Kamala wants a 0.2% transaction tax

ajacobson said:
Damages or eliminates HFT - liquidity could improve making it a good thing for much of the "size" community. Could move more of the available liquidity to lit venues. Might not be all bad and you knew the Dems were going to get it on to their platform.
More...
Fuck em. Put the hfts out of business that were sniping me anyway
 
Math_Wiz said:
Kamala wants a 0.2% transaction tax to pay for her Medicare for All plan.

If this comes to pass, where should we migrate to?
Would trading the triple-ETFs still be viable?
A tax on "options trades" is not specifically mentioned,
although I wonder if that is included under the umbrella of "stock trades".

https://www.elle.com/culture/career...0-healthcare-economy-gun-control-immigration/

The transaction tax is mentioned in the last paragraph under the Healthcare heading.
More...

Ok that's it. Biden won't get elected. Wall Street, other than high tech and weapons, is only one of the few industries that's left in the West that's making money and they still want to tax that? We already pay so much on each transaction when we trade. The Wall Street right off the bat won't stand for that.

She's completely out of touch of reality it seems.
 
lindq said:
Evidently you are too young to recall the devastation of the economy in 2008. Whatever your politics, the fact is that Obama/Biden put together a team that cut unemployment in half and put us on an upward trajectory.

So to infer that the "left" will shut down the economy is simply a stupid statement.
More...

Yeah but they are not Obama. And Obama didn't do it by taxing financial trades.
 
DaveV said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...versee-recessions-dems-recoveries/5235957002/

Real GDP growth in the U.S., averaged 3.33% during the 64 years and 16 presidential terms going back to the mid-1940s ... With a Republican in the White House, though, the economy's growth slowed to 2.54%, the economists found. With a Democrat in office, growth jumped to 4.35% on average. ... Unemployment fell by 0.8 percentage points with a Democratic president on average, while it rose 1.1 percentage points with a Republican ... at least one recession did begin under every Republican president since Ronald Reagan compared with zero under Democratic presidents over the same period.
More...

Yeah that's because all of the policies take a way to take effect. So very likely it's the Republican presidents that started the economic recovery initiatives but it didn't fully take effect until their terms were over and when democrats started their terms, all of the initiatives were really making an impact so it made all of the democrat presidents look good. The only exception might be Bill Clinton. The guy genuinely inherited a bad economy and really turned it all around and pushed it into new heights and really started the new IT era. And the only Republic president that fit the norm is George W. Bush. He genuinely inherited a strong economy with surplus and spent it all of the surpluses and turned the economy into a trillion-dollar deficit and started a recession.
 
JSOP said:
Yeah that's because all of the policies take a way to take effect. So very likely it's the Republican presidents that started the economic recovery initiatives but it didn't fully take effect until their terms were over and when democrats started their terms, all of the initiatives were really making an impact so it made all of the democrat presidents look good. The only exception might be Bill Clinton. The guy genuinely inherited a bad economy and really turned it all around and pushed it into new heights and really started the new IT era. And the only Republic president that fit the norm is George W. Bush. He genuinely inherited a strong economy with surplus and spent it all of the surpluses and turned the economy into a trillion-dollar deficit and started a recession.
More...
And the fucking Supreme Court handed the presidency to that murderous hick
 
Overnight said:
Well, until we see that explicitly stated in the tax proposal, I am under the impression it will be on profits made, not "notional value".

I mean, what country charges a tax on people who LOSE money? I cannot recall the last time I heard of someone saying they paid taxes on negative income.
More...

In Germany 2021 !!! Horror for us...
 
tomtr27 said:
In Germany 2021 !!! Horror for us...
More...

While annoying i personally don't think thats very bad for us traders.

1. Afaik as a professional you can avoid it by founding a LLC (GmbH).

But more important:

2. It "only" affects Derivatives, thus it will move a lot of retail speculation money from somewhat shaddy otc (KO Warrants, CFD...) back to plain stock trading. Ie. more liquidity, speculation, trading opportunities.


Edit: btw. Germany sucks anyway... Not autobahn and Oktoberfest but more on the policital side, especially immigration laws...
 
R1234 said:
If that came to pass, I would essentially not be able to make a living anymore given the number of transactions I do each day. It would be time to move abroad and live off my savings.
More...
Because of citizenship based taxaation, as a US citizen you are liable to submit a tax return wherever you live until you renounce your citizenship or die. You may also have to pay to a country you don‘t even live - how F-in stupid is that?
 
jpmswiss said:
Because of citizenship based taxaation, as a US citizen you are liable to submit a tax return wherever you live until you renounce your citizenship or die. You may also have to pay to a country you don‘t even live - how F-in stupid is that?
More...

same as everywhere. This is why celebrities have multiple citizenships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top