Democrats propose "transaction tax" on financial transactions. (Poll)

Do you support the new "transaction tax", and if so, what would you do with the revenue?

  • No, I'll explain why in my post

    Votes: 18 64.3%
  • Yes, to pay for free community college & job training

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • Yes, to pay for 1/2 of 4-year college and advanced degrees

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, to pay into the general revenue fund to pay for SS & Medicare

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Yes, see my post for where I'd put the $80b/yr revenue

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • Total voters
    28

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,783
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
Washington State
22% of the budget isn't exactly small
Some of it could and should be cut but certainly not all of it
There is no need for the government to pay farmers to grow any particular crop. There is no need for government price fixing of agricultural goods either
Farmers face a lot of problems

Flooding, drought, pestilence, disease.

A small farmer particularly is in a vulnerable position

When conditions are favorable he makes a good crop.

But so does everyone else and prices fall

in lean years prices go back up but he has little or nothing to sell
That can be said about ALL commodities.

The government has no business interfering with the actual price of food. If it is to expensive, the LAST option is to pay off special interests to cover the problem up...

One of the things those payoffs do though is ensure the small farmer simply does not exist so it certainly is not helping the small guy in a venerable position.
its much different for small farmers than mega ag corps or other companies

Cambells Soup knows almost exactly much how soup they will sell in the following year

the small farmer does not know how much he will grow or what crop prices will be a year from now

Which puts him at great risk
Instead, we have 'Campbell's soup' which knows exactly what to plant and when to get the most government money. Money it then uses to put every small farmer they can out of business. Money they can reinvest in lobbyists that ensure the payouts help them and not their upstart competition.

So, ya. Those farmers are not vulnerable as most of them do not exist anymore.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,783
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
Washington State
It will hit the high-speed traders more than me or other "buy and hold" investors.
Why, pray tell, would you promote another tax on yourself. It doesn't exempt your retirement transactions. Haul back all foreign aid and take care of issues in this country if you feel charitable. No more taxes.
Remember the 2010 "flash crash"? That was (high-frequency trading) HFTs.
The transaction tax wouldn't hit me significantly, I don't trade much. I'm a "buy and hold" investor.
IMHO the net benefits of this tax, stopping HFTs from stealing our investments would be a net gain.
So as long as it is your neighbor that the government is screwing, it is OK--just as long as they leave me alone. LOL, soon your neighbor won't be enough and then it is you. Wake Up.
If my neighbor is stealing from my 401K, then I want the government to stop him.
The only ones getting screwed now are the 401Ks, the HFTs are stealing in thousandths of a second, and its "legal"? WTF?
There is that broken record again.

You keep calling it stealing. It keeps getting pointed out that it is not. Where is the coercion?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,180
Reaction score
13,958
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
1. Most of us are "investors", we invest in companies to hire and expand for a long-term capital gain.
2. HFTs steal the investment by "front-running". I already gave you links explaining front-running.
3. HFTs use "high-frequency trading" to steal money from investors. They are financial are leeches, QED.
4. As explained, HFTs steal from large trades of TSLA, duh. Not every trade. All the money they make is stolen from investors.
5. You can't explain any societal benefits that HFTs have, as compared to long-term investors. All HFTs do is steal investment capital intended for companies to grow the US economy.

HFTs steal the investment by "front-running". I already gave you links explaining front-running.

If you hear that Vanguard is about to enter an order to buy 100,000 shares of Tesla and you enter a buy order first, that's front-running and illegal.

How is an HFT, without that pre-knowledge, going to front-run that order?

HFTs use "high-frequency trading" to steal money from investors.

You can't show how they steal from my order, why would we believe your claim here?

You can't explain any societal benefits that HFTs have,

I can't explain any social benefit you provide, that doesn't mean you should be outlawed.

All HFTs do is steal investment capital intended for companies to grow the US economy.

You just can't show how.
Willful ignorance won't get you any points with me. I'm retired and can post all day and all night.
1. HFTs exist to steal money, its all computerized, no one "hears" anything.
The transaction tax will make it harder for them to steal other people's investments.
2. They don't steal from every order, idiot. If they didn't steal money they wouldn't exist. They make no products.
3. I provided a service. Most companies make products or provide services. HFTs exist to steal investments.
4. I showed you how HFTs steal many times, its called "front-running". You can't tell me what product or service HFTs provide, because all they do to make money is steal it from other people.

I showed you how HFTs steal many times, its called "front-running".

How does an HFT steal by front-running? Spell it out.

They don't steal from every order,

Show that they steal from any order.

You can't tell me what product or service HFTs provide

They provide liquidity. You don't have to like it.

High Frequency Trading in the US - Market Size | IBISWorld
1. Read up on HFT, its computerized theft.
2. If they don't steal money what product do they produce? hint: no product or service, they just steal.
3. HFTs don't provide liquidity, they provide volatility, like the 2010 "flash crash".

Critiques of HFT
HFT is controversial and has been met with some harsh criticism. It has replaced a number of broker-dealers and uses mathematical models and algorithms to make decisions, taking human decision and interaction out of the equation. Decisions happen in milliseconds, and this could result in big market moves without reason. As an example, on May 6, 2010, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) suffered its largest intraday point drop ever, declining 1,000 points and dropping 10% in just 20 minutes before rising again. A government investigation blamed a massive order that triggered a sell-off for the crash.3

An additional critique of HFT is it allows large companies to profit at the expense of the "little guys," or the institutional and retail investors. Another major complaint about HFT is the liquidity provided by HFT is "ghost liquidity," meaning it provides liquidity that is available to the market one second and gone the next, preventing traders from actually being able to trade this liquidity.


1. Read up on HFT, its computerized theft.

I've read up on it. It's not.

2. If they don't steal money what product do they produce? hint: no product or service, they just steal.

They don't steal money. They buy low and sell high......if they do it right.

An additional critique of HFT is it allows large companies to profit at the expense of the "little guys," or the institutional and retail investors.

It allows large companies to profit at the expense of institutional investors?
Like other even larger companies? LOL!
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
138,613
Reaction score
29,560
Points
2,180
we once again have Trumpsters pretending to be fiscally responsible and attacking others.
What trumpsters wanted was an end to the lockouts

but if you did that democrats would not have an excuse to continue your massive borrow and spend pork barrel policies

8 trillion in spending that wasn't paid for under Trump.
Why didn't Nancy do something......

It's not her thing. She has no desire to address the debt. Why do you think she does?
Cause that's her job......

Her job is to raise campaign donations. That's the only reason she has her position.

But again, how do you expect Nancy and the Dems to do what Trump and the Republicans refused to do? They don't run on the debt.
Sorry,,.,,,the GOP and Trump attempted numerous times to cut spending...blocked by the dems, and called every name under the book by their propagandist for doing so..."grandma killers," claiming htey wanted people to die of hunger etc.

The largest driver of debt, is the entitlement programs, such as medicare and medicaid...and the left blocks any attempt by the GOP to address it.

Please, stop. No one could have blocked his first two years and he could have vetoed anything. He supported things like billions in bail outs that led to the debt.

But thanks for proving my beliefs for me.
Of course they could....and did...it's called a Filibuster. For example...the Farm Bill....the GOP simply added work requirements for SNAP....the Dems blocked it, and literally threatened to shut down the entire Ag Department over it. The GOP was faced with shutting down the Dept of Ag, or caving to the extortion by the Dems.
What would be the downside of shutting down the Department of Agriculture?
A lot....the Department of Ag, runs for example the food inspection...which helps ensure that food produced and sold on the market meats some basic standards for consumption. In addition, the run, clean, and maintain the national forest, which are a great resource not just for leisure, but natural resources, such as timber....as well as enforce federal laws on those lands.
Yeah, because so many people were dropping dead before the Dept of AG was created. The idea that businesses are going to poison their customers is one of the dumbest ideas socialists have ever conceived.

They do a shitty job of maintaining the national forests. That's why we have all these huge fires constantly.

If the Dept of AG disappeared tomorrow, no one would even notice.
well actually yeah...people were dropping dead of pretty easily avoidable things.

People certainly would notice...it's been around independently, since Lincoln, and in some form since our founding.
ROFL! Before the Roosevelt administration it was mostly a boondoggle program for passing out swag to farmers.
well that could be said for a lot of Federal agencies. I am not quite sure how that proves your point
True, it could be said for almost all of them. What's your point?

My point is that we don't need the Dept of Ag, so why should anyone care if its budget doesn't get approved?
I disagree with your point, because we need someone to enforce laws regarding food safety, and someone to manage national forest land.
I am
Sell off the national forests, and we don't need the government to police food safety. It does a very poor job of it.
I suppose we can sell of the national forest...I do think the Govt owns way to much...

We don't need laws regarding food safety? I have to disagree. I don't want to risk getting sick off food I expect to be safe at the grocery store. I want to buy a beef from Montana and some lobster from Maine and make sure there are some basic safety standards before it gets to my plate.

They certainly aren't perfect, but nothing is 100 percent, and it's better then 0 percent
Companies don't make money by killing their customers. Any company that had an issue with the safety of the food they sell almost immediately went bankrupt. Consider Jack-in-the-box. Remember all the problems with E-coli on lettuce?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,180
Reaction score
13,958
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Little more than a gimmick. It will not stop institutionalized investors will find other financial products to invest in, move those transactions elsewhere or find a way around the tax. HFT is essentially irrelevant to those that are not part of the trading as long term health of an asset is not phased by short term fluctuations.

The government will not get a tiny fraction of what it says it will out of the tax, more regulation is not going to help the average guy's 401k in any way and the spending that the tax is supposed to go to will not only exceed the projected gains but will not change when the government reveals that they are making far less than projected.
I see your words, but need proof of what you say is true.
ALL money made by HFTs is stolen from investors.
First, its not 'stolen' as that necessitates taking from someone without their consent, consent you give when you agree to buy and sell stock. Claiming it stealing is like whining the card players at the poker table stole from you because they are better at the game.

Second, that money comes from other high frequency or institutional investors. Not a single one of my investments has been effected by HFT because I do not invest short term. That a stock may half, double and then half again in price over the course of a month is irrelevant to the vast majority of investors, all that matters is the price point you get in and out. If you are not involved in short term trades then HFT does nothing to your investments. Short term volatility is simply not relevant.

If you are a short term investor then you are getting exactly what you want. All a tax on HFT does is attempt to remove a specific market for trades.

Finally, you have provided no proof that HFT traders steal anything. Your complaints about insider trading are not even remotely relevant to HFT, you can trade on inside information or manipulate the market without participating in a lot of transactions. We do know the government will not get what it thinks it will because they never raise the amounts they promise. Same thing goes with what happens to the money raised. You can guarantee that adding this tax will only increase the debt because the tax is not even represented as a function of raising funds, it is represented as a function of WHAT THEY CAN BUY WITH THE TAX.

IOW, the money would already be spent and even if it is done through reconciliation (which requires it to be deficit neutral iirc) it would still fail as there is zero chance they would actually ties the amount spent with the amount raised.

There are 2 reasons I can see to support something like this:
HFTs are an infringement on the people's freedom - Give me a good reason that the government should be infringing on my freedom to trade as I see fit because that is what you need. Not that more advanced individuals and/or institutions are taking the majority of the gains, that happens in every single field or economic activity in existence. 100 percent of them. There is not a single example of that not being the case. Tell me exactly how those HFTs are infringing on my freedom. Then there is a case to limit them.
or
Taxing HFTs is a necessary and proper source of funding for the federal government. That I think is rather indefensible but then again I think the government should be funded in an even manner without all the special interests, outright thuggish control or specifically targeting small groups of people.

Not liking HFTs because they can be used in a manner you do not agree with is not one of them.
1. HFTs are not "fair", they use super-computers to steal in microseconds. Now if they pass the transaction tax, the HFTs can whine it isn't fair to them. I never gave my consent for HFTs to steal my investment. I'm giving my consent fro the transaction tax.
2. Where does the money that HFTs make come from? That's right, other people's investments. (aka stealing)
3. When 70% of all trades are by HFTs that makes for unnecessary volatility. The 2010 "flash crash" is what happens. We need real investment, not computer theft. The government needs to straighten out the stock markets, a transaction tax is a good start.
4. Proof that HFT is "theft"? What product or service do they sell? Hint: nothing, they just steal other people's investments.
5. I need the government to stop the HFTs computers from stealing our investments. That "theft" infringes on my investment freedom. IT'S THEFT!!
6. We all would pay the transaction tax, its minimal unless you're an HFT. The object is to make more investments "long-term" to create jobs and expand businesses.

Proof that HFT is "theft"? What product or service do they sell? Hint: nothing, they just steal other people's investments.


Have you made money on your investments? Yes?

Thief!!!
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
138,613
Reaction score
29,560
Points
2,180
22% of the budget isn't exactly small
Some of it could and should be cut but certainly not all of it
There is no need for the government to pay farmers to grow any particular crop. There is no need for government price fixing of agricultural goods either
Farmers face a lot of problems

Flooding, drought, pestilence, disease.

A small farmer particularly is in a vulnerable position

When conditions are favorable he makes a good crop.

But so does everyone else and prices fall

in lean years prices go back up but he has little or nothing to sell
That can be said about ALL commodities.

The government has no business interfering with the actual price of food. If it is to expensive, the LAST option is to pay off special interests to cover the problem up...

One of the things those payoffs do though is ensure the small farmer simply does not exist so it certainly is not helping the small guy in a venerable position.
its much different for small farmers than mega ag corps or other companies

Cambells Soup knows almost exactly much how soup they will sell in the following year

the small farmer does not know how much he will grow or what crop prices will be a year from now

Which puts him at great risk
Instead, we have 'Campbell's soup' which knows exactly what to plant and when to get the most government money. Money it then uses to put every small farmer they can out of business. Money they can reinvest in lobbyists that ensure the payouts help them and not their upstart competition.

So, ya. Those farmers are not vulnerable as most of them do not exist anymore.
That sounds like a load of horseshit. Do you have any evidence?
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
17,916
Reaction score
9,277
Points
1,255
Location
The AL part of PA
1. Most of us are "investors", we invest in companies to hire and expand for a long-term capital gain.
2. HFTs steal the investment by "front-running". I already gave you links explaining front-running.
3. HFTs use "high-frequency trading" to steal money from investors. They are financial are leeches, QED.
4. As explained, HFTs steal from large trades of TSLA, duh. Not every trade. All the money they make is stolen from investors.
5. You can't explain any societal benefits that HFTs have, as compared to long-term investors. All HFTs do is steal investment capital intended for companies to grow the US economy.

HFTs steal the investment by "front-running". I already gave you links explaining front-running.

If you hear that Vanguard is about to enter an order to buy 100,000 shares of Tesla and you enter a buy order first, that's front-running and illegal.

How is an HFT, without that pre-knowledge, going to front-run that order?

HFTs use "high-frequency trading" to steal money from investors.

You can't show how they steal from my order, why would we believe your claim here?

You can't explain any societal benefits that HFTs have,

I can't explain any social benefit you provide, that doesn't mean you should be outlawed.

All HFTs do is steal investment capital intended for companies to grow the US economy.

You just can't show how.
Willful ignorance won't get you any points with me. I'm retired and can post all day and all night.
1. HFTs exist to steal money, its all computerized, no one "hears" anything.
The transaction tax will make it harder for them to steal other people's investments.
2. They don't steal from every order, idiot. If they didn't steal money they wouldn't exist. They make no products.
3. I provided a service. Most companies make products or provide services. HFTs exist to steal investments.
4. I showed you how HFTs steal many times, its called "front-running". You can't tell me what product or service HFTs provide, because all they do to make money is steal it from other people.

I showed you how HFTs steal many times, its called "front-running".

How does an HFT steal by front-running? Spell it out.

They don't steal from every order,

Show that they steal from any order.

You can't tell me what product or service HFTs provide

They provide liquidity. You don't have to like it.

High Frequency Trading in the US - Market Size | IBISWorld
1. Read up on HFT, its computerized theft.
2. If they don't steal money what product do they produce? hint: no product or service, they just steal.
3. HFTs don't provide liquidity, they provide volatility, like the 2010 "flash crash".

Critiques of HFT
HFT is controversial and has been met with some harsh criticism. It has replaced a number of broker-dealers and uses mathematical models and algorithms to make decisions, taking human decision and interaction out of the equation. Decisions happen in milliseconds, and this could result in big market moves without reason. As an example, on May 6, 2010, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) suffered its largest intraday point drop ever, declining 1,000 points and dropping 10% in just 20 minutes before rising again. A government investigation blamed a massive order that triggered a sell-off for the crash.3

An additional critique of HFT is it allows large companies to profit at the expense of the "little guys," or the institutional and retail investors. Another major complaint about HFT is the liquidity provided by HFT is "ghost liquidity," meaning it provides liquidity that is available to the market one second and gone the next, preventing traders from actually being able to trade this liquidity.


1. Read up on HFT, its computerized theft.

I've read up on it. It's not.

2. If they don't steal money what product do they produce? hint: no product or service, they just steal.

They don't steal money. They buy low and sell high......if they do it right.

An additional critique of HFT is it allows large companies to profit at the expense of the "little guys," or the institutional and retail investors.

It allows large companies to profit at the expense of institutional investors?
Like other even larger companies? LOL!
1. It is stealing. There is no other word for it.
2. Buys and sells in thousandths of a second is stealing.
3. Large as in supercomputer size. The biggest and fastest computers steal more, at the expense of "institutional and retail investors". That's what the article says. They called it "profit" I call it "stealing'.
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
17,916
Reaction score
9,277
Points
1,255
Location
The AL part of PA
Little more than a gimmick. It will not stop institutionalized investors will find other financial products to invest in, move those transactions elsewhere or find a way around the tax. HFT is essentially irrelevant to those that are not part of the trading as long term health of an asset is not phased by short term fluctuations.

The government will not get a tiny fraction of what it says it will out of the tax, more regulation is not going to help the average guy's 401k in any way and the spending that the tax is supposed to go to will not only exceed the projected gains but will not change when the government reveals that they are making far less than projected.
I see your words, but need proof of what you say is true.
ALL money made by HFTs is stolen from investors.
First, its not 'stolen' as that necessitates taking from someone without their consent, consent you give when you agree to buy and sell stock. Claiming it stealing is like whining the card players at the poker table stole from you because they are better at the game.

Second, that money comes from other high frequency or institutional investors. Not a single one of my investments has been effected by HFT because I do not invest short term. That a stock may half, double and then half again in price over the course of a month is irrelevant to the vast majority of investors, all that matters is the price point you get in and out. If you are not involved in short term trades then HFT does nothing to your investments. Short term volatility is simply not relevant.

If you are a short term investor then you are getting exactly what you want. All a tax on HFT does is attempt to remove a specific market for trades.

Finally, you have provided no proof that HFT traders steal anything. Your complaints about insider trading are not even remotely relevant to HFT, you can trade on inside information or manipulate the market without participating in a lot of transactions. We do know the government will not get what it thinks it will because they never raise the amounts they promise. Same thing goes with what happens to the money raised. You can guarantee that adding this tax will only increase the debt because the tax is not even represented as a function of raising funds, it is represented as a function of WHAT THEY CAN BUY WITH THE TAX.

IOW, the money would already be spent and even if it is done through reconciliation (which requires it to be deficit neutral iirc) it would still fail as there is zero chance they would actually ties the amount spent with the amount raised.

There are 2 reasons I can see to support something like this:
HFTs are an infringement on the people's freedom - Give me a good reason that the government should be infringing on my freedom to trade as I see fit because that is what you need. Not that more advanced individuals and/or institutions are taking the majority of the gains, that happens in every single field or economic activity in existence. 100 percent of them. There is not a single example of that not being the case. Tell me exactly how those HFTs are infringing on my freedom. Then there is a case to limit them.
or
Taxing HFTs is a necessary and proper source of funding for the federal government. That I think is rather indefensible but then again I think the government should be funded in an even manner without all the special interests, outright thuggish control or specifically targeting small groups of people.

Not liking HFTs because they can be used in a manner you do not agree with is not one of them.
1. HFTs are not "fair", they use super-computers to steal in microseconds. Now if they pass the transaction tax, the HFTs can whine it isn't fair to them. I never gave my consent for HFTs to steal my investment. I'm giving my consent fro the transaction tax.
2. Where does the money that HFTs make come from? That's right, other people's investments. (aka stealing)
3. When 70% of all trades are by HFTs that makes for unnecessary volatility. The 2010 "flash crash" is what happens. We need real investment, not computer theft. The government needs to straighten out the stock markets, a transaction tax is a good start.
4. Proof that HFT is "theft"? What product or service do they sell? Hint: nothing, they just steal other people's investments.
5. I need the government to stop the HFTs computers from stealing our investments. That "theft" infringes on my investment freedom. IT'S THEFT!!
6. We all would pay the transaction tax, its minimal unless you're an HFT. The object is to make more investments "long-term" to create jobs and expand businesses.

Proof that HFT is "theft"? What product or service do they sell? Hint: nothing, they just steal other people's investments.

Have you made money on your investments? Yes?

Thief!!!
1. I invested with companies for a long time, we both profited.
2. HFTs steal in thousandths of a second, its theft.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
2,844
Points
893
we once again have Trumpsters pretending to be fiscally responsible and attacking others.
What trumpsters wanted was an end to the lockouts

but if you did that democrats would not have an excuse to continue your massive borrow and spend pork barrel policies

8 trillion in spending that wasn't paid for under Trump.
Why didn't Nancy do something......

It's not her thing. She has no desire to address the debt. Why do you think she does?
Cause that's her job......

Her job is to raise campaign donations. That's the only reason she has her position.

But again, how do you expect Nancy and the Dems to do what Trump and the Republicans refused to do? They don't run on the debt.
Sorry,,.,,,the GOP and Trump attempted numerous times to cut spending...blocked by the dems, and called every name under the book by their propagandist for doing so..."grandma killers," claiming htey wanted people to die of hunger etc.

The largest driver of debt, is the entitlement programs, such as medicare and medicaid...and the left blocks any attempt by the GOP to address it.

Please, stop. No one could have blocked his first two years and he could have vetoed anything. He supported things like billions in bail outs that led to the debt.

But thanks for proving my beliefs for me.
Of course they could....and did...it's called a Filibuster. For example...the Farm Bill....the GOP simply added work requirements for SNAP....the Dems blocked it, and literally threatened to shut down the entire Ag Department over it. The GOP was faced with shutting down the Dept of Ag, or caving to the extortion by the Dems.
What would be the downside of shutting down the Department of Agriculture?
A lot....the Department of Ag, runs for example the food inspection...which helps ensure that food produced and sold on the market meats some basic standards for consumption. In addition, the run, clean, and maintain the national forest, which are a great resource not just for leisure, but natural resources, such as timber....as well as enforce federal laws on those lands.
Yeah, because so many people were dropping dead before the Dept of AG was created. The idea that businesses are going to poison their customers is one of the dumbest ideas socialists have ever conceived.

They do a shitty job of maintaining the national forests. That's why we have all these huge fires constantly.

If the Dept of AG disappeared tomorrow, no one would even notice.
well actually yeah...people were dropping dead of pretty easily avoidable things.

People certainly would notice...it's been around independently, since Lincoln, and in some form since our founding.
ROFL! Before the Roosevelt administration it was mostly a boondoggle program for passing out swag to farmers.
well that could be said for a lot of Federal agencies. I am not quite sure how that proves your point
True, it could be said for almost all of them. What's your point?

My point is that we don't need the Dept of Ag, so why should anyone care if its budget doesn't get approved?
I disagree with your point, because we need someone to enforce laws regarding food safety, and someone to manage national forest land.
I am
Sell off the national forests, and we don't need the government to police food safety. It does a very poor job of it.
I suppose we can sell of the national forest...I do think the Govt owns way to much...

We don't need laws regarding food safety? I have to disagree. I don't want to risk getting sick off food I expect to be safe at the grocery store. I want to buy a beef from Montana and some lobster from Maine and make sure there are some basic safety standards before it gets to my plate.

They certainly aren't perfect, but nothing is 100 percent, and it's better then 0 percent
Companies don't make money by killing their customers. Any company that had an issue with the safety of the food they sell almost immediately went bankrupt. Consider Jack-in-the-box. Remember all the problems with E-coli on lettuce?
They might not intent to get their customers killed....but it can happen. I'd rather be alive to tell about it though or complain.

Jack in the Box is still in business. Obviously, nothing is 100 percent...thankfully food inspectors were able to correct the issue, before too many people got sick or died. Food inspectors, and the Dept of Ag were able to determine where that lettuce came from. So, they could cut off supply...Jack in the Box was able to get another supplier...and business went on with little impact.

Thanks to the Dept of Ag
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
2,844
Points
893
Little more than a gimmick. It will not stop institutionalized investors will find other financial products to invest in, move those transactions elsewhere or find a way around the tax. HFT is essentially irrelevant to those that are not part of the trading as long term health of an asset is not phased by short term fluctuations.

The government will not get a tiny fraction of what it says it will out of the tax, more regulation is not going to help the average guy's 401k in any way and the spending that the tax is supposed to go to will not only exceed the projected gains but will not change when the government reveals that they are making far less than projected.
I see your words, but need proof of what you say is true.
ALL money made by HFTs is stolen from investors.
First, its not 'stolen' as that necessitates taking from someone without their consent, consent you give when you agree to buy and sell stock. Claiming it stealing is like whining the card players at the poker table stole from you because they are better at the game.

Second, that money comes from other high frequency or institutional investors. Not a single one of my investments has been effected by HFT because I do not invest short term. That a stock may half, double and then half again in price over the course of a month is irrelevant to the vast majority of investors, all that matters is the price point you get in and out. If you are not involved in short term trades then HFT does nothing to your investments. Short term volatility is simply not relevant.

If you are a short term investor then you are getting exactly what you want. All a tax on HFT does is attempt to remove a specific market for trades.

Finally, you have provided no proof that HFT traders steal anything. Your complaints about insider trading are not even remotely relevant to HFT, you can trade on inside information or manipulate the market without participating in a lot of transactions. We do know the government will not get what it thinks it will because they never raise the amounts they promise. Same thing goes with what happens to the money raised. You can guarantee that adding this tax will only increase the debt because the tax is not even represented as a function of raising funds, it is represented as a function of WHAT THEY CAN BUY WITH THE TAX.

IOW, the money would already be spent and even if it is done through reconciliation (which requires it to be deficit neutral iirc) it would still fail as there is zero chance they would actually ties the amount spent with the amount raised.

There are 2 reasons I can see to support something like this:
HFTs are an infringement on the people's freedom - Give me a good reason that the government should be infringing on my freedom to trade as I see fit because that is what you need. Not that more advanced individuals and/or institutions are taking the majority of the gains, that happens in every single field or economic activity in existence. 100 percent of them. There is not a single example of that not being the case. Tell me exactly how those HFTs are infringing on my freedom. Then there is a case to limit them.
or
Taxing HFTs is a necessary and proper source of funding for the federal government. That I think is rather indefensible but then again I think the government should be funded in an even manner without all the special interests, outright thuggish control or specifically targeting small groups of people.

Not liking HFTs because they can be used in a manner you do not agree with is not one of them.
1. HFTs are not "fair", they use super-computers to steal in microseconds. Now if they pass the transaction tax, the HFTs can whine it isn't fair to them. I never gave my consent for HFTs to steal my investment. I'm giving my consent fro the transaction tax.
2. Where does the money that HFTs make come from? That's right, other people's investments. (aka stealing)
3. When 70% of all trades are by HFTs that makes for unnecessary volatility. The 2010 "flash crash" is what happens. We need real investment, not computer theft. The government needs to straighten out the stock markets, a transaction tax is a good start.
4. Proof that HFT is "theft"? What product or service do they sell? Hint: nothing, they just steal other people's investments.
5. I need the government to stop the HFTs computers from stealing our investments. That "theft" infringes on my investment freedom. IT'S THEFT!!
6. We all would pay the transaction tax, its minimal unless you're an HFT. The object is to make more investments "long-term" to create jobs and expand businesses.

Proof that HFT is "theft"? What product or service do they sell? Hint: nothing, they just steal other people's investments.

Have you made money on your investments? Yes?

Thief!!!
1. I invested with companies for a long time, we both profited.
2. HFTs steal in thousandths of a second, its theft.
who are they stealing from?
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,643
Reaction score
6,253
Points
1,830
I never thought that I'd ever be on the same side as Ilhan Omar, but here we are.
I support the proposed transaction tax. It will hit the high-speed traders more than me or other "buy and hold" investors.

The argument against it is that high-speed traders will just move off-shore to do their trades, fine.
They are nothing but leeches stealing our 401k investments.


"This (transaction tax) makes financial markets fairer and possibly less volatile. As described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys, high frequency traders (HFTs) can earn profits by front-running other trades by micro-seconds, an activity that raises costs for legitimate traders and provides no value to society. HFTs account for roughly half all stock trades and much of their business model would be threatened by the proposed transactions tax.
Under current law, someone selling or buying $1,000 of stock pays just over two cents in transaction taxes. This existing fee raises over $1.5 billion per year. The proposal would add a tax of $1 to that transaction."
You can’t ever call yourself a conservative if you support government socially or financially engineering society. There’s enough taxation in this country. ENOUGH.
1. I'm not a "phony conservative", you know the coxuckers who vote for tax cuts and then borrow trillions, aka "bubble makers".
2. I support the transaction tax. The $1 per $1000 BOT/SLD will hit the high-frequency traders, not "buy and hold" investors.
3. $30T DEBT is ENOUGH.
Right so your solution to debt is more taxes.

The only solution to debt is ending the Fed.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,180
Reaction score
13,958
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
1. It is stealing. There is no other word for it.
2. Buys and sells in thousandths of a second is stealing.
3. Large as in supercomputer size. The biggest and fastest computers steal more, at the expense of "institutional and retail investors". That's what the article says. They called it "profit" I call it "stealing'.

It is stealing. There is no other word for it.

You're lying.

Buys and sells in thousandths of a second is stealing.

Are market-makers also stealing?

The biggest and fastest computers steal more, at the expense of "institutional and retail investors".

You've failed to show how they've ever stolen from you.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
2,844
Points
893
1. Most of us are "investors", we invest in companies to hire and expand for a long-term capital gain.
2. HFTs steal the investment by "front-running". I already gave you links explaining front-running.
3. HFTs use "high-frequency trading" to steal money from investors. They are financial are leeches, QED.
4. As explained, HFTs steal from large trades of TSLA, duh. Not every trade. All the money they make is stolen from investors.
5. You can't explain any societal benefits that HFTs have, as compared to long-term investors. All HFTs do is steal investment capital intended for companies to grow the US economy.

HFTs steal the investment by "front-running". I already gave you links explaining front-running.

If you hear that Vanguard is about to enter an order to buy 100,000 shares of Tesla and you enter a buy order first, that's front-running and illegal.

How is an HFT, without that pre-knowledge, going to front-run that order?

HFTs use "high-frequency trading" to steal money from investors.

You can't show how they steal from my order, why would we believe your claim here?

You can't explain any societal benefits that HFTs have,

I can't explain any social benefit you provide, that doesn't mean you should be outlawed.

All HFTs do is steal investment capital intended for companies to grow the US economy.

You just can't show how.
Willful ignorance won't get you any points with me. I'm retired and can post all day and all night.
1. HFTs exist to steal money, its all computerized, no one "hears" anything.
The transaction tax will make it harder for them to steal other people's investments.
2. They don't steal from every order, idiot. If they didn't steal money they wouldn't exist. They make no products.
3. I provided a service. Most companies make products or provide services. HFTs exist to steal investments.
4. I showed you how HFTs steal many times, its called "front-running". You can't tell me what product or service HFTs provide, because all they do to make money is steal it from other people.

I showed you how HFTs steal many times, its called "front-running".

How does an HFT steal by front-running? Spell it out.

They don't steal from every order,

Show that they steal from any order.

You can't tell me what product or service HFTs provide

They provide liquidity. You don't have to like it.

High Frequency Trading in the US - Market Size | IBISWorld
1. Read up on HFT, its computerized theft.
2. If they don't steal money what product do they produce? hint: no product or service, they just steal.
3. HFTs don't provide liquidity, they provide volatility, like the 2010 "flash crash".

Critiques of HFT
HFT is controversial and has been met with some harsh criticism. It has replaced a number of broker-dealers and uses mathematical models and algorithms to make decisions, taking human decision and interaction out of the equation. Decisions happen in milliseconds, and this could result in big market moves without reason. As an example, on May 6, 2010, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) suffered its largest intraday point drop ever, declining 1,000 points and dropping 10% in just 20 minutes before rising again. A government investigation blamed a massive order that triggered a sell-off for the crash.3

An additional critique of HFT is it allows large companies to profit at the expense of the "little guys," or the institutional and retail investors. Another major complaint about HFT is the liquidity provided by HFT is "ghost liquidity," meaning it provides liquidity that is available to the market one second and gone the next, preventing traders from actually being able to trade this liquidity.


1. Read up on HFT, its computerized theft.

I've read up on it. It's not.

2. If they don't steal money what product do they produce? hint: no product or service, they just steal.

They don't steal money. They buy low and sell high......if they do it right.

An additional critique of HFT is it allows large companies to profit at the expense of the "little guys," or the institutional and retail investors.

It allows large companies to profit at the expense of institutional investors?
Like other even larger companies? LOL!
1. It is stealing. There is no other word for it.
2. Buys and sells in thousandths of a second is stealing.
3. Large as in supercomputer size. The biggest and fastest computers steal more, at the expense of "institutional and retail investors". That's what the article says. They called it "profit" I call it "stealing'.
How is buying and selling something stealing? That's where you lost me here.

I certainly don't disagree that you can be critical of the fact that it puts smaller broker firms at a massive disadvantage, and also takes out a lot of the human process since it's all computer and programs...but it's not stealing...not if they are BUYING the stock
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,893
Reaction score
5,921
Points
1,130
1. It is stealing. There is no other word for it.
2. Buys and sells in thousandths of a second is stealing.
3. Large as in supercomputer size. The biggest and fastest computers steal more, at the expense of "institutional and retail investors". That's what the article says. They called it "profit" I call it "stealing'.

It is stealing. There is no other word for it.

You're lying.

Buys and sells in thousandths of a second is stealing.

Are market-makers also stealing?

The biggest and fastest computers steal more, at the expense of "institutional and retail investors".

You've failed to show how they've ever stolen from you.

Arbitrage performs a valuable service: reaching a price point which most accurately balances the interests of buyers and sellers. The faster and more efficiently that happens, the better. Critics would have us believe that slowing that process down somehow benefits the market. While it might benefit traders who don't have access to high-speed networks, relative to those who do, it only makes the market less efficient.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,180
Reaction score
13,958
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
1. Most of us are "investors", we invest in companies to hire and expand for a long-term capital gain.
2. HFTs steal the investment by "front-running". I already gave you links explaining front-running.
3. HFTs use "high-frequency trading" to steal money from investors. They are financial are leeches, QED.
4. As explained, HFTs steal from large trades of TSLA, duh. Not every trade. All the money they make is stolen from investors.
5. You can't explain any societal benefits that HFTs have, as compared to long-term investors. All HFTs do is steal investment capital intended for companies to grow the US economy.

HFTs steal the investment by "front-running". I already gave you links explaining front-running.

If you hear that Vanguard is about to enter an order to buy 100,000 shares of Tesla and you enter a buy order first, that's front-running and illegal.

How is an HFT, without that pre-knowledge, going to front-run that order?

HFTs use "high-frequency trading" to steal money from investors.

You can't show how they steal from my order, why would we believe your claim here?

You can't explain any societal benefits that HFTs have,

I can't explain any social benefit you provide, that doesn't mean you should be outlawed.

All HFTs do is steal investment capital intended for companies to grow the US economy.

You just can't show how.
Willful ignorance won't get you any points with me. I'm retired and can post all day and all night.
1. HFTs exist to steal money, its all computerized, no one "hears" anything.
The transaction tax will make it harder for them to steal other people's investments.
2. They don't steal from every order, idiot. If they didn't steal money they wouldn't exist. They make no products.
3. I provided a service. Most companies make products or provide services. HFTs exist to steal investments.
4. I showed you how HFTs steal many times, its called "front-running". You can't tell me what product or service HFTs provide, because all they do to make money is steal it from other people.

I showed you how HFTs steal many times, its called "front-running".

How does an HFT steal by front-running? Spell it out.

They don't steal from every order,

Show that they steal from any order.

You can't tell me what product or service HFTs provide

They provide liquidity. You don't have to like it.

High Frequency Trading in the US - Market Size | IBISWorld
1. Read up on HFT, its computerized theft.
2. If they don't steal money what product do they produce? hint: no product or service, they just steal.
3. HFTs don't provide liquidity, they provide volatility, like the 2010 "flash crash".

Critiques of HFT
HFT is controversial and has been met with some harsh criticism. It has replaced a number of broker-dealers and uses mathematical models and algorithms to make decisions, taking human decision and interaction out of the equation. Decisions happen in milliseconds, and this could result in big market moves without reason. As an example, on May 6, 2010, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) suffered its largest intraday point drop ever, declining 1,000 points and dropping 10% in just 20 minutes before rising again. A government investigation blamed a massive order that triggered a sell-off for the crash.3

An additional critique of HFT is it allows large companies to profit at the expense of the "little guys," or the institutional and retail investors. Another major complaint about HFT is the liquidity provided by HFT is "ghost liquidity," meaning it provides liquidity that is available to the market one second and gone the next, preventing traders from actually being able to trade this liquidity.


1. Read up on HFT, its computerized theft.

I've read up on it. It's not.

2. If they don't steal money what product do they produce? hint: no product or service, they just steal.

They don't steal money. They buy low and sell high......if they do it right.

An additional critique of HFT is it allows large companies to profit at the expense of the "little guys," or the institutional and retail investors.

It allows large companies to profit at the expense of institutional investors?
Like other even larger companies? LOL!
1. It is stealing. There is no other word for it.
2. Buys and sells in thousandths of a second is stealing.
3. Large as in supercomputer size. The biggest and fastest computers steal more, at the expense of "institutional and retail investors". That's what the article says. They called it "profit" I call it "stealing'.
How is buying and selling something stealing? That's where you lost me here.

I certainly don't disagree that you can be critical of the fact that it puts smaller broker firms at a massive disadvantage, and also takes out a lot of the human process since it's all computer and programs...but it's not stealing...not if they are BUYING the stock

1619038479035.png
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,180
Reaction score
13,958
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
1. It is stealing. There is no other word for it.
2. Buys and sells in thousandths of a second is stealing.
3. Large as in supercomputer size. The biggest and fastest computers steal more, at the expense of "institutional and retail investors". That's what the article says. They called it "profit" I call it "stealing'.

It is stealing. There is no other word for it.

You're lying.

Buys and sells in thousandths of a second is stealing.

Are market-makers also stealing?

The biggest and fastest computers steal more, at the expense of "institutional and retail investors".

You've failed to show how they've ever stolen from you.

Arbitrage performs a valuable service: reaching a price point which most accurately balances the interests of buyers and sellers. The faster and more efficiently that happens, the better. Critics would have us believe that slowing that process down somehow benefits the market. While that might benefit traders who don't have access to high-speed networks, relative to those who do, it only makes the market less efficient.

I can't tell you the number of times I hit the bid or the ask and got a better price because of
those darn HFTs........bastards!!!!
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
138,613
Reaction score
29,560
Points
2,180
we once again have Trumpsters pretending to be fiscally responsible and attacking others.
What trumpsters wanted was an end to the lockouts

but if you did that democrats would not have an excuse to continue your massive borrow and spend pork barrel policies

8 trillion in spending that wasn't paid for under Trump.
Why didn't Nancy do something......

It's not her thing. She has no desire to address the debt. Why do you think she does?
Cause that's her job......

Her job is to raise campaign donations. That's the only reason she has her position.

But again, how do you expect Nancy and the Dems to do what Trump and the Republicans refused to do? They don't run on the debt.
Sorry,,.,,,the GOP and Trump attempted numerous times to cut spending...blocked by the dems, and called every name under the book by their propagandist for doing so..."grandma killers," claiming htey wanted people to die of hunger etc.

The largest driver of debt, is the entitlement programs, such as medicare and medicaid...and the left blocks any attempt by the GOP to address it.

Please, stop. No one could have blocked his first two years and he could have vetoed anything. He supported things like billions in bail outs that led to the debt.

But thanks for proving my beliefs for me.
Of course they could....and did...it's called a Filibuster. For example...the Farm Bill....the GOP simply added work requirements for SNAP....the Dems blocked it, and literally threatened to shut down the entire Ag Department over it. The GOP was faced with shutting down the Dept of Ag, or caving to the extortion by the Dems.
What would be the downside of shutting down the Department of Agriculture?
A lot....the Department of Ag, runs for example the food inspection...which helps ensure that food produced and sold on the market meats some basic standards for consumption. In addition, the run, clean, and maintain the national forest, which are a great resource not just for leisure, but natural resources, such as timber....as well as enforce federal laws on those lands.
Yeah, because so many people were dropping dead before the Dept of AG was created. The idea that businesses are going to poison their customers is one of the dumbest ideas socialists have ever conceived.

They do a shitty job of maintaining the national forests. That's why we have all these huge fires constantly.

If the Dept of AG disappeared tomorrow, no one would even notice.
well actually yeah...people were dropping dead of pretty easily avoidable things.

People certainly would notice...it's been around independently, since Lincoln, and in some form since our founding.
ROFL! Before the Roosevelt administration it was mostly a boondoggle program for passing out swag to farmers.
well that could be said for a lot of Federal agencies. I am not quite sure how that proves your point
True, it could be said for almost all of them. What's your point?

My point is that we don't need the Dept of Ag, so why should anyone care if its budget doesn't get approved?
I disagree with your point, because we need someone to enforce laws regarding food safety, and someone to manage national forest land.
I am
Sell off the national forests, and we don't need the government to police food safety. It does a very poor job of it.
I suppose we can sell of the national forest...I do think the Govt owns way to much...

We don't need laws regarding food safety? I have to disagree. I don't want to risk getting sick off food I expect to be safe at the grocery store. I want to buy a beef from Montana and some lobster from Maine and make sure there are some basic safety standards before it gets to my plate.

They certainly aren't perfect, but nothing is 100 percent, and it's better then 0 percent
Companies don't make money by killing their customers. Any company that had an issue with the safety of the food they sell almost immediately went bankrupt. Consider Jack-in-the-box. Remember all the problems with E-coli on lettuce?
They might not intent to get their customers killed....but it can happen. I'd rather be alive to tell about it though or complain.

Jack in the Box is still in business. Obviously, nothing is 100 percent...thankfully food inspectors were able to correct the issue, before too many people got sick or died. Food inspectors, and the Dept of Ag were able to determine where that lettuce came from. So, they could cut off supply...Jack in the Box was able to get another supplier...and business went on with little impact.

Thanks to the Dept of Ag

It wasn't lettuce, moron.

Food inspectors didn't do Jack Shit. The problem was contaminated hamburger, food that was inspected.

Contaminated lettuce was another problem the USDA didn't catch.

There is no agency more useless than the Dept of Agriculture.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top