Would Bernie Sanders Kill Trading As We Know It?

[Sig]

I don't understand the point you're making? Are you saying 25% of your capital is low??

I dont know about equities, never traded them, but 99% of day traders use leverage so to use an example on an unleveraged $1000 investment isnt really speaking to the impact it would have on the financial industry.

According to your interpretation what is your additional costs per 1 lot traded in a treasury future with a face value of $100,000?

I dont think the account size is relevent. You can trade a 1 lot with a $5000 account or a $1mill account. The account size doesnt come into the equation. ( not being facetious, maybe i have misinterpreted)




I can't see anything on his site about specifics (although i did read an article about 0.05% i may be wrong). But this isnt a new idea. It has been spoken about for years and if you take the average it is about 0.05%.

He is rumored to be pushing for 0.1% tax on all financial transactions http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/h...in-hood-financial-tax-simply-dont-hold-water/

This is a great example of how a biased source quoting another biased source can completely disconnect their version of reality from the real world and not even be aware of it. If you actually read the Daily Caller article, it declines to quote Sander's actual position and instead says "FTT supporters argue that a 0.1 percent tax on all financial transactions would raise vast amounts of money..." No word on who these "FTT supporters" are or what Sander's actually advocates even though the article is about Sanders. That's odd, unless perhaps they want to essentially fabricate a number with no backing? Then tommo gets ahold of that and turns it into "He is rumored to be pushing for 0.1% tax on all financial transactions" quoting the article as a source, even though the article provided no support for anything saying Sanders was even "rumored to be" pushing for a 0.1% tax.
For the record I think an FTT is a bad idea, regardless of the % amount. I just don't think it's nearly as bad of an idea as fabricating your own reality which is clearly on display here.

 

[tommo]

Documentationon FTT in Europe; will be similar to American FTT.
Prognoses say turnover in stocks and bonds will go -15%
Turnover in derivatives and financial bets will go -75%!!!
Annual tax revenues are estimated to be around EUR 30 to 35 billion.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custom...er_taxes/financial_sector/ftt_under_ec_en.pdf

London will never accept a FTT.
"It's not a tax on bankers, it's a tax on jobs, on investment, on people's pensions," he said at a meeting of EU finance ministers on Tuesday. "That's why the United Kingdom does not want to be a part of it."

"If they seek to damage jobs and investment across the rest of Europe, then we are entitled to challenge that."

In a bad-tempered debate, Mr Osborne was scathing about the lack of details surrounding the proposed Financial Transaction tax (FTT) including the basic issue of which shares and derivatives would be covered by it and the territorial scope of the levy.

To add to this... that annual tax revenues is misleading. FTT was tried in Sweden, france and Italy and in every case lead to a net loss in tax revenues. Sweden projected it would raise 1,500 million Swedish kronor per year. In reality it raised 50 million a year. Which was entirely offset and then some by the loss in capital gains tax which entirely dried up from futures trading.

 

[tommo]

This is a great example of how a biased source quoting another biased source can completely disconnect their version of reality from the real world and not even be aware of it. If you actually read the Daily Caller article, it declines to quote Sander's actual position and instead says "FTT supporters argue that a 0.1 percent tax on all financial transactions would raise vast amounts of money..." No word on who these "FTT supporters" are or what Sander's actually advocates even though the article is about Sanders. That's odd, unless perhaps they want to essentially fabricate a number with no backing? Then tommo gets ahold of that and turns it into "He is rumored to be pushing for 0.1% tax on all financial transactions" quoting the article as a source, even though the article provided no support for anything saying Sanders was even "rumored to be" pushing for a 0.1% tax.
For the record I think an FTT is a bad idea, regardless of the % amount. I just don't think it's nearly as bad of an idea as fabricating your own reality which is clearly on display here.

How am i fabricating? He openly proposes a FTT and there is precedent for how it would look as it has been carried out in Europe. Or are we to dismiss all reasonable assumptions based on what he as said and what has happened before as "fabrication"

 

[gkishot]

I don't understand the point you're making? Are you saying 25% of your capital is low??

I am saying it's going to kill day trading of equities.

 

[speedo]

There aren't enough college students and hard core lefties to elect him. Hillary will be the nominee unless she is indicted, in which case the Dem's will drag a moderate off the shelf like Uncle Joe.

 

[i am nobody]

To add to this... that annual tax revenues is misleading. FTT was tried in Sweden, france and Italy and in every case lead to a net loss in tax revenues. Sweden projected it would raise 1,500 million Swedish kronor per year. In reality it raised 50 million a year. Which was entirely offset and then some by the loss in capital gains tax which entirely dried up from futures trading.

I agree with you. I wonder if the billions they hope to catch were based on actual turnover or the turnover after the 75% decline? Makes a huge difference. I bet they took the optimistic but surrealistic road of the full turnover before the 75% decline. To force FTT the income should be huge, only to motivate the public.
Markets will move to other places that's what happened in Scandinavia too. London took over 50% of the market in Sweden, and after the tax was abolished, no activity came back to Sweden. Business was lost forever.

 

[ET180]

The smartest kids out of school go to finance. It's changing now. 50 years ago they went into aerospace and automotive.

As a nation our competitive edge is being lost because the smartest guys are playing a form of video poker all day long.

I don't mean to take this conversation off topic, but can you blame those kids? Why work for 30 years when you only have to work for 7-10? If aerospace and automotive offered the same reward potential as finance, you'd see more people going to that area.

 

[Sig]

How am i fabricating? He openly proposes a FTT and there is precedent for how it would look as it has been carried out in Europe. Or are we to dismiss all reasonable assumptions based on what he as said and what has happened before as "fabrication"

There was a line of discussion as to what level of FTT Sanders had proposed. The amount matters, even though as I said I think it's a bad idea overall. You threw out a number saying that Sanders was ""rumored to be" pushing it, providing a Daily Caller article as backing that said no such thing. When you're having a discussion about numbers and you say "He is rumored to be pushing for 0.1% tax on all financial transactions" when there's no basis to support that he is pushing that number, then yes, you're fabricating reality. If you had said something like "based on what other FTT supporters have pushed for in the past I'd assume that Sanders may push for a .1% tax" then you wouldn't be fabricating reality. But that more accurate statement has much less impact for your point of view so you chose not to say that. Just asking for some intellectual honesty here, the things a bad idea without making stuff up to make it look worse.

 

[speedo]

In a similar vein, Obama just proposed a $10.25 tax on crude to help "build infrastructure".

 

[tommo]

There was a line of discussion as to what level of FTT Sanders had proposed. The amount matters, even though as I said I think it's a bad idea overall. You threw out a number saying that Sanders was ""rumored to be" pushing it, providing a Daily Caller article as backing that said no such thing. When you're having a discussion about numbers and you say "He is rumored to be pushing for 0.1% tax on all financial transactions" when there's no basis to support that he is pushing that number, then yes, you're fabricating reality. If you had said something like "based on what other FTT supporters have pushed for in the past I'd assume that Sanders may push for a .1% tax" then you wouldn't be fabricating reality. But that more accurate statement has much less impact for your point of view so you chose not to say that. Just asking for some intellectual honesty here, the things a bad idea without making stuff up to make it look worse.

If you read the thread I was replying to someone that asked me how much the Sanders proposed rate was. I stipulated this tax has been proposed before and if you take the averages of all the policies it ends up around 0.05%. I then stated I didnt know what Bernie's proposed rate was and said i have read some rumored numbers, then provided a link to such a rumor. I think thats very balanced and certainly not "made up".

I stated this is conjecture and then backed up the figures we all have been discussing independent of each other as there is precedents for it.