Middle class tax breaks?

[OnePercenter]

A married couple without kids making $40k, using only personal deductions has an effective federal rate of 4%. How much lower should tax rates go?

 

[Jarhead]

By the way.....making 200K or less is the bottom 95% of American households. There are about 118,000,000 households in the US...so 95% is 112,000,000....

Now...multiply that by 2,000

224,000,000,000

So those negligible fees amounts to 224 billion dollars.

Wall Street probably funnels an order of magnitude more than that out of our financial system. The transaction fee I saw was something like 0.00004 cents per dollar transacted. How much do you think the average American would end up paying in fees? As for Wall Street, it's a scam of almost inconceivable size. The high frequency transactions only generate a fraction of a cent per dollar but they happen so often that it becomes huge. The transaction tax doesn't have to be big to generate a lot of money.

Joe....we are talking about a quarter trillion dollars....225 billion dollars. It does not matter how small the fee is per transaction....anyone with a pension, IRA or stock portfolio will be contributing to that 225 billion dollars.....and contrary to what many think, a guy with a moderate portfolio has his securities traded as often as a guy with a larger portfolio....sure, the rich take on more of the burden......but we are talking about a quarter trillion dollars. I guarantee you that households of 100K to 200K will, at best, break even....the rich will likely pay 4K or more with no credit, and the poor will get 2K with no burden. Just do the math.

If you have some actual data we can use, I'll crunch the numbers. Otherwise, I'm going with my theory that there's too much liquidity already and that bubbles have become a convenient way on Wall Street for making a ton of artificial money and that they both need to be discouraged.

I gave you actual data...
$2000 per household
Income of 200K or less get the credit...that is 95% of the households.
There are approximately 118 million households in the US.
95% of that is about 112 million households.
So 112 million households will get 2000 a year tax credit...
That comes to about 225 Billion dollars.

How will that be made up by only 5% of the households?

 

[The Rabbi]

Dodd Frank imposed curbs on what banks could charge. How did that work out for middle class people?
These idiots dont get it. The middle class has most of the wealtjh in this country simply because there are lots of them. Anything that raises taxes invariably will raise taxes or expenses on them. It is a given. Remember when Obamacare was going to fund subsidies by taxes on medical devices and cadillac plans? In the end it simply raised costs for everyone.

 

[Paperman299]

"Our economy is still struggling to create jobs -- and the last thing we need is a new trillion-dollar tax hike added to the current broken tax code," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., unveiled the tax plan on Monday at the Center for American Progress.

His plan would give a tax credit of roughly $2,000 per year to middle-class families, reportedly defined as couples making under $200,000. According to The Washington Post, the windfall would add up to roughly $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

However, to pay for the plan, Van Hollen wants to charge a fee on financial transactions, and curtail tax breaks for other top earners, effectively transferring wealth from Wall Street and beyond to everyone else. '
Dems pitch controversial plan to tax Wall Street to pay for new middle-class credit Fox News

Steel's comments are bewilderingly deceptive.

First, this does no harm to the economy. In fact, it helps it - those with the money to spend trading stocks will continue to trade regardless, and the under-$200,000 earners are very likely to spend that $2,000.

Second, Steel just saying "one trillion dollars" with his pinky to his mouth and no context is pretty alarmist. This is $1 trillion, but over ten years. Plus, the only reason the number is that high is because that's how much money diverting the tiniest fraction of Wall Street trading will bring in.

Third, it's not a tax hike. It's a tax cut. One paid for in one of the least disruptive ways possible.

Lastly, any representative of Boehner complaining about the broken tax code is a joke. If Boehner wants tax reform, it's in his power to make it happen, and has been for a while now. Honestly, this idea does more to address tax code issues than Boehner has, since it promises to stop some tax breaks.

Pay attention. A family with 100K to 200K income will be paying those increased fees as their retirement funds are traded....not the brokers...it is a tax. It is automatically and legally passed on to the owner of the stocks....so those making 100K to 200K will NOT have more money to spend....they will have the exact same disposable income.Yes, the poor will have more income, but what do you think many will do with it? Save it for they know their jobs are dispensable......
It will do nothing for the economy.

In other words, those making less than $200,000 but who still have a considerable portfolio stand to break even, while others (who are also in the middle class) with lesser financial standings would benefit, just not as much. Basically, I think your definition of "middle class" differs from mine. I know people I would consider middle class who only have savings or CD accounts but make a respectable yearly income (if nowhere near $200,000).

So as far as I can tell, some people you're describing would break even, and many more people like I'm describing would benefit. So what's the issue?

 

[The Rabbi]

"Our economy is still struggling to create jobs -- and the last thing we need is a new trillion-dollar tax hike added to the current broken tax code," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., unveiled the tax plan on Monday at the Center for American Progress.

His plan would give a tax credit of roughly $2,000 per year to middle-class families, reportedly defined as couples making under $200,000. According to The Washington Post, the windfall would add up to roughly $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

However, to pay for the plan, Van Hollen wants to charge a fee on financial transactions, and curtail tax breaks for other top earners, effectively transferring wealth from Wall Street and beyond to everyone else. '
Dems pitch controversial plan to tax Wall Street to pay for new middle-class credit Fox News

Steel's comments are bewilderingly deceptive.

First, this does no harm to the economy. In fact, it helps it - those with the money to spend trading stocks will continue to trade regardless, and the under-$200,000 earners are very likely to spend that $2,000.

Second, Steel just saying "one trillion dollars" with his pinky to his mouth and no context is pretty alarmist. This is $1 trillion, but over ten years. Plus, the only reason the number is that high is because that's how much money diverting the tiniest fraction of Wall Street trading will bring in.

Third, it's not a tax hike. It's a tax cut. One paid for in one of the least disruptive ways possible.

Lastly, any representative of Boehner complaining about the broken tax code is a joke. If Boehner wants tax reform, it's in his power to make it happen, and has been for a while now. Honestly, this idea does more to address tax code issues than Boehner has, since it promises to stop some tax breaks.

Pay attention. A family with 100K to 200K income will be paying those increased fees as their retirement funds are traded....not the brokers...it is a tax. It is automatically and legally passed on to the owner of the stocks....so those making 100K to 200K will NOT have more money to spend....they will have the exact same disposable income.Yes, the poor will have more income, but what do you think many will do with it? Save it for they know their jobs are dispensable......
It will do nothing for the economy.

In other words, those making less than $200,000 but who still have a considerable portfolio stand to break even, while others (who are also in the middle class) with lesser financial standings would benefit, just not as much. Basically, I think your definition of "middle class" differs from mine. I know people I would consider middle class who only have savings or CD accounts but make a respectable yearly income (if nowhere near $200,000).

So as far as I can tell, some people you're describing would break even, and many more people like I'm describing would benefit. So what's the issue?

You dont think stealing money from productive people and giving it to unproductive will reduce productivity and create incentives to work less?
Revenue predicted from tax increases basically never matches forecasts because people change behavior. Sucking billions of dollars out of one of the few money making areas in the economy sounds like a really bad idea.
Fortunately the GOP will stop it.

 

[JoeNormal]

By the way.....making 200K or less is the bottom 95% of American households. There are about 118,000,000 households in the US...so 95% is 112,000,000....

Now...multiply that by 2,000

224,000,000,000

So those negligible fees amounts to 224 billion dollars.

Wall Street probably funnels an order of magnitude more than that out of our financial system. The transaction fee I saw was something like 0.00004 cents per dollar transacted. How much do you think the average American would end up paying in fees? As for Wall Street, it's a scam of almost inconceivable size. The high frequency transactions only generate a fraction of a cent per dollar but they happen so often that it becomes huge. The transaction tax doesn't have to be big to generate a lot of money.

Joe....we are talking about a quarter trillion dollars....225 billion dollars. It does not matter how small the fee is per transaction....anyone with a pension, IRA or stock portfolio will be contributing to that 225 billion dollars.....and contrary to what many think, a guy with a moderate portfolio has his securities traded as often as a guy with a larger portfolio....sure, the rich take on more of the burden......but we are talking about a quarter trillion dollars. I guarantee you that households of 100K to 200K will, at best, break even....the rich will likely pay 4K or more with no credit, and the poor will get 2K with no burden. Just do the math.

If you have some actual data we can use, I'll crunch the numbers. Otherwise, I'm going with my theory that there's too much liquidity already and that bubbles have become a convenient way on Wall Street for making a ton of artificial money and that they both need to be discouraged.

I gave you actual data...
$2000 per household
Income of 200K or less get the credit...that is 95% of the households.
There are approximately 118 million households in the US.
95% of that is about 112 million households.
So 112 million households will get 2000 a year tax credit...
That comes to about 225 Billion dollars.

How will that be made up by only 5% of the households?

Tell me how many transactions and their average dollar value are made with high frequency trading and I'll tell you if it would work out. My gut says it would.

 

[The Rabbi]

By the way.....making 200K or less is the bottom 95% of American households. There are about 118,000,000 households in the US...so 95% is 112,000,000....

Now...multiply that by 2,000

224,000,000,000

So those negligible fees amounts to 224 billion dollars.

Wall Street probably funnels an order of magnitude more than that out of our financial system. The transaction fee I saw was something like 0.00004 cents per dollar transacted. How much do you think the average American would end up paying in fees? As for Wall Street, it's a scam of almost inconceivable size. The high frequency transactions only generate a fraction of a cent per dollar but they happen so often that it becomes huge. The transaction tax doesn't have to be big to generate a lot of money.

Joe....we are talking about a quarter trillion dollars....225 billion dollars. It does not matter how small the fee is per transaction....anyone with a pension, IRA or stock portfolio will be contributing to that 225 billion dollars.....and contrary to what many think, a guy with a moderate portfolio has his securities traded as often as a guy with a larger portfolio....sure, the rich take on more of the burden......but we are talking about a quarter trillion dollars. I guarantee you that households of 100K to 200K will, at best, break even....the rich will likely pay 4K or more with no credit, and the poor will get 2K with no burden. Just do the math.

If you have some actual data we can use, I'll crunch the numbers. Otherwise, I'm going with my theory that there's too much liquidity already and that bubbles have become a convenient way on Wall Street for making a ton of artificial money and that they both need to be discouraged.

I gave you actual data...
$2000 per household
Income of 200K or less get the credit...that is 95% of the households.
There are approximately 118 million households in the US.
95% of that is about 112 million households.
So 112 million households will get 2000 a year tax credit...
That comes to about 225 Billion dollars.

How will that be made up by only 5% of the households?

Tell me how many transactions and their average dollar value are made with high frequency trading and I'll tell you if it would work out. My gut says it would.

Yeah your gut is real reliable. LOL.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

And then that part of the industry, with all the jobs and profits, would move to a country without the stupid tax, and they'd have to hike it on the little people, to make up for the shortfall.

 

[francoHFW]

A married couple without kids making $40k, using only personal deductions has an effective federal rate of 4%. How much lower should tax rates go?

Of course, those fed income tax rates the dupes are fooled with are now less than payroll taxes, and fed cuts lead to higher state and local taxes and rates which hit the nonrich much harder. So now EVERYONE is paying 21% in all taxes and fees, and the top 1% get 95% of the new wealth. SO IT"S TIME THE 1% pay their fair share and the nonrich get breaks, as well as a living wage and cheaper post HS education and training.

 

[The Rabbi]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

And then that part of the industry, with all the jobs and profits, would move to a country without the stupid tax, and they'd have to hike it on the little people, to make up for the shortfall.

bingo.
Libs assume smart successful people are too stupid to figure out ways around the tax. So they have to come up with ways to punish people who are trying to escape punishment. The whole issue of inversions comes to mind. And then when smart people figure out ways around that punishment the gov't has to find even more ways to punish them. Eventually you end up with gov't controlling more and more of less and less. Like Venezuela.

 

[JoeNormal]

Wall Street probably funnels an order of magnitude more than that out of our financial system. The transaction fee I saw was something like 0.00004 cents per dollar transacted. How much do you think the average American would end up paying in fees? As for Wall Street, it's a scam of almost inconceivable size. The high frequency transactions only generate a fraction of a cent per dollar but they happen so often that it becomes huge. The transaction tax doesn't have to be big to generate a lot of money.

Joe....we are talking about a quarter trillion dollars....225 billion dollars. It does not matter how small the fee is per transaction....anyone with a pension, IRA or stock portfolio will be contributing to that 225 billion dollars.....and contrary to what many think, a guy with a moderate portfolio has his securities traded as often as a guy with a larger portfolio....sure, the rich take on more of the burden......but we are talking about a quarter trillion dollars. I guarantee you that households of 100K to 200K will, at best, break even....the rich will likely pay 4K or more with no credit, and the poor will get 2K with no burden. Just do the math.

If you have some actual data we can use, I'll crunch the numbers. Otherwise, I'm going with my theory that there's too much liquidity already and that bubbles have become a convenient way on Wall Street for making a ton of artificial money and that they both need to be discouraged.

I gave you actual data...
$2000 per household
Income of 200K or less get the credit...that is 95% of the households.
There are approximately 118 million households in the US.
95% of that is about 112 million households.
So 112 million households will get 2000 a year tax credit...
That comes to about 225 Billion dollars.

How will that be made up by only 5% of the households?

Tell me how many transactions and their average dollar value are made with high frequency trading and I'll tell you if it would work out. My gut says it would.

Yeah your gut is real reliable. LOL.

Actually it is. I do all kinds of estimations for feasibility on products I work on and I have an excellent track record.

 

[Paperman299]

"Our economy is still struggling to create jobs -- and the last thing we need is a new trillion-dollar tax hike added to the current broken tax code," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., unveiled the tax plan on Monday at the Center for American Progress.

His plan would give a tax credit of roughly $2,000 per year to middle-class families, reportedly defined as couples making under $200,000. According to The Washington Post, the windfall would add up to roughly $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

However, to pay for the plan, Van Hollen wants to charge a fee on financial transactions, and curtail tax breaks for other top earners, effectively transferring wealth from Wall Street and beyond to everyone else. '
Dems pitch controversial plan to tax Wall Street to pay for new middle-class credit Fox News

Steel's comments are bewilderingly deceptive.

First, this does no harm to the economy. In fact, it helps it - those with the money to spend trading stocks will continue to trade regardless, and the under-$200,000 earners are very likely to spend that $2,000.

Second, Steel just saying "one trillion dollars" with his pinky to his mouth and no context is pretty alarmist. This is $1 trillion, but over ten years. Plus, the only reason the number is that high is because that's how much money diverting the tiniest fraction of Wall Street trading will bring in.

Third, it's not a tax hike. It's a tax cut. One paid for in one of the least disruptive ways possible.

Lastly, any representative of Boehner complaining about the broken tax code is a joke. If Boehner wants tax reform, it's in his power to make it happen, and has been for a while now. Honestly, this idea does more to address tax code issues than Boehner has, since it promises to stop some tax breaks.

Pay attention. A family with 100K to 200K income will be paying those increased fees as their retirement funds are traded....not the brokers...it is a tax. It is automatically and legally passed on to the owner of the stocks....so those making 100K to 200K will NOT have more money to spend....they will have the exact same disposable income.Yes, the poor will have more income, but what do you think many will do with it? Save it for they know their jobs are dispensable......
It will do nothing for the economy.

In other words, those making less than $200,000 but who still have a considerable portfolio stand to break even, while others (who are also in the middle class) with lesser financial standings would benefit, just not as much. Basically, I think your definition of "middle class" differs from mine. I know people I would consider middle class who only have savings or CD accounts but make a respectable yearly income (if nowhere near $200,000).

So as far as I can tell, some people you're describing would break even, and many more people like I'm describing would benefit. So what's the issue?

You dont think stealing money from productive people and giving it to unproductive will reduce productivity and create incentives to work less?

"Stealing money." Heh. And I don't know what circles you run in, but I know plenty of people who make less than $200,000 who are plenty productive.

 

[JoeNormal]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

And then that part of the industry, with all the jobs and profits, would move to a country without the stupid tax, and they'd have to hike it on the little people, to make up for the shortfall.

Why don't they just move to Hong Kong already? They could drive a whole new market into the ground and we'd be better off without them.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Our economy is still struggling to create jobs -- and the last thing we need is a new trillion-dollar tax hike added to the current broken tax code," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., unveiled the tax plan on Monday at the Center for American Progress.

His plan would give a tax credit of roughly $2,000 per year to middle-class families, reportedly defined as couples making under $200,000. According to The Washington Post, the windfall would add up to roughly $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

However, to pay for the plan, Van Hollen wants to charge a fee on financial transactions, and curtail tax breaks for other top earners, effectively transferring wealth from Wall Street and beyond to everyone else. '
Dems pitch controversial plan to tax Wall Street to pay for new middle-class credit Fox News

Steel's comments are bewilderingly deceptive.

First, this does no harm to the economy. In fact, it helps it - those with the money to spend trading stocks will continue to trade regardless, and the under-$200,000 earners are very likely to spend that $2,000.

Second, Steel just saying "one trillion dollars" with his pinky to his mouth and no context is pretty alarmist. This is $1 trillion, but over ten years. Plus, the only reason the number is that high is because that's how much money diverting the tiniest fraction of Wall Street trading will bring in.

Third, it's not a tax hike. It's a tax cut. One paid for in one of the least disruptive ways possible.

Lastly, any representative of Boehner complaining about the broken tax code is a joke. If Boehner wants tax reform, it's in his power to make it happen, and has been for a while now. Honestly, this idea does more to address tax code issues than Boehner has, since it promises to stop some tax breaks.

Pay attention. A family with 100K to 200K income will be paying those increased fees as their retirement funds are traded....not the brokers...it is a tax. It is automatically and legally passed on to the owner of the stocks....so those making 100K to 200K will NOT have more money to spend....they will have the exact same disposable income.Yes, the poor will have more income, but what do you think many will do with it? Save it for they know their jobs are dispensable......
It will do nothing for the economy.

In other words, those making less than $200,000 but who still have a considerable portfolio stand to break even, while others (who are also in the middle class) with lesser financial standings would benefit, just not as much. Basically, I think your definition of "middle class" differs from mine. I know people I would consider middle class who only have savings or CD accounts but make a respectable yearly income (if nowhere near $200,000).

So as far as I can tell, some people you're describing would break even, and many more people like I'm describing would benefit. So what's the issue?

You dont think stealing money from productive people and giving it to unproductive will reduce productivity and create incentives to work less?

"Stealing money." Heh. And I don't know what circles you run in, but I know plenty of people who make less than $200,000 who are plenty productive.

Taxation involves taking money from people and giving them nothing in return under thread of penalty. If that isnt stealing I am not sure what is.
"Productive" here has an economic meaning. And since you are grossly ignorant you will not know what that is.

 

[The Rabbi]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

And then that part of the industry, with all the jobs and profits, would move to a country without the stupid tax, and they'd have to hike it on the little people, to make up for the shortfall.

Why don't they just move to Hong Kong already? They could drive a whole new market into the ground and we'd be better off without them.

There ya go. Let's drive all the players in the financial industry, which employes millions of people, overseas.
Dont you complain about companies sending jobs overseas? Now you want to do the same. Hypocrite.

 

[JoeNormal]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

And then that part of the industry, with all the jobs and profits, would move to a country without the stupid tax, and they'd have to hike it on the little people, to make up for the shortfall.

Why don't they just move to Hong Kong already? They could drive a whole new market into the ground and we'd be better off without them.

There ya go. Let's drive all the players in the financial industry, which employes millions of people, overseas.
Dont you complain about companies sending jobs overseas? Now you want to do the same. Hypocrite.

I just answered my own question. High frequency trading isn't allowed in Hong Kong. Apparently, they have too much common sense for it to be legal there. In the mean time, it looks like all kinds of lawsuits are being leveled against firms that engage in it.

Face it, there's not another country on Earth that would want the kind of scum that infests Wall Street these days.

 

[francoHFW]

Steel's comments are bewilderingly deceptive.

First, this does no harm to the economy. In fact, it helps it - those with the money to spend trading stocks will continue to trade regardless, and the under-$200,000 earners are very likely to spend that $2,000.

Second, Steel just saying "one trillion dollars" with his pinky to his mouth and no context is pretty alarmist. This is $1 trillion, but over ten years. Plus, the only reason the number is that high is because that's how much money diverting the tiniest fraction of Wall Street trading will bring in.

Third, it's not a tax hike. It's a tax cut. One paid for in one of the least disruptive ways possible.

Lastly, any representative of Boehner complaining about the broken tax code is a joke. If Boehner wants tax reform, it's in his power to make it happen, and has been for a while now. Honestly, this idea does more to address tax code issues than Boehner has, since it promises to stop some tax breaks.

Pay attention. A family with 100K to 200K income will be paying those increased fees as their retirement funds are traded....not the brokers...it is a tax. It is automatically and legally passed on to the owner of the stocks....so those making 100K to 200K will NOT have more money to spend....they will have the exact same disposable income.Yes, the poor will have more income, but what do you think many will do with it? Save it for they know their jobs are dispensable......
It will do nothing for the economy.

In other words, those making less than $200,000 but who still have a considerable portfolio stand to break even, while others (who are also in the middle class) with lesser financial standings would benefit, just not as much. Basically, I think your definition of "middle class" differs from mine. I know people I would consider middle class who only have savings or CD accounts but make a respectable yearly income (if nowhere near $200,000).

So as far as I can tell, some people you're describing would break even, and many more people like I'm describing would benefit. So what's the issue?

You dont think stealing money from productive people and giving it to unproductive will reduce productivity and create incentives to work less?

"Stealing money." Heh. And I don't know what circles you run in, but I know plenty of people who make less than $200,000 who are plenty productive.

Taxation involves taking money from people and giving them nothing in return under thread of penalty. If that isnt stealing I am not sure what is.
"Productive" here has an economic meaning. And since you are grossly ignorant you will not know what that is.

Nothing in return? Brainwashed functional moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

And then that part of the industry, with all the jobs and profits, would move to a country without the stupid tax, and they'd have to hike it on the little people, to make up for the shortfall.

Why don't they just move to Hong Kong already? They could drive a whole new market into the ground and we'd be better off without them.

Why don't they just move to Hong Kong already?

Why don't you?

we'd be better off without them.

Of course! We don't need high paying jobs or tax receipts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A fee on financial transactions simply means that every time you make a deposit to your savings some of the money will go to government. When you withdraw from your savings you will get the amount you asked for LESS a little bit that goes to government.

When you pay your credit card bill (a financial transaction) you'll find an added fee which goes to government. When you ask the ATM for $20 you'll still get a twenty but your account will be debited for $20 plus the government fee (tax).

So what's NOT to like about that?

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

And then that part of the industry, with all the jobs and profits, would move to a country without the stupid tax, and they'd have to hike it on the little people, to make up for the shortfall.

Why don't they just move to Hong Kong already? They could drive a whole new market into the ground and we'd be better off without them.

There ya go. Let's drive all the players in the financial industry, which employes millions of people, overseas.
Dont you complain about companies sending jobs overseas? Now you want to do the same. Hypocrite.

I just answered my own question. High frequency trading isn't allowed in Hong Kong. Apparently, they have too much common sense for it to be legal there. In the mean time, it looks like all kinds of lawsuits are being leveled against firms that engage in it.

Face it, there's not another country on Earth that would want the kind of scum that infests Wall Street these days.

In the mean time, it looks like all kinds of lawsuits are being leveled against firms that engage in it.

Yeah, lots of stupid lawsuits out there, so what?

 

[JoeNormal]

If it's like the proposals I've heard in the past, the fee would be so negligible for ordinary transactions that it would be basically invisible. Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

Where it would add up would be in the ultra-frequent microsecond transactions that have become a mainstay of Wall Street.

And then that part of the industry, with all the jobs and profits, would move to a country without the stupid tax, and they'd have to hike it on the little people, to make up for the shortfall.

Why don't they just move to Hong Kong already? They could drive a whole new market into the ground and we'd be better off without them.

There ya go. Let's drive all the players in the financial industry, which employes millions of people, overseas.
Dont you complain about companies sending jobs overseas? Now you want to do the same. Hypocrite.

I just answered my own question. High frequency trading isn't allowed in Hong Kong. Apparently, they have too much common sense for it to be legal there. In the mean time, it looks like all kinds of lawsuits are being leveled against firms that engage in it.

Face it, there's not another country on Earth that would want the kind of scum that infests Wall Street these days.

In the mean time, it looks like all kinds of lawsuits are being leveled against firms that engage in it.

Yeah, lots of stupid lawsuits out there, so what?

I'm trying to figure out why an average guy like you would suck the dicks of the Wall Street scum. Still have aspirations?