What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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
6,547
Reaction score
1,491
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.
Already done many, many times.

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

Apparently once was not enough.

Neither of those posts proved me wrong.

434 - As I stated, 401k plans will almost certainly be exempt.

534 - Most of the article was blocked - but what do you expect from Forbes? Do you really think they'd publish an article in favor of this tax?
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
18,098
Reaction score
9,501
Points
1,255
Location
The AL part of PA
After we discussed the proposed "transaction tax" all day, the Biden admin now wants to raise the capital gains tax rate.
Someone needs to pay the bills since the DC coxuckers can't seem to cut any spending.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,319
Reaction score
14,114
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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!

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.


If you're holding a position in your 401k for 20 years, why would you even notice short-term volatility let alone lose money because of it?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,319
Reaction score
14,114
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.

Pensions were 100% funded by employers. Cost the worker not one red cent. Nothing.

Depends. Would the pension contributions for WCI Steel, for example, have gone into the workers paychecks instead? What did it cost those workers when their employers declared bankruptcy?
I've worked at several firms that no longer exist, I still have all those 401k contributions and matches.
 
Last edited:

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,806
Reaction score
3,673
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.

Neither of those posts proved me wrong.

434 - As I stated, 401k plans will almost certainly be exempt.
And?

401's being exempt have, literally, nothing to do with that post.

The FACT That another nation tried this and it drove invest profits DOWN shows that doing so is exactly the opposite of your claim: "This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!"

It DECREASES the value of your 401k in the real world example that we actually have.
534 - Most of the article was blocked - but what do you expect from Forbes? Do you really think they'd publish an article in favor of this tax?
I could care less. That you attack the source and not any information reinforces my original statement: Apparently once was not enough.

How about showing something that shows HFT effecting long term stock prices. That is the essential contention here. Or at least explaining how that even works. At least give us a mechanism with which your claim is based on.

How does a price volatility today bring down the market value of your stock in 10 years and why is that effect a net LOSS on your particular portfolio considering the actual impacts should be net 0 (you are not on one side or the other of the HFT so they would impact you roughly evenly).
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,547
Reaction score
1,491
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.
Already done many, many times.

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

Apparently once was not enough.

Neither of those posts proved me wrong.

434 - As I stated, 401k plans will almost certainly be exempt.
And?

401's being exempt have, literally, nothing to do with that post.

The FACT That another nation tried this and it drove invest profits DOWN shows that doing so is exactly the opposite of your claim: "This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!"

It DECREASES the value of your 401k in the real world example that we actually have.
534 - Most of the article was blocked - but what do you expect from Forbes? Do you really think they'd publish an article in favor of this tax?
I could care less. That you attack the source and not any information reinforces my original statement: Apparently once was not enough.

How about showing something that shows HFT effecting long term stock prices. That is the essential contention here. Or at least explaining how that even works. At least give us a mechanism with which your claim is based on.

How does a price volatility today bring down the market value of your stock in 10 years and why is that effect a net LOSS on your particular portfolio considering the actual impacts should be net 0 (you are not on one side or the other of the HFT so they would impact you roughly evenly).

As I stated earlier, the money being poured into the stock market thru 401k plans should cause the market to increase steadily. Market volatility stops that from happening.

There's no way to project what 401k plans would be worth if there was no market volatility, but anyone that has a 401k plan knows that their value often goes down - that wouldn't happen if it weren't for volatility.

Anything that reduces market volatility is good for long term investors.

If short term investors all sell and move their money to another country, it would be a good thing for long term investors.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,319
Reaction score
14,114
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.

Neither of those posts proved me wrong.

434 - As I stated, 401k plans will almost certainly be exempt.
And?

401's being exempt have, literally, nothing to do with that post.

The FACT That another nation tried this and it drove invest profits DOWN shows that doing so is exactly the opposite of your claim: "This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!"

It DECREASES the value of your 401k in the real world example that we actually have.
534 - Most of the article was blocked - but what do you expect from Forbes? Do you really think they'd publish an article in favor of this tax?
I could care less. That you attack the source and not any information reinforces my original statement: Apparently once was not enough.

How about showing something that shows HFT effecting long term stock prices. That is the essential contention here. Or at least explaining how that even works. At least give us a mechanism with which your claim is based on.

How does a price volatility today bring down the market value of your stock in 10 years and why is that effect a net LOSS on your particular portfolio considering the actual impacts should be net 0 (you are not on one side or the other of the HFT so they would impact you roughly evenly).

As I stated earlier, the money being poured into the stock market thru 401k plans should cause the market to increase steadily. Market volatility stops that from happening.

There's no way to project what 401k plans would be worth if there was no market volatility, but anyone that has a 401k plan knows that their value often goes down - that wouldn't happen if it weren't for volatility.

Anything that reduces market volatility is good for long term investors.

If short term investors all sell and move their money to another country, it would be a good thing for long term investors.

As I stated earlier, the money being poured into the stock market thru 401k plans should cause the market to increase steadily.

Why? Contributions aren't the only thing happening.
Plenty of people withdraw money every year.

but anyone that has a 401k plan knows that their value often goes down - that wouldn't happen if it weren't for volatility.

Now prove that the volatility is caused by HFTs.

Anything that reduces market volatility is good for long term investors.

Baloney. Look up dollar cost averaging.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,414
Reaction score
4,354
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?

Just once....I'm waiting.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,414
Reaction score
4,354
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?

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.

Neither of those posts proved me wrong.

434 - As I stated, 401k plans will almost certainly be exempt.
And?

401's being exempt have, literally, nothing to do with that post.

The FACT That another nation tried this and it drove invest profits DOWN shows that doing so is exactly the opposite of your claim: "This tax has the intrinsic benefit of reducing market volatility and help us 401k investors keep our money!"

It DECREASES the value of your 401k in the real world example that we actually have.
534 - Most of the article was blocked - but what do you expect from Forbes? Do you really think they'd publish an article in favor of this tax?
I could care less. That you attack the source and not any information reinforces my original statement: Apparently once was not enough.

How about showing something that shows HFT effecting long term stock prices. That is the essential contention here. Or at least explaining how that even works. At least give us a mechanism with which your claim is based on.

How does a price volatility today bring down the market value of your stock in 10 years and why is that effect a net LOSS on your particular portfolio considering the actual impacts should be net 0 (you are not on one side or the other of the HFT so they would impact you roughly evenly).

As I stated earlier, the money being poured into the stock market thru 401k plans should cause the market to increase steadily. Market volatility stops that from happening.

There's no way to project what 401k plans would be worth if there was no market volatility, but anyone that has a 401k plan knows that their value often goes down - that wouldn't happen if it weren't for volatility.

Anything that reduces market volatility is good for long term investors.

If short term investors all sell and move their money to another country, it would be a good thing for long term investors.
You obviously have little or no understanding of the market. What do you see in the graph below other than a steady increase?


1619124532693.png
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,414
Reaction score
4,354
Points
290
After we discussed the proposed "transaction tax" all day, the Biden admin now wants to raise the capital gains tax rate.
Someone needs to pay the bills since the DC coxuckers can't seem to cut any spending.
No matter how much money we allow the fucking government and the corrupt politicians that run it to take from us it will never be enough.

We need to starve the government into submission
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
26,263
Reaction score
18,695
Points
2,365
The vast majority of farming sales are from 4 companies.
i don't believe that

many small farms may be part of coops that sell to the large companies
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
5,008
Reaction score
2,996
Points
893
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.
Where in the bill does it say it's exempt?
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,595
Reaction score
10,058
Points
900
Location
On a hill
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.
What?
401ks don't have active trades.
And 401ks are not the market. Most 401ks are in long term "packages" of solid/sound investments.
Short traders have zero interest in those companies.
A great example, on ethat I made good money on is ESprts $GMBL. It is a new tech company and therefore volatile. There is not a 401k plan on the planet that is investing in them. Pretty much all of the investors are short termers buying the lows and selling highs. But, as FA_Q2 is pointing out... it does not effect the upward, steady climb the company is on.
I could sit here and list 100 such companies easily, and not one of them are on any 401k plans. Not one.
So how you think day traders/retail traders are affecting your 401k is...well just wrong.
What is affecting your 401k is the investment firms that a) charge you fees... and b) they only invest the assets in very safe stocks.... therefore little gains.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,319
Reaction score
14,114
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.
What?
401ks don't have active trades.
And 401ks are not the market. Most 401ks are in long term "packages" of solid/sound investments.
Short traders have zero interest in those companies.
A great example, on ethat I made good money on is ESprts $GMBL. It is a new tech company and therefore volatile. There is not a 401k plan on the planet that is investing in them. Pretty much all of the investors are short termers buying the lows and selling highs. But, as FA_Q2 is pointing out... it does not effect the upward, steady climb the company is on.
I could sit here and list 100 such companies easily, and not one of them are on any 401k plans. Not one.
So how you think day traders/retail traders are affecting your 401k is...well just wrong.
What is affecting your 401k is the investment firms that a) charge you fees... and b) they only invest the assets in very safe stocks.... therefore little gains.

401ks don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,595
Reaction score
10,058
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.

Pensions were 100% funded by employers. Cost the worker not one red cent. Nothing.

Depends. Would the pension contributions for WCI Steel, for example, have gone into the workers paychecks instead? What did it cost those workers when their employers declared bankruptcy?
I've worked at several firms that no longer exist, I still have all those 401k contributions and matches.
Not "real" pension plans.
Old fashioned pension plans were held in separate accounts and had a mandatory minimum funding requirement. By the 1980s, our friends in the federal government passed legislation that removed two key regulations - 1) Minimum funding was lowered and 2) Companies were allowed to use the funds to "invest" in the company itself. #2 was the real problem, as companies started using the funds to bail themselves out and making poor investment choices using their employees money to do so. All of that was illegal prior to the 1980s... thus why pension plans never failed in the past...even if the company closed.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
5,008
Reaction score
2,996
Points
893
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.
What?
401ks don't have active trades.
And 401ks are not the market. Most 401ks are in long term "packages" of solid/sound investments.
Short traders have zero interest in those companies.
A great example, on ethat I made good money on is ESprts $GMBL. It is a new tech company and therefore volatile. There is not a 401k plan on the planet that is investing in them. Pretty much all of the investors are short termers buying the lows and selling highs. But, as FA_Q2 is pointing out... it does not effect the upward, steady climb the company is on.
I could sit here and list 100 such companies easily, and not one of them are on any 401k plans. Not one.
So how you think day traders/retail traders are affecting your 401k is...well just wrong.
What is affecting your 401k is the investment firms that a) charge you fees... and b) they only invest the assets in very safe stocks.... therefore little gains.
401Ks are certainly traded on the market...and you can even day trade your funds in the 401K...
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$400.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top