...........................................
What about actually taxing those actually responsible ?????
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/a-windfall-tax-for-goldman-sachs/?ref=business
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
...........................................
What about actually taxing those actually responsible ?????
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/a-windfall-tax-for-goldman-sachs/?ref=business
Quote from JOSEF:
We don't necessarily have to win in 2010. The key thing will be to get additional senate seats in 2010, thus being able to much easier enforce a filibuster. Nothing will happen as long as the senate refuses to go along with the House. And all you need to stop something in the senate is 41 senators. Currently we have 40. Last time I checked on intrade.com we are likely to have 44 Republican senators after the 2010 election. If that actually happens, and the GOP is actually against this tax (they have been suspiciously quiet), then we should be OK.
How many of the current Republicans senators are against this tax? Any Democrats likely join them in voting down this crazy tax?
Quote from libertad:
...........................................
What about actually taxing those actually responsible ?????
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/a-windfall-tax-for-goldman-sachs/?ref=business
GS was "responsible"? As I said above, this all started with the Community Reinvestment Act. The government. Are you going to tax politicians? How about all the irresponsible borrowers who got into loans they could not repay? I don't see the purpose in singling out one entity as "responsible". The got TARP funds (perhaps forced upon them). But they have repaid them.
OldTrader
Quote from OldTrader:
GS was "responsible"? As I said above, this all started with the Community Reinvestment Act. The government. Are you going to tax politicians? How about all the irresponsible borrowers who got into loans they could not repay? I don't see the purpose in singling out one entity as "responsible". The got TARP funds (perhaps forced upon them). But they have repaid them.
OldTrader
.................................................
Taxing politicians ?
US business is largely dis-functional because of politicians....
Why ?
Check their biographies....
Most politicians do not have the background in order to be qualified to make legal impositions....
This is a big big problem....
This is like a person reading a book about a subject overnight and making laws regarding the subject the next day....
This is not just plain wrong ....it is insanity....
And you are 1000% correct in your comments....
But GS did not pay back funds regarding AIG....They made a partial payment....And to date have been a major beneficiary....
Personally....I think the govt. should dramatically downsize and change the system altogether....
The tax structure should be changed to a 10/5 C tax only....no other taxes...
Absolutely no taxes of any kind on any class of securities....in the name of efficient capital....
And the Fed side should mostly be eliminated with the power given to state mandates ....which would be more manageable....and local....
96% of the ET voters favor a 10/5 C tax vs the Obama Pelosi Increasing Taxes Program..... (see poll)....
Quote from OldTrader:
GS was "responsible"? As I said above, this all started with the Community Reinvestment Act. The government. Are you going to tax politicians? How about all the irresponsible borrowers who got into loans they could not repay? I don't see the purpose in singling out one entity as "responsible". The got TARP funds (perhaps forced upon them). But they have repaid them.
OldTrader
Agreed. Banks are business entities and their main goal is to make profits. They are not government servants as the government wants them to be. If it succeeds to bring them under it's clout they'll stop being profitable. You can't have it both way: highly regulated and profitable.
Quote from leela:
How many of the current Republicans senators are against this tax? Any Democrats likely join them in voting down this crazy tax?
So far three Democrats in the House has said they are opposed to it. Schumer in the Senate has said he is against it. I have not heard anything from the Republicans on it.
Quote from cstfx:
Supportive (against, that is) piece in the NY Post this morning about this stupid tax:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/crippling_stox_trade_tax_is_dc_dopiest_FjTzc9yyV3vnSdTzdPyXsM
Comment section follows article.
The NY Post business section is quickly becoming our friend.
During Thanksgiving Weekend, they discussed the furor with Cramer's position, then another story 3 days later about what they termed his "flip flop", and now today with this anti-tax piece that they printed in their business section.
It's positive that it's a general purpose newspaper that gets non-trader, general public, readers. 3 stories about our view in 2 weeks. Not bad.
Does anyone know "Jonathon Trugman" who wrote today's piece? The article says NY Based Investment Manager. A few google searches later it appears he's the founder of Pendulum Capital Management. I'd like to find out if he writes exclusively for the NY Post in some sort of deal. There are other NY Post stories he has written. If he's not under contract with them, I'd like to ask him to send the same or similar story to the NY Times as an opinion piece. I need an email address. Please send me a private message if you find one. Thank You.
We have to remember that this tax discriminates not against short-term trading per se, but against ALL small capital gains AND LOSSES across the board.
Say I invested a 100k IRA in SPY or an index mutual fund in mid-2003 ... 1k shares of SPY @ 100.00. I hold it like a good little investor all the way up; then when things turn sour, like many other investors not wanting to see their ENTIRE nest egg melt away, I move to cash in late 2008, just above my entry, @ 100.25.
My capital gain is $250. Tax: .25% X $100250 = $250.63, or 100% of my Cap gain. Of course I also had to pay .25% or $250 on the way in.
So my total tax is 200% of my Capital Gain (plus ACTUAL cap gains tax if not an IRA or 401k), on a 5 year investment. And no difference if I'd LOST $250 ... 200% tax on my capital LOSS.
That's f***ing inSANE.
Say I invested a 100k IRA in SPY or an index mutual fund in mid-2003 ... 1k shares of SPY @ 100.00. I hold it like a good little investor all the way up; then when things turn sour, like many other investors not wanting to see their ENTIRE nest egg melt away, I move to cash in late 2008, just above my entry, @ 100.25.
My capital gain is $250. Tax: .25% X $100250 = $250.63, or 100% of my Cap gain. Of course I also had to pay .25% or $250 on the way in.
So my total tax is 200% of my Capital Gain (plus ACTUAL cap gains tax if not an IRA or 401k), on a 5 year investment. And no difference if I'd LOST $250 ... 200% tax on my capital LOSS.
That's f***ing inSANE.