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

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,470
Reaction score
1,458
Points
245
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,471
Reaction score
9,883
Points
900
Location
On a hill
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.
Friend, don't know how old you are... but you need to understand that 401ks are nothing more than an ingenious tool used to get the American worker to accept the loss of real pensions. Pensions were 100% funded by employers. Cost the worker not one red cent. Nothing.
When 401ks were first introduced, most companies matched 100% up to a certain amount. Wasn't long before that became 50% of a less amount. Now it is quite common to see only 25% match. Corporations have saved $trillions.
And then, also came the windfall of cash from 401ks into the markets.

401ks are just flat out evil. They now pay dividends LESS than what interest rates use to be on a mere savings account.
 
Last edited:

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
25,211
Reaction score
20,980
Points
2,415
Trump was never and isn't "my guy", there's your first mistake.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What's so damn hard to grasp cutting spending?
Saying it and doing it are two different things and Republicans never do it...nor should they in most cases since there isn't a lot that can be cut without doing great harm...especially now as we try to recover the economy

DOPE
Republican voters do wish to cut spending. We are not pleased that it isn't done despite who is in power. Two questions, do you really believe that spending can't be addressed? Also, despite who is in office, how does a president fix horrible budgets? Isn't a shutdown the only option, and how long could a shutdown last?

It's a hollow claim. The debt went up $8 trillion under Trump but those who claim to want to address debt still voted to re-elect him. Not only that they supported cutting taxes while adding more debt.

I've asked over and over what would be the problem here with adding this tax and using the money to address the debt? A few replied that they don't believe it would be done and that's all well and fine but why don't the Republicans come to the table with this?

One again the thread is about what we would support, not what we think others would do. Very few seem willing to address the massive debt we have accumulated. Seems to me that the best way to get people to get serious about spending is to actually make them pay for that spending.
Why did you support and vote for Commie Stein, who ran on the Green New Deal, which would have cost $110 TRILLION. She offered no way to pay for it.

pknopp will keep dodging this.............

I explained this. Not my fault you ignored what I said.
Yeah, your explanation is that you were completely clueless as to what she ran on, yet still voted for her.

I noted I voted for her because she was willing to get arrested over her beliefs. I respect that. Any third party politician would have been a better choice than Trump or Hillary.


You have told others (including me) that we have no standing on talking about debt because we have voted for people who have no plan to end the debt. You voted for a clown who ran on racking up $110 TRILLION in debt, you raving lunatic!

What an idiot.

Nobody I voted for has added a penny to the debt.
1) So you voted for someone willing to add trillions to the debt, and massively increase the scope and role of Govt in the private sector....because they were willing to get arrested for that?

really...throws a giant wrench in your "libertarian" gimmick

2) Bob Barr never voted for anything that raised the debt? Okkk....

What's worse is you openly voted for Stein....who WANTED TO MASSIVELY INCREASE the debt.....it was the hallmark of her campaign...and you supported that.
pknopp thinks giving you a thumbs down on your post negates him voting for someone who wanted to add $110 TRILLION to our debt.

What a clown.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
64,951
Reaction score
13,676
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
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."

The Chinese and the Russians couldn't dream of doing as much damage to the United States as the Democrat party does to us
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,471
Reaction score
9,883
Points
900
Location
On a hill
I, along with 1,000,000s of folks who trade in the markets, commonly make dozens of "transactions" a week. It is the only way you can come out ahead in the system in a worthwhile way.

So - many-many people like me - middle class retail traders would be forced to pay the government money on every move. Even when those moves there is a financial loss.
And Democrats think this is a good thing... and "punishes the rich".
No wonder the federal government so easily rips us new assholes on a daily basis when they do so at the sound of applause by millions of sheep.
 
Last edited:

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.
That sounds like a load of horseshit. Do you have any evidence?
A good single case can be found not that long ago where we have the latest round of cash for farmers from Trump, they guy that was supposed to be against the political machine favoring the massive businesses and for the people.

Big cash goes to big business.

There is, however, a growing trned of consolodation of the farming market over the long term.

While both of these come up with the wrong root problems and solutions (they are concentrated on government solutions to government created problems) they have hard data to show that the top 4 companies in various areas of agriculture are dominating far above what they should be and doing so at an increasing rate.

This is what it looks like when government interferes with markets, competition dries up and the largest players swell enormously as they get to take over entire markets.
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,470
Reaction score
1,458
Points
245
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.
Friend, don't know how old you are... but you need to understand that 401ks are nothing more than an ingenious tool used to get the American worker to accept the loss of real pensions. Pensions were 100% funded by employers. Cost the worker not one red cent. Nothing.
When 401ks were first introduced, most companies matched 100% up to a certain amount. Wasn't long before that became 50% of a less amount. Now it is quite common to see only 25% match. Corporations have saved $trillions.
And then, also came the windfall of cash from 401ks into the markets.

401ks are just flat out evil. They now pay dividends LESS than what interest rates use to be on a mere savings account.

I've been against the transitions from pensions to 401K's since the early 1980s. I agree - they were created to force workers money from highly reliable pensions into highly risky markets.

But that doesn't change the fact that short term traders are shifting that 401k money into their pockets - which is why 401ks were invented in the first place.
 

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.
You are quite mistaken

farming is big business in the form of equipment makers, seed and fertilizer companies, ag schools, more ways than I can think of

but those are not mega farms

they serve farmers

most farms are at best medium size and individually owned
Most farms are small.

The vast majority of farming sales are from 4 companies.

So, that does not refute my point.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,718
Reaction score
7,237
Points
290
I, along with 1,000,000s of folks who trade in the markets, commonly make dozens of "transactions" a week. It is the only way you can come out ahead in the system in a worthwhile way.

So - many-many people like me - middle class retail traders would be forced to pay the government money on every move. Even when those moves there is a financial loss.
And Democrats think this is a good thing... and "punishes the rich".
No wonder the federal government so easily rips us new assholes on a daily basis when they do so at the sound of applause by millions of sheep.
Day traders don't number in the millions and most of the are losers
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,471
Reaction score
9,883
Points
900
Location
On a hill
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.
Friend, don't know how old you are... but you need to understand that 401ks are nothing more than an ingenious tool used to get the American worker to accept the loss of real pensions. Pensions were 100% funded by employers. Cost the worker not one red cent. Nothing.
When 401ks were first introduced, most companies matched 100% up to a certain amount. Wasn't long before that became 50% of a less amount. Now it is quite common to see only 25% match. Corporations have saved $trillions.
And then, also came the windfall of cash from 401ks into the markets.

401ks are just flat out evil. They now pay dividends LESS than what interest rates use to be on a mere savings account.

I've been against the transitions from pensions to 401K's since the early 1980s. I agree - they were created to force workers money from highly reliable pensions into highly risky markets.

But that doesn't change the fact that short term traders are shifting that 401k money into their pockets - which is why 401ks were invented in the first place.
No
401ks were invented primarily to allow corporations to shed the burden of pension plans that costs them a lot of money.
Separate from that was the HUGE windfall of cash 401ks thrown into investment firms that they can collect fees from. As well as it created a significant rise in the markets for at least a decade.
And to boot... 401ks are also used to help stabilize some markets making it possible for other investors to have dependable returns on those markets.
Like I say, 401ks are pure evil. They don't even pay in dividends what lowly savings accounts use to pay. People literally made more money in their savings accounts decades ago than investing in 401ks.

H U G E rippoff.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,471
Reaction score
9,883
Points
900
Location
On a hill
I, along with 1,000,000s of folks who trade in the markets, commonly make dozens of "transactions" a week. It is the only way you can come out ahead in the system in a worthwhile way.

So - many-many people like me - middle class retail traders would be forced to pay the government money on every move. Even when those moves there is a financial loss.
And Democrats think this is a good thing... and "punishes the rich".
No wonder the federal government so easily rips us new assholes on a daily basis when they do so at the sound of applause by millions of sheep.
Day traders don't number in the millions and most of the are losers
i didn't say day traders. Pay more attention.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,314
Reaction score
4,325
Points
290
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.

You do understand that there are literally tens of thousands of companies that trade either on the NYSE or NASDAQ. These are all individual stocks and not everyone has the exact same portfolio.

When you get the Dow Jones average at the end of the day that is just a snapshot of the 30 biggest companies and is a poor indicator of the market as a whole.

And Like I said short term traders only create short term volatility it has little or no effect on a person regularly investing over decades
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,314
Reaction score
4,325
Points
290
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.
Friend, don't know how old you are... but you need to understand that 401ks are nothing more than an ingenious tool used to get the American worker to accept the loss of real pensions. Pensions were 100% funded by employers. Cost the worker not one red cent. Nothing.
When 401ks were first introduced, most companies matched 100% up to a certain amount. Wasn't long before that became 50% of a less amount. Now it is quite common to see only 25% match. Corporations have saved $trillions.
And then, also came the windfall of cash from 401ks into the markets.

401ks are just flat out evil. They now pay dividends LESS than what interest rates use to be on a mere savings account.

I've been against the transitions from pensions to 401K's since the early 1980s. I agree - they were created to force workers money from highly reliable pensions into highly risky markets.

But that doesn't change the fact that short term traders are shifting that 401k money into their pockets - which is why 401ks were invented in the first place.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you realize it?
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,783
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
Washington State
I notice that you ignored any basic question posed to you kyz.

I will reiterate: You keep demanding they are stealing. Where is the coercion? It is not stealing if you do not forcibly take something of mine and keep it.
Ignored because you cant point to the coercion anywhere. It is somehow stealing with no one coerced into giving anyone anything. No one takes anything from another without their consent.

How much did you lose in the flash crash?
Ignored because we all know the answer: 0. You lost nothing like the rest of the average traders because HFT does not really effect long term stock holdings.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,783
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
Washington State
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.
....

Um, no. This makes no logical sense whatsoever. The stock market is not a single commodity that people are pouring money into - it is a collection of millions of commodities. If everyone was pouring billions into a SINGLE commodity, like stock in IBM, then you might has somewhat of a point though ALL markets have some instability in prices. That is not the case.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,471
Reaction score
9,883
Points
900
Location
On a hill
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.
....

Um, no. This makes no logical sense whatsoever. The stock market is not a single commodity that people are pouring money into - it is a collection of millions of commodities. If everyone was pouring billions into a SINGLE commodity, like stock in IBM, then you might has somewhat of a point though ALL markets have some instability in prices. That is not the case.
Money grows on fairy trees don't you know?
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,783
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
Washington State
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.
It is a rare position because it is demonstrably not true.

Explain how short term volatility decreases long term profitability.
I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!
Except it does not.

Struth already posted a hard example that show this statement to be utterly false:
CNN of all places actually did a great piece on this new tax the left is trying to put on the working class: Opinion: A financial transaction tax may be aimed at hurting Wall Street. But it will hit Main Street investors instead

" Also, it won't just be Wall Street that bears the burden of this tax. In my experience, taxes on Wall Street rarely, if ever, remain a tax on Wall Street. Just like a gas tax is passed from oil companies on to people at the pump, taxes on financial transactions will be passed from financial services firms on to individual investors -- in this case as a higher cost to retail investors when the firms execute a trade or increase fees on mutual funds, ETF's, 401k plans or pension plans.

ore than 65 million US households own stocks, according to the Investment Company Institute, including more than 100 million participants in 401(k) plans which primarily use mutual funds and ETFs to help save for retirement. And according to the Urban Institute, more than 20 million state and local government employees participate in a public pension plan. All of these hard-working Americans will wind up bearing the cost of any financial transaction tax as a tax on their savings and retirement nest eggs."
.....
" Most countries that have implemented a financial transaction tax have found out the hard way that the tax did not raise anywhere near the amount its proponents claimed it would given the ease with which investors are able to move to different products or offshore trading venues. Sweden imposed a 1% financial transaction tax in 1984. Within six years of its implementation, 50% of Swedish stock trading volume had moved to other countries and the market dropped 5.3%. That's what smart people do in efficient markets. Sweden abolished the tax in 1991, and share prices rebounded by 9.7%.

A financial transaction tax may be a great soundbite for politicians -- hitting Wall Street to help pay for current economic deficits. But it will increase the cost of capital for American companies and it will wind up as a tax on Main Street investors -- hard-working Americans who are saving for their retirement. It may be good politics, but it is not good policy."
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,470
Reaction score
1,458
Points
245
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.
Friend, don't know how old you are... but you need to understand that 401ks are nothing more than an ingenious tool used to get the American worker to accept the loss of real pensions. Pensions were 100% funded by employers. Cost the worker not one red cent. Nothing.
When 401ks were first introduced, most companies matched 100% up to a certain amount. Wasn't long before that became 50% of a less amount. Now it is quite common to see only 25% match. Corporations have saved $trillions.
And then, also came the windfall of cash from 401ks into the markets.

401ks are just flat out evil. They now pay dividends LESS than what interest rates use to be on a mere savings account.

I've been against the transitions from pensions to 401K's since the early 1980s. I agree - they were created to force workers money from highly reliable pensions into highly risky markets.

But that doesn't change the fact that short term traders are shifting that 401k money into their pockets - which is why 401ks were invented in the first place.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you realize it?

Just once....I'm waiting.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,783
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
Washington State
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."

Geez, I thought I was the only one in the world that realized that market volatility was a mechanism for shifting log term (401k) investment money into the hands of short term investors.

I don't care where the government chooses to spend the money. This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!

OK show my how much money you would have had in your 401K if no one day traded.

Given that tens of billions of 401k dollars are poured into the markets every week, the law of supply and demand dictates that markets should be constantly and steadily going up. However, short term traders create volatility. The short term traders sell high and buy low - that shift the money that should have gone to long term investors into their pockets.
Friend, don't know how old you are... but you need to understand that 401ks are nothing more than an ingenious tool used to get the American worker to accept the loss of real pensions. Pensions were 100% funded by employers. Cost the worker not one red cent. Nothing.
When 401ks were first introduced, most companies matched 100% up to a certain amount. Wasn't long before that became 50% of a less amount. Now it is quite common to see only 25% match. Corporations have saved $trillions.
And then, also came the windfall of cash from 401ks into the markets.

401ks are just flat out evil. They now pay dividends LESS than what interest rates use to be on a mere savings account.

I've been against the transitions from pensions to 401K's since the early 1980s. I agree - they were created to force workers money from highly reliable pensions into highly risky markets.

But that doesn't change the fact that short term traders are shifting that 401k money into their pockets - which is why 401ks were invented in the first place.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you realize it?

Just once....I'm waiting.
Already done many, many times.

Post 534 and 434 are the most direct and strongest though so....

Apparently once was not enough.
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,470
Reaction score
1,458
Points
245
CNN of all places actually did a great piece on this new tax the left is trying to put on the working class: Opinion: A financial transaction tax may be aimed at hurting Wall Street. But it will hit Main Street investors instead

" Also, it won't just be Wall Street that bears the burden of this tax. In my experience, taxes on Wall Street rarely, if ever, remain a tax on Wall Street. Just like a gas tax is passed from oil companies on to people at the pump, taxes on financial transactions will be passed from financial services firms on to individual investors -- in this case as a higher cost to retail investors when the firms execute a trade or increase fees on mutual funds, ETF's, 401k plans or pension plans.

ore than 65 million US households own stocks, according to the Investment Company Institute, including more than 100 million participants in 401(k) plans which primarily use mutual funds and ETFs to help save for retirement. And according to the Urban Institute, more than 20 million state and local government employees participate in a public pension plan. All of these hard-working Americans will wind up bearing the cost of any financial transaction tax as a tax on their savings and retirement nest eggs."
.....
" Most countries that have implemented a financial transaction tax have found out the hard way that the tax did not raise anywhere near the amount its proponents claimed it would given the ease with which investors are able to move to different products or offshore trading venues. Sweden imposed a 1% financial transaction tax in 1984. Within six years of its implementation, 50% of Swedish stock trading volume had moved to other countries and the market dropped 5.3%. That's what smart people do in efficient markets. Sweden abolished the tax in 1991, and share prices rebounded by 9.7%.

A financial transaction tax may be a great soundbite for politicians -- hitting Wall Street to help pay for current economic deficits. But it will increase the cost of capital for American companies and it will wind up as a tax on Main Street investors -- hard-working Americans who are saving for their retirement. It may be good politics, but it is not good policy."

401k plans will almost certainly be exempt from this tax. It's meant to slow down short term traders.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top