Mark Cuban pushes for 20 cents per share tax on every roundtrip.

[omniscient]

Quote from MandelbrotSet:

The Democrats didn't get us into this situation. The Republicans did. Now we have to "clean up this mess" .... hey didn't we already do this scene before when Clinton had to bail us out?

both sides have contributed to this, but i think it is a little inaccurate to suggest Democrats didn't fundamentally fuel this blow-up.

Franklin Raines is Neat-o!

High Risk Mortgages Can Be Fun!

either way, this didn't happen overnight and lots of folks on both sides of the line were aware of what was brewing. now it is what it is, so we move forward.

interesting video on money.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Aimed toward Avid Consumer;

Quote from MandelbrotSet:



Lastly, it's also pretty obvious that you can't trade.
***

To Pabst:

Quote from MandelbrotSet:

[It's obvious why you're no longer pursuing a political career and pretending to be a great trader with your $500 subscription courses.

[/B]

Now here's the HILARIOUS irony. Avid Consumer won't appreciate this public revelation but a couple of years ago he took a small retail account (10k?) and ran it up to nearly a half million trading metals.

Pabst took a 10k account in 1982 and has made $3,000,000 lifetime earnings off it and also took 10k in 2006 and ran it up to a quarter mil in two years.

So the two people you made comments to have traded you UNDER THE TABLE. Also, unlike you I've made HUNDREDS of live calls here-some good some not good-but I can't say I've EVEN ONCE have I read a post by you adding one iota of added value to this site.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

But it's not the duty of Big Brother to force those decisions upon a discriminated class.

I agree with your sentiment.

The problem as I see it is that the US economy is being run in a fiscally irresponsible manner**. Lots and lots of spending happening with money borrowed from the future. So we're all benefitting from the discriminated class of future taxpayers. And that really pisses me off because it's not fair and leads to all kinds of moral hazards. Not the least of which is people benefitting from discrimination against one class can't claim the moral high ground when it's their own class that comes under discrimination (believe me, I know that's not your position ).

If the context of the tax is a broader plan to rationalize fiscal policy, then I would suggest it is as worthy of consideration as any other tax and/or spending cut. It becomes part of the giant bag of difficult choices we've desperately and actively avoided dealing with for at least two decades (arguably as long as four decades).

If that isn't the context, then it's just another pointless revenue source that doesn't accomplish much of anything.

** The US is absolutely not alone in this, of course.

People like me are rapidly concluding that defending our will by violent expression is no less immoral than attacks upon liberty via Democratically elected institutions.

"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary..."

 

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Aimed toward Avid Consumer;

To Pabst:

Now here's the HILARIOUS irony. Avid Consumer won't appreciate this public revelation but a couple of years ago he took a small retail account (10k?) and ran it up to nearly a half million trading metals.

Pabst took a 10k account in 1982 and has made $3,000,000 lifetime earnings off it and also took 10k in 2006 and ran it up to a quarter mil in two years.

So the two people you made comments to have traded you UNDER THE TABLE. Also, unlike you I've made HUNDREDS of live calls here-some good some not good-but I can't say I've EVEN ONCE have I read a post by you adding one iota of added value to this site.

Good for both of you.

1. In that case you can join Avid Consumer as he Champions the Transaction Tax then (I'm sure you'll love that one).

2. Yeah, we know. You've made a lot and lost a lot too.
BFD, like I said, good luck with the $500 subscription courses you've been seen hawking around these parts ...

3. No *Archie*, it's your racist rants that don't add any value to the site, you're tired ass should have been banned a long time ago for some of the shit you've said, and you promised you would leave but then reneged on that one too ... pretty much your modus operandi I see ...

4. And no worries, no worries, I've "added value" to this tool infested site. But on my terms, not yours ... and I've never once solicitited business from these folks (unlike YOU), no need to.

 

[NeoRio1]

Cuban is a bitch.

 

[OldTrader]

Quote from Random.Capital:

If the context of the tax is a broader plan to rationalize fiscal policy, then I would suggest it is as worthy of consideration as any other tax and/or spending cut. It becomes part of the giant bag of difficult choices we've desperately and actively avoided dealing with for at least two decades (arguably as long as four decades).

If that isn't the context, then it's just another pointless revenue source that doesn't accomplish much of anything.

** The US is absolutely not alone in this, of course.




"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary..."

Initially the transaction tax was mentioned to pay for the $700 Billion bailout. Perhaps it will evolve into something else. Even if it was passed as a way to pay for the bailout, I think we all know that eventually it will evolve into something else....the government doesn't pass taxes which it later revokes. At least I don't recall it. Once passed it becomes permanent.

Either way though, permanent or temporary, here's a few points to consider:

1. The government et al originally said that the taxpayers would profit from the bailout plan. Therefore, if it will profit, why do we need a tax to pay for it??? Or was the government simply lying? And if it was lying, why would you believe anything said now about a transaction tax?

2. There's no question whatsoever that this type of tax would decrease liquidity. That means a serious change to the capital markets. Our markets were once the envy of the world...but it is possible to destroy them. All it takes is the government and a prohibitive tax.

3. The relevance of this tax versus the cause of banks making bad loans, or institutions trading CDSs seems out of whack. Why not levy a tax on these financial institutions, or some type of tax on those trading CDSs? Why a tax on active stock traders who had nothing to do with it?

Government meddling was responsible at the outset for much of what later led to this problem. More meddling with markets, more taxes certainly doesn't solve it.

OldTrader

 

[Random.Capital]

All fair points, OldTrader.

The flip side is that a lot of the liquidity currently in the markets derives directly from over-leveraged trading and is IMO unsustainable. So the question then isn't "how do we keep current levels of liquidity", it's "how to do we bleed out liquidity in the least damaging manner".

 

[OldTrader]

Quote from Random.Capital:

All fair points, OldTrader.

The flip side is that a lot of the liquidity currently in the markets derives directly from over-leveraged trading and is IMO unsustainable. So the question then isn't "how do we keep current levels of liquidity", it's "how to do we bleed out liquidity in the least damaging manner".

I don't see that as the "flip side" to this question. I hope that no one, including you, is going to suggest that we have less liquidity as a goal to political policy in this country.

But if your goal is to reduce leverage for certain institutions, then you can do that directly through a change in the regulations.

A transaction tax doesn't necessarily change leverage, it changes activity. Look at real estate for an illiquid market...and yet you can obtain huge leverage in comparison with equities...even now.

OldTrader

 

[Avid_Consumer]

Quote from MandelbrotSet:

Yeah, i'm posting here because my jaw has droped through the floor.

The retail guy isn't the "evil speculator" in this game. It's the banks and other financial insititutions that have sucked the blood out of consumers who they knew could not cover the costs of their mortagages and loans (and the million other credit cards that they were inundated with) as well as sending the majority of jobs outside of the US (by paying other people one-tenth of what they pay americans) for exactly the same job ... oh, btw, just how much social value does that have Avid
Consumer?

The real sophistication level of thse so-called traders is incredibly low ... :eek:

you want a free market for retail scalping, but you object to a free market for real labor. o k joe sixpack

 

[Tide31]

There is a law in this country against 'double taxation'. It has been argued for years that dividends should not be taxed because these funds have already been taxed at the corporate level. Therefore the 'owners' of the company (the shareholders) should not be taxed. Bush among others favors doing away with dividend tax. A tax on securities transactions would therefore be deductable against earnings or future earnings and therefore a zero sum game for the government. Such thoughts will never be considered, but only tossed out there on the blog sites of egotistical maniacs.