See Ya Rudy
- Thread starter Trader5287
- Start date
I was unaware that Mitt is a zero cap gains tax advocate. But Alan Greenspan is a zero cap gains tax advocate too, and nobody listened to him either.
Under my plan, the cap gains tax would be eliminated, but revenues to the govt from the financial markets would actually increase. I propose zero cap gains, (at least on stocks, I'm willing to leave it in place for futs, options and other derivatives), and in place of it have a per-trade fee assesed. If it's true that 90% of market particpants are losers in the market, then only 10% of the participants are paying the taxes. Under my plan, every trade would be assesed a fee of $1 on both sides of the trade, giving the govt $2 per trade. That way the losers in the market begin paying their fair share. As for the hyper-active daytraders, you'll just have to find a way to make another buck on each trade. And I'm not worried about daytraders leaving the market en-masse, most of you are compulsive gamblers anyway and couldn't quit if you wanted too. As a matter of fact, I think I'll slap you direct access guys with a higher fee just to prove my point.
The fees would be split 90% to the gen treasury and 10% to the SEC, and that would probably represent a massive windfall to the SEC, and still a fairly large increase to the treasury. It depends really on how many people are perrenial losers in the market, but if the consensus is true that most lose, it is an increase to the govt no matter what, and a decrease in taxes for the PROFITABLE TRADER, which is what we all either are or aspire to be.
Under my plan, the cap gains tax would be eliminated, but revenues to the govt from the financial markets would actually increase. I propose zero cap gains, (at least on stocks, I'm willing to leave it in place for futs, options and other derivatives), and in place of it have a per-trade fee assesed. If it's true that 90% of market particpants are losers in the market, then only 10% of the participants are paying the taxes. Under my plan, every trade would be assesed a fee of $1 on both sides of the trade, giving the govt $2 per trade. That way the losers in the market begin paying their fair share. As for the hyper-active daytraders, you'll just have to find a way to make another buck on each trade. And I'm not worried about daytraders leaving the market en-masse, most of you are compulsive gamblers anyway and couldn't quit if you wanted too. As a matter of fact, I think I'll slap you direct access guys with a higher fee just to prove my point.
The fees would be split 90% to the gen treasury and 10% to the SEC, and that would probably represent a massive windfall to the SEC, and still a fairly large increase to the treasury. It depends really on how many people are perrenial losers in the market, but if the consensus is true that most lose, it is an increase to the govt no matter what, and a decrease in taxes for the PROFITABLE TRADER, which is what we all either are or aspire to be.
Quote from hughb:
I was unaware that Mitt is a zero cap gains tax advocate. But Alan Greenspan is a zero cap gains tax advocate too, and nobody listened to him either.
Under my plan, the cap gains tax would be eliminated, but revenues to the govt from the financial markets would actually increase. I propose zero cap gains, (at least on stocks, I'm willing to leave it in place for futs, options and other derivatives), and in place of it have a per-trade fee assesed. If it's true that 90% of market particpants are losers in the market, then only 10% of the participants are paying the taxes. Under my plan, every trade would be assesed a fee of $1 on both sides of the trade, giving the govt $2 per trade. That way the losers in the market begin paying their fair share. As for the hyper-active daytraders, you'll just have to find a way to make another buck on each trade. And I'm not worried about daytraders leaving the market en-masse, most of you are compulsive gamblers anyway and couldn't quit if you wanted too. As a matter of fact, I think I'll slap you direct access guys with a higher fee just to prove my point.
The fees would be split 90% to the gen treasury and 10% to the SEC, and that would probably represent a massive windfall to the SEC, and still a fairly large increase to the treasury. It depends really on how many people are perrenial losers in the market, but if the consensus is true that most lose, it is an increase to the govt no matter what, and a decrease in taxes for the PROFITABLE TRADER, which is what we all either are or aspire to be.
The reason Greenspan didn't make a difference was because his job was monetary policy. His opinions of tax were pointless as he had absolutely no influence on that aspect.
The President has the most influence on fiscal policy, so if Mitt were elected we would very likely see another drop in cap gains tax.
Also, take an objective look at Mitt's actual tax record. He dropped taxes in his state and still managed to increase tax revenues. How did he do it? He found people who were evading taxes with bogus loopholes and closed the loopholes. This increased revenue from tax evaders to such an extent that the rest of the individuals realized lower taxes. The guy isn't a financial retard.
I suspect the same thing. Look at how high cap gains taxes have been in the past, and then realize they will return to that with a DEM in office. I don't know why anyone on these boards supports any of the DEMs running right now. You must be right. Most of them must not make any money trading.
i will never admit this again... but i got a little misty eyed listening to this:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6lAFfLy05_Y&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6lAFfLy05_Y&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6lAFfLy05_Y&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6lAFfLy05_Y&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Neither Clinton nor Edwards have any plan to raise capital gains taxes. both of their planned tax increases apply to income only, and in Hillary's case only to those who earn over $250K per year. Oddly, she has support from women execs who will have a tax increase under her admin. I'm not sure about Obama, but if he had any plans to increase cap gains we would have heard about it.
If Huckabee won the Repub nomination I would vote for whatever Dem opposed him regardless of who it was.
As it stands right now, it looks like anybody who wants to vote Repub in the general election will be voting Mac.
If Huckabee won the Repub nomination I would vote for whatever Dem opposed him regardless of who it was.
As it stands right now, it looks like anybody who wants to vote Repub in the general election will be voting Mac.