers.
More...

Almost every single legislation since the daytrader boom of the late 1990s was because the Wall Street elites did not like the new competition from the little guy. The one I thought was most clever was decimalization, which had more than one purpose.


My question is a simple one. Why don't those who wish us little guys out of the game, for whatever reasons, use their lobby power and just have us legislated out? Why even fool with a tax?
More...

Can't do that, need to keep up the illussion of fair opportunity and all that jazz.


I agree with you about the barriers, but it is about the revenue as well. We're talking dem control. The mistake they make is in their lust for tax revenue (congress), they fail to see that this type of tax will hurt their cause in the end.
More...

Once again, you are deluding yourself if you think tax revenue is the reason. Plenty of better ways to generate tax revenue. The well paid useful idiots who are promoting this tax may actually think there is some revenue, but those truly behind it know that it is a net loss in taxes.
If the Federal government truly wanted to generate tax revenue from daytraders, they would take over SEC and SEC fees, maybe raise them a little.

For myself, if they pass the tax, I'll just trade 1000 shares of 1 dollar listed and nasdaq stocks. Round trip...5 bucks tax. No shortage of cheap stocks to trade in this market.
More...

If the 1 dollar stocks were so good for profits, you all would have been trading them already. With daytraders flocking to the same thing you propose, it will only get worse.
I'm said it for a while, move on, the writing is not just on the wall, it's in your face.
 
Quote from seasideheights:

H.R. 676, “The United States National Health Insurance Act,”
Or “Expanded & Improved Medicare For All”
Introduced by Rep. John Conyers, Jr.& Dennis Kucinich

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program

Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
Close corporate tax loopholes
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners

http://www.brightfuse.com/Groups/hr676-universal-health-care-



An active group with events pushing this idea can be found here.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
More...

So now they want a transaction tax to fund Universal Healthcare and pay for the bailout (LOL). Are these dems nuts or what? I don't think a Universal Healthcare bill will pass (now) but what the hell? Are they going to tact on the tranny tax to every bill that comes along now?

Let's just hope the powers that be stop this thing dead in it's tracks (if it comes to that). I still think we're safe...


-Guru
 
i have said it once and i will say it again, if you are trading for yourself from home with no affilation with a b/d pure retail there may be cause for concern. my advice get affiliated with a b/d who is a member of either the nyse, cboe, cbot, phlx, any exchange. those are where the exemptions will come from. trading at home for ibkr as a retail guy aint gonna cut it if this is passed. i do not know for sure but i think some firms dont require you to have a registration although it obviously wouldnt hurt either. by the way echotrade has recently been in contact with the uk and their setup with the london stock exchange, i believe you can trade through real tick, still a very gray area but opportunites are mounting over there. oh and stamp tax is a non issue because by trading through this group you are trading through a member firm who is a member of the lse.
 
Quote from Anaconda:



Once again, you are deluding yourself if you think tax revenue is the reason. Plenty of better ways to generate tax revenue. The well paid useful idiots who are promoting this tax may actually think there is some revenue, but those truly behind it know that it is a net loss in taxes.
More...

No, I am not deluding myself. I agreed with you about your theory. But those who are behind this also know that the left is the political spectrum to use to achieve this. Reason: because they(congress) think they will raise revenue by it. HR676 is the perfect example. They don't look far enough into the equation to see if it will actually work or not. They probably don't even care. Most of them don't read half the shit they vote on.

The only thing I don't agree with you on is the number in congress that actually believe such a tax will raise revenue. I think many more than a few would fall into the well paid category you mentioned. And for that reason, I also agree with you about the writing on the wall.
 
Quote from wjk:

No, I am not deluding myself. I agreed with you about your theory. But those who are behind this also know that the left is the political spectrum to use to achieve this. Reason: because they think they will raise revenue by it. HR676 is the perfect example. They don't look far enough into the equation to see if it will actually work or not. They probably don't even care. Most of them don't read half the shit they vote on.
More...

The wellpaid useful idiots simply assume and follow the groupthink. Taxes on speculators = good is generally what they believe because that is what the public quickly believes.
The way I see it, the tax has two purposes:
1) Appeasement to the masses
2) Attack on the litle guy trader

If you see how much Goldman, Merrill, JPM, etc lobby and contribute aka pay of the government, you will know that they are definitely behind this as it will benefit them. There is no way this transaction tax would even get any media attention, let alone make headways in Congress if Wall Street did not like it.


The only thing I don't agree with you on is the number in congress that actually believe such a tax will raise revenue. I think many more than a few would fall into the well paid category you mentioned.
More...

That is generally how it works. The real questions is how many are useful idiots versus corrupt & pretending.
I'm also talking about the journalists who are pushing this. Most of them just follow & believe the line of thinking promoted onto them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top