Thom Hartmann Suggests STET Tax on Stock Transactions

[pal_of_poor]

Thom's Blog
The AFL-CIO, and some of the Democrats, would like to assess a small tax - about a tenth of a percent - on every stock transaction. It's a good start but not enough. If we were to instate a .25 percent STET (tax) on every stock, swap, derivative, or other trade today, it would produce -- in its first year -- around $150 billion in revenue. Wall Street would be generating the money to fund its own bailout. After Hoover's 1931 bailout of the banks failed, FDR did a cold reboot of the entire system, putting into place strong rules to prevent speculative abuse. And he doubled the STET tax, both producing revenue that more than funded the Securities and Exchange Commission and further prevented a repeat of the speculative bubble of the 1920s that led directly to the Republican Great Depression. So let's go back to what works.

In strange news...
Protests from conservative "teabaggers" turned out to heckle Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-San Diego) during a town hall meeting. There were signs with racist overtones but they must have been surprised when they were countered by a newly-formed group called "Billionaires for Wealthcare." Dressed in formal attire, members pulled up in a limousine to greet other protesters, thanking them for "standing with billionaires" to oppose real healthcare reform. Don't you just love political theater?

 

[Paulie]

What a stupid idea.

Let's punish those who are willing to take the risk of capitalizing the marketplace with their hard earned dollars, in what's already such a dire economic time.

The government wants to GIVE people money for getting themselves into large amounts of debt to buy a house they may or may not need, but wants to TAKE your money for investing in US business.

What a fucking joke.

 

[Oddball]

Thom who??

 

[Polk]

Sounds like a new take on the Tobin tax concept.

 

[Toro]

This is such a stupid idea.

I'd consider leaving this country if they did.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm sure we could raise money with an abortion tax.

 

[Paulie]

They already take enough in capital gains taxes as it is.

Since enterprise is what fuels this country and is what made it as wealthy as it has become, why in the world would anyone support taking from those willing to risk their money to invest in it?

I can almost understand taxing consumption, but investment? How about we all just sit on our money and hoard it for the rest of our lives while we watch US enterprise slowly crumble around us? I bet if all investors did that, taxes on investment would magically disappear rather quickly.

 

[Oddball]

This is such a stupid idea.

I'd consider leaving this country if they did.

Now you know why Thom Hartmann is on Airhead America.....The home of insane Fabian socialists with even more insane ideas.

 

[Paulie]

This is such a stupid idea.

I'd consider leaving this country if they did.

Now you know why Thom Hartmann is on Airhead America.....The home of insane Fabian socialists with even more insane ideas.

Who??

 

[Oddball]

I 'fess.....hadda look him up.

 

[pal_of_poor]

Thom who??

Thom Hartmann | News. Opinion. Debate.

He's actually informed, uses facts instead of idiot statue arguments like Beck, doesn't bloviate and kick off those whom he disagrees with, or cut off their microphones, as Limbaugh and O'Reilly do, in fact, he puts them in the front of the line. Usually, they end up getting a good chance to talk, and if they are polite, they stay on the line, and get shredded by facts. Mostly that goes, republican repeater talk point, facts, facts, facts, republican talking points, facts, facts, facts. Unlike O'Reilly and Limbaugh in particular, who fear liberals and fact, to the pont of cutting them off, he welcomes conservatives, and has good discussions with them. He often brings a noted consevative on in the beginning of the show, and they usually have respectful conversations with one-another, the way media should be.

I wish he had a network television show, but then he'd have to compromose, and they wouldn' let him talk about some things, so it'd be a waste. He's written about 20 books too.

 

[pal_of_poor]

What a stupid idea.

Let's punish those who are willing to take the risk of capitalizing the marketplace with their hard earned dollars, in what's already such a dire economic time.

The government wants to GIVE people money for getting themselves into large amounts of debt to buy a house they may or may not need, but wants to TAKE your money for investing in US business.

What a fucking joke.

Yea, what a crazy idea, putting an infinitely small tax on stock trades, so when they screw up, there would be a fund on the ready, to bail them out, instead of dipping into the American tax fund to bail up super rich bankers, who are mostly responsible for screwing themselves up, yea man, that's just crazy talk, putting the onus of the tax on the people who are screwing up.

(twilight zone music, cue it up)

Oh yea, and the top ten percent richest people own 90 percent of the stock. The lower 50 percent don't own any, and the 40 percent in between own ten percent of it. Many of them, perhaps you are in the group, think they are going to be hit large, but with near insigniican amounts of stock that tax would fall on the rich far more.

Instead, we've got a system of them winning when they invest right, and when they crash the economy around us, they don't pay a price, as we bail them out. It's a real problem when there is no downside for their actions, just more bonses. Crazy man, real crazy, this sensible solution, putting a tax on the people who are going to need bailing out. crazy, yep, uh huh.

 

[pal_of_poor]

This is such a stupid idea.

I'd consider leaving this country if they did.

Yea, if you did, say you went to Japan, or the EU, and traded in their markets, then you would find just such a tax.

It's amazing that you wouldn't support this solution, in the aftermath of this huge bailout to avoid a dystopia, of the banks.

By the way, the truly rich, that top ten percent, many of them only trade stocks, and unless they sell at a profit, they don't pay taxes at all. Then, they only pay 15 percent, a pretty darned sweet deal, since the current top rate is 35 percent on ordinary income.

If you ask me, the real insanity is that they consider capital gains as so special as to be taxed outside or ordinary income. It should be included in regular income, and taxed at an indexed rate, just like interest income is.

 

[Paulie]

pal of poor, explain the logic behind giving people $8000 to buy a house and getting into even more debt at a time when debt is already so high that it caused a horrible recession...but TAKING money from people who are willing to take the risk to capitalize the marketplace?

It doesn't make any sense. A house seller can make $250,000 in profit and not be charged a single dime in capital gains taxes, but you want people to be charged a percentage on every stock transaction on TOP of the capital gains taxes?

Where is the logic?

 

[pal_of_poor]

I'm sure we could raise money with an abortion tax.

Actually, if you ever go to a bookstore, pick up he book Freakanomics, and read the first story about crime. There was a widespread belief that crime was going to skyrocket in the nineties, but the increase never materialized. Do you know why?

Abortion was legalized in 1973, so a lot of poor foks who chose to get an abortion, rather than be forced to bring kids into the world, withtout he means to support them, and manyof them would have ended up involved in mischief.

So, abortion alone, even without additional taxes, as I'm sure there is tax involved in paying for abortions, saves society a ton of money not spent on law enforcement, and imprisonment. Of course, idiots decided to approach the drug problem in that way to make up the difference, rather than doing it much more cheaply as a substance abuse medical problem.

 

[pal_of_poor]

They already take enough in capital gains taxes as it is.

Since enterprise is what fuels this country and is what made it as wealthy as it has become, why in the world would anyone support taking from those willing to risk their money to invest in it?

I can almost understand taxing consumption, but investment? How about we all just sit on our money and hoard it for the rest of our lives while we watch US enterprise slowly crumble around us? I bet if all investors did that, taxes on investment would magically disappear rather quickly.

It's pretty obvious we're going to need to keep a fund of money to bail out these irresponsible, unregulated folks, as they just keep getting into one sort of trouble after another. Bank failures, real estate scams, Mexican Peso crisis's, Japanese investment bank failures. You either regulate them, and enforce the hell out of it, or you tap just a tad of their money when they sell stocks, to put in a fund, to guard against terrible investment near-criminal activity.

 

[Oddball]

Thom who??

Thom Hartmann | News. Opinion. Debate.

He's actually informed, uses facts instead of idiot statue arguments like Beck, doesn't bloviate and kick off those whom he disagrees with, or cut off their microphones, as Limbaugh and O'Reilly do, in fact, he puts them in the front of the line. Usually, they end up getting a good chance to talk, and if they are polite, they stay on the line, and get shredded by facts. Mostly that goes, republican repeater talk point, facts, facts, facts, republican talking points, facts, facts, facts. Unlike O'Reilly and Limbaugh in particular, who fear liberals and fact, to the pont of cutting them off, he welcomes conservatives, and has good discussions with them. He often brings a noted consevative on in the beginning of the show, and they usually have respectful conversations with one-another, the way media should be.

I wish he had a network television show, but then he'd have to compromose, and they wouldn' let him talk about some things, so it'd be a waste. He's written about 20 books too.

No, he's a bigger idiot than even Glenn Beck.

If he wasn't a typical far left kook hack-in-the-box, he could manage to get a syndication deal or even a spot on GLBTNBC -like saaaaaaay Ed Schultz- rather than languishing on the Airhead America network that virtually nobody listens to.

 

[pal_of_poor]

pal of poor, explain the logic behind giving people $8000 to buy a house and getting into even more debt at a time when debt is already so high that it caused a horrible recession...but TAKING money from people who are willing to take the risk to capitalize the marketplace?

It doesn't make any sense. A house seller can make $250,000 in profit and not be charged a single dime in capital gains taxes, but you want people to be charged a percentage on every stock transaction on TOP of the capital gains taxes?

Where is the logic?

Yea, you explain the logic behind why we charge people only 15 percent on money they earn from investments, while someone else who makes 350 grand a year, pays 35 percent on their income? To me, money earned is money earned, and if anything, money earned on investments should be taxed more, not less. But as usual, those who've bought and paid for all political offices in the land, the super rich, the top few percent, get a cushy fifteen percent, no FICA SS taxes, it is not indexed.

I'm not familiar with teh housing tax, so I really have no comment on it. But I think taking a small percentage (very small really) to build a fund, to deal with these repeating financial disasters, instead of pulling the money from the general fund, or the FICA taxes (yea, we spend those taxes collected specifically for SS on everything).

Personally, I see income as income. If you happen to be rich, and pay only that 15 percent, then you are a very lucky person, and you've likely got a lot of other deductions, and devices to get out of paying taxes too.

Even Buffett Acknowledges that his secretary pays more in taxes than he does, and the insanity of it too.

 

[pal_of_poor]

Thom who??

Thom Hartmann | News. Opinion. Debate.

He's actually informed, uses facts instead of idiot statue arguments like Beck, doesn't bloviate and kick off those whom he disagrees with, or cut off their microphones, as Limbaugh and O'Reilly do, in fact, he puts them in the front of the line. Usually, they end up getting a good chance to talk, and if they are polite, they stay on the line, and get shredded by facts. Mostly that goes, republican repeater talk point, facts, facts, facts, republican talking points, facts, facts, facts. Unlike O'Reilly and Limbaugh in particular, who fear liberals and fact, to the pont of cutting them off, he welcomes conservatives, and has good discussions with them. He often brings a noted consevative on in the beginning of the show, and they usually have respectful conversations with one-another, the way media should be.

I wish he had a network television show, but then he'd have to compromose, and they wouldn' let him talk about some things, so it'd be a waste. He's written about 20 books too.

No, he's a bigger idiot than even Glenn Beck.

If he wasn't a typical far left kook hack-in-the-box, he could manage to get a syndication deal or even a spot on GLBTNBC -like saaaaaaay Ed Schultz- rather than languishing on the Airhead America network that virtually nobody listens to.

I guess you could call him an idiot for not selling out and making even more money, though he's a wealthy guy too. I will agree, that in the corporate, right-wing media, there is no place for a truth teller, who supports labor.

Telling the truth does limit your options.

We're a faithful bunch of listeners. Facts and truth will always favor the liberal argument. Too much of the corporate media has been here's what repubs say, and here's what dems say, and we're not even going to bother to tell you the truth about it.

 

[Oddball]

ROFLMFAO!!!!

Even a successful lib like Ed Schultz is called a sellout by pinko kooks!!!!...Toooooo funny!!

No, Hartmann is an idiot for being a far left wing kook, who can only get his bile out on the dismal Airhead America stations.

Since I asked the salient question "Thom who?" and done a little searching, and found that his dreck isn't significantly less shrill and mean-spirited than any of the other clowns on that network.