Tax on Trades Should Be Part of Rescue Plan, Some Democrats Say

Cool, 5 years. Hopefully Dunkin' Donuts is hiring by then.


This is such nonsense plain and simple. People with incomes of 30k want to buy 60k cars and 600k+homes, and apparently we are at fault. And now it just feels like the gov't and media has declared war on us.
 
that frrigging slut is seriously considering it????

why would anyone in their right mind even vote for democrats?

this is the END of daytrading in AMERIKA.

nice knowing you guys
 
What US politicians fail to understand is that taxes are just passed on to someone else.....

The biggest point totally missed is that less is more.....

A simple 10% consumption tax and no other taxes would increase the US tax take many fold.....

Companies from all over the world would domicile out of the US.....

Jobs would flock to the US.....

Less....is more....
...........................................................

Any exchange that lowers transaction costs increases business many times over.....

And other possibilities evolve.....even the better distribution of wealth....

An increase in trade....is an increase in business and jobs....and taxes.....
....................................................

Business grows as efficiency grows....

The commerce of the world depends on efficiency.....and is very sensitive to small incremental changes....

Increases in taxes and legal largesse lower efficiency and business...

FUCK SOCIALISM....AND AMAZINGLY INEPT STUPID POLITICIANS THAT KNOW NOTHING AND THINK THEY KNOW IT ALL.....
 
Quote from alientrader:

that frrigging slut is seriously considering it????

why would anyone in their right mind even vote for democrats?
More...

This proves once again, that despite what ANY DEMOCRAT might actually say, they are ALWAYS looking for ways to increase taxes.

They love opportunities like this where they can slip a tax on a group of people, where the public won't penalize them (Dems).

Wolves in sheeps clothing.
 
I'm not convinced that they aren't still planning to stick us with this transaction tax in the near term. I'm not sure this "fee on financial institutions" that MIGHT happen in 5 years is meant to refer to the same thing. It's probably still worthwhile to brainstorm ideas about how, where, and what to trade if this transaction tax were to become reality for US markets because it would certainly destroy my currrent business model. (I feel like the people that owned wine shops in Tehran when the Islamic revolution came. Remember the news footage of all those bottles of Bordeaux being smashed in the street? "The government has decided you better look for a new business to be in.")
 
If the 5 year period turns out to be true, at least it would give the financial industry time to lobby this thing. As it stands right now, there is so much disapproval with the financial industry among the American people, that it would be easy to sneak through.
 
Quote from 2ticks:

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSWBT00986620080927

WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are pushing for a new Wall Street tax that would cover the potential costs of a $700 billion bailout being negotiated by Congress and the Bush administration.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking to reporters after a meeting with fellow Democrats, said the fee could be assessed after five years if the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined taxpayers had lost money in the bailout.

"If after five years ... the CBO decides that the American taxpayer has lost money in this, then there would be a fee on financial institutions," Pelosi said, adding that she hoped the provision could be part of a final bailout deal.

Pelosi said that the Secretary of the Treasury could determine how to assess the fee.
More...

So the prudent firms (and their clients) that avoided the toxic junk get a new tax, and those who ran other firms into the ground get to keep the millions they received for doing so?

The biggest problem with the bailout comes down to the question: who's going to pay for it? Good firms/traders who had nothing to do with it? Future investors who had nothing to do with it? Taxpayers as a whole? Any way you cut it, it's absurdly unfair, unless the government wants to do the hard work of confiscating the personal assets of the willfully shortsighted executives/fraudulent mortgage brokers/home buyers who wrote fraudulent applications, etc. But that's of debatable legality in the present framework, and is just too much work for them to consider.

In light of that, I couldn't support this bailout, even if Buffet, whom I respect, does. There's no guarantee the bailout will help, anyway; consider the stimulus package, which surely didn't help us avoid the pain of reality we must face.

I'm no economist and I hope I'm wrong on this, but seems likely to me that the only long-term outcome of this bailout will be to prolong the lifespans of hyper-risk-taking banks that should be allowed to fail, in fairness and justice.
 
Quote from livermore77:

Cool, 5 years. Hopefully Dunkin' Donuts is hiring by then.


This is such nonsense plain and simple. People with incomes of 30k want to buy 60k cars and 600k+homes, and apparently we are at fault. And now it just feels like the gov't and media has declared war on us.
More...

i turned to daytrading after getting my tech career destroyed by h-1b visa

when the public turns agaisnt you, you're fucked

everyone will bleat the party line

accusation = guilt

lies = truth

facts be damned
 
don't forget how drastically reduced daily transactions would be therefore rendering this proposal useless.

They wouldn't collect shit.

This is so painfully stupid I'm not even sure why its being discussed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top