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

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,504
Reaction score
9,929
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.

401ks don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,504
Reaction score
9,929
Points
900
Location
On a hill
And to note... I have an original "real" old fashioned pension plan from a company that went out of business in 2016.
I worked for them from 1984 to 2014. The funds are 100% funded, and sitting in a trust. It's current value is over $360,000. I paid exactly $0.00 for that money. It use to be a part of employee compensation. At the same time, they also had a 401k plan...on TOP of the pension.
That use to be the norm.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,755
Reaction score
2,875
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 don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,504
Reaction score
9,929
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.

401ks don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,179
Reaction score
13,972
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.
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.

Old fashioned pension plans were held in separate accounts and had a mandatory minimum funding requirement.

Link?

And how does the minimum help when the company goes bankrupt but the beneficiaries live for 20 more years?

All of that was illegal prior to the 1980s... thus why pension plans never failed in the past...even if the company closed.

Sounds unlikely. Otherwise why was the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) passed in 1974?

Maybe Packard Motor Car company workers could explain?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,179
Reaction score
13,972
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.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.

Obviously I meant your own active trades.

Obviously a tax that hits all trades also hits your funds.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,755
Reaction score
2,875
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 don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
huh? no it's not...the value of a the 401K is what the value is...the money you put in, and if you are lucky, your employer matches is invested on the market.

They are typically underperforming because people, when picking out how to invest typically go for long term, so lower risk, smaller gain stocks
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,179
Reaction score
13,972
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.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.

Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.

That also was wrong the first time you said it.

401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.

The fact that some people make bad decisions doesn't make 401(k)s bad
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
2,050
Points
290
Location
GNO
I agree

Right now the super wealthy are only taxed on their income. They are clever enough not to claim income. We cannot touch their wealth.
A small fee on transactions (like a sales tax) will open up their wealth to taxation
Hell yeah double, triple quadruple tax those fuckers. Successful people should be punished for being to successful.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,335
Reaction score
4,329
Points
290
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.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
You do realize that a 401K isn't a bundle that you have no choice in picking don't you?

You can usually pick from dozens of fund choices and you can change those funds anytime you want to.

All the term 401K refers to is the tax treatment of the investments and has nothing to do with the actual funds or stocks that you can choose.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,755
Reaction score
2,875
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 don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
You do realize that a 401K isn't a bundle that you have no choice in picking don't you?

You can usually pick from dozens of fund choices and you can change those funds anytime you want to.

All the term 401K refers to is the tax treatment of the investments and has nothing to do with the actual funds or stocks that you can choose.
You can even day trade your stocks in a 401K...or for that matter use a HFT. 401K simply refers to the section in the tax code that alls the funds defer tax
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,504
Reaction score
9,929
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.

401ks don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
huh? no it's not...the value of a the 401K is what the value is...the money you put in, and if you are lucky, your employer matches is invested on the market.

They are typically underperforming because people, when picking out how to invest typically go for long term, so lower risk, smaller gain stocks
Maybe I am not speaking English...
By saying the only value of a 401k is the company match... meaning.... without a company match, a 401k is not that lucrative. The average U.S. 401k return for 2020 was 2.72% minus fees... fucking horrible. That is pathetic.
And now the average company match is only 5%. Because most companies deceive their employee by saying they match "25%"... but only on the first 3% - 4% of your contribution. So...yeah... not 25%.
And when people look at returns on the internet or company literature it will say their return in say... 12%....wow!!... but that includes employer contribution. So in reality it is more like 5%... LESS than what a lowly savings account use to pay in interest.
I have a 401k, and a 403. I put money in it to get the employer match. If they didn't I wouldn't use it.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,755
Reaction score
2,875
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 don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
huh? no it's not...the value of a the 401K is what the value is...the money you put in, and if you are lucky, your employer matches is invested on the market.

They are typically underperforming because people, when picking out how to invest typically go for long term, so lower risk, smaller gain stocks
Maybe I am not speaking English...
By saying the only value of a 401k is the company match... meaning.... without a company match, a 401k is not that lucrative. The average U.S. 401k return for 2020 was 2.72% minus fees... fucking horrible. That is pathetic.
And now the average company match is only 5%. Because most companies deceive their employee by saying they match "25%"... but only on the first 3% - 4% of your contribution. So...yeah... not 25%.
And when people look at returns on the internet or company literature it will say their return in say... 12%....wow!!... but that includes employer contribution. So in reality it is more like 5%... LESS than what a lowly savings account use to pay in interest.
I have a 401k, and a 403. I put money in it to get the employer match. If they didn't I wouldn't use it.
You can put as much as you want in a 401K....and you can get higher returns if you invest more aggressively.

I am not surprised at the average though, as most people aren't as aggressive with their 401K investments because it's meant to be a long term investment...like an IRA, which doesn't have company match by the way. Also, not every company that offers a 401K matches anything...there is no requirement to my knowledge. It's an extra and very nice perk by a company though.

All a 401K, or IRA is, is a tool to invest that allows you to defer taxation on the money for some period of time. You can still invest however you want.

The return on investment doesn't include company match...the return is the return on the investment. So if you invest 100 bucks, and your company matches 3%, you invest $103.00...and at the end of the qtr you have 115.36, your return on the investment is 12% (if I did my math right there) Likewise, if your company didn't match, and you invested $100,00, and at the end of the same qtr, you made $112.00....you still made a 12% return. Just not as much money because your company didn't match.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,504
Reaction score
9,929
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.

401ks don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
huh? no it's not...the value of a the 401K is what the value is...the money you put in, and if you are lucky, your employer matches is invested on the market.

They are typically underperforming because people, when picking out how to invest typically go for long term, so lower risk, smaller gain stocks
Maybe I am not speaking English...
By saying the only value of a 401k is the company match... meaning.... without a company match, a 401k is not that lucrative. The average U.S. 401k return for 2020 was 2.72% minus fees... fucking horrible. That is pathetic.
And now the average company match is only 5%. Because most companies deceive their employee by saying they match "25%"... but only on the first 3% - 4% of your contribution. So...yeah... not 25%.
And when people look at returns on the internet or company literature it will say their return in say... 12%....wow!!... but that includes employer contribution. So in reality it is more like 5%... LESS than what a lowly savings account use to pay in interest.
I have a 401k, and a 403. I put money in it to get the employer match. If they didn't I wouldn't use it.
You can put as much as you want in a 401K....and you can get higher returns if you invest more aggressively.

I am not surprised at the average though, as most people aren't as aggressive with their 401K investments because it's meant to be a long term investment...like an IRA, which doesn't have company match by the way. Also, not every company that offers a 401K matches anything...there is no requirement to my knowledge. It's an extra and very nice perk by a company though.

All a 401K, or IRA is, is a tool to invest that allows you to defer taxation on the money for some period of time. You can still invest however you want.

The return on investment doesn't include company match...the return is the return on the investment. So if you invest 100 bucks, and your company matches 3%, you invest $103.00...and at the end of the qtr you have 115.36, your return on the investment is 12% (if I did my math right there) Likewise, if your company didn't match, and you invested $100,00, and at the end of the same qtr, you made $112.00....you still made a 12% return. Just not as much money because your company didn't match.
You're over-complicating this.
I am talking about market returns.
401ks greatly under perform the markets. For 2020, the average MARKET return was 2.72%. Employer contributions are a separate return.
And it is NOT "nice perk" for a company to contribute. Holy shit. That just shows us how brilliantly corporations got people to swallow the bullshit.
Companies everywhere pre 1980, large or small... gave employees a pension that did not cost them one red cent. (employee)
The contributions corporations made to pensions FAR-FAR exceeded the measly little pittance they contribute to 401ks.
Corporations save $trillions a year switching to 401ks.... and Jesus, just shows how easily people can be conditioned to accept something far less as a good thing.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,755
Reaction score
2,875
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 don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
huh? no it's not...the value of a the 401K is what the value is...the money you put in, and if you are lucky, your employer matches is invested on the market.

They are typically underperforming because people, when picking out how to invest typically go for long term, so lower risk, smaller gain stocks
Maybe I am not speaking English...
By saying the only value of a 401k is the company match... meaning.... without a company match, a 401k is not that lucrative. The average U.S. 401k return for 2020 was 2.72% minus fees... fucking horrible. That is pathetic.
And now the average company match is only 5%. Because most companies deceive their employee by saying they match "25%"... but only on the first 3% - 4% of your contribution. So...yeah... not 25%.
And when people look at returns on the internet or company literature it will say their return in say... 12%....wow!!... but that includes employer contribution. So in reality it is more like 5%... LESS than what a lowly savings account use to pay in interest.
I have a 401k, and a 403. I put money in it to get the employer match. If they didn't I wouldn't use it.
You can put as much as you want in a 401K....and you can get higher returns if you invest more aggressively.

I am not surprised at the average though, as most people aren't as aggressive with their 401K investments because it's meant to be a long term investment...like an IRA, which doesn't have company match by the way. Also, not every company that offers a 401K matches anything...there is no requirement to my knowledge. It's an extra and very nice perk by a company though.

All a 401K, or IRA is, is a tool to invest that allows you to defer taxation on the money for some period of time. You can still invest however you want.

The return on investment doesn't include company match...the return is the return on the investment. So if you invest 100 bucks, and your company matches 3%, you invest $103.00...and at the end of the qtr you have 115.36, your return on the investment is 12% (if I did my math right there) Likewise, if your company didn't match, and you invested $100,00, and at the end of the same qtr, you made $112.00....you still made a 12% return. Just not as much money because your company didn't match.
You're over-complicating this.
I am talking about market returns.
401ks greatly under perform the markets. For 2020, the average MARKET return was 2.72%. Employer contributions are a separate return.
And it is NOT "nice perk" for a company to contribute. Holy shit. That just shows us how brilliantly corporations got people to swallow the bullshit.
Companies everywhere pre 1980, large or small... gave employees a pension that did not cost them one red cent. (employee)
The contributions corporations made to pensions FAR-FAR exceeded the measly little pittance they contribute to 401ks.
Corporations save $trillions a year switching to 401ks.... and Jesus, just shows how easily people can be conditioned to accept something far less as a good thing.
Sure it's a nice perk...companies don't have to do it for their employees.

I am sure what on Earth you are talking about.....market returns are market returns...

as far as them "under performing" people are free to pick what they want to invest in, when they set up their 401K, and they can always change what they invest in. That's the individual investor's choice.

Pensions are invested in the market as well....and some companies still have them. number of them just got bailed out actually with the Dems 2 trillion dollar "Covid" relief bill....

With that said...yes employees contribute to their pensions as well. Also, I am not sure what you mean by "costing" the employee...it's their money, and their retirement, or savings....it's their money...it's not a cost, it's a savings. Since when did saving your own money become a cost?

In addition, pre-1980, not every company had a pension....also the 401K plan as we know it came about in 1978, not 1980.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,504
Reaction score
9,929
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.

401ks don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
huh? no it's not...the value of a the 401K is what the value is...the money you put in, and if you are lucky, your employer matches is invested on the market.

They are typically underperforming because people, when picking out how to invest typically go for long term, so lower risk, smaller gain stocks
Maybe I am not speaking English...
By saying the only value of a 401k is the company match... meaning.... without a company match, a 401k is not that lucrative. The average U.S. 401k return for 2020 was 2.72% minus fees... fucking horrible. That is pathetic.
And now the average company match is only 5%. Because most companies deceive their employee by saying they match "25%"... but only on the first 3% - 4% of your contribution. So...yeah... not 25%.
And when people look at returns on the internet or company literature it will say their return in say... 12%....wow!!... but that includes employer contribution. So in reality it is more like 5%... LESS than what a lowly savings account use to pay in interest.
I have a 401k, and a 403. I put money in it to get the employer match. If they didn't I wouldn't use it.
You can put as much as you want in a 401K....and you can get higher returns if you invest more aggressively.

I am not surprised at the average though, as most people aren't as aggressive with their 401K investments because it's meant to be a long term investment...like an IRA, which doesn't have company match by the way. Also, not every company that offers a 401K matches anything...there is no requirement to my knowledge. It's an extra and very nice perk by a company though.

All a 401K, or IRA is, is a tool to invest that allows you to defer taxation on the money for some period of time. You can still invest however you want.

The return on investment doesn't include company match...the return is the return on the investment. So if you invest 100 bucks, and your company matches 3%, you invest $103.00...and at the end of the qtr you have 115.36, your return on the investment is 12% (if I did my math right there) Likewise, if your company didn't match, and you invested $100,00, and at the end of the same qtr, you made $112.00....you still made a 12% return. Just not as much money because your company didn't match.
You're over-complicating this.
I am talking about market returns.
401ks greatly under perform the markets. For 2020, the average MARKET return was 2.72%. Employer contributions are a separate return.
And it is NOT "nice perk" for a company to contribute. Holy shit. That just shows us how brilliantly corporations got people to swallow the bullshit.
Companies everywhere pre 1980, large or small... gave employees a pension that did not cost them one red cent. (employee)
The contributions corporations made to pensions FAR-FAR exceeded the measly little pittance they contribute to 401ks.
Corporations save $trillions a year switching to 401ks.... and Jesus, just shows how easily people can be conditioned to accept something far less as a good thing.
Sure it's a nice perk...companies don't have to do it for their employees.

I am sure what on Earth you are talking about.....market returns are market returns...

as far as them "under performing" people are free to pick what they want to invest in, when they set up their 401K, and they can always change what they invest in. That's the individual investor's choice.

Pensions are invested in the market as well....and some companies still have them. number of them just got bailed out actually with the Dems 2 trillion dollar "Covid" relief bill....

With that said...yes employees contribute to their pensions as well. Also, I am not sure what you mean by "costing" the employee...it's their money, and their retirement, or savings....it's their money...it's not a cost, it's a savings. Since when did saving your own money become a cost?

In addition, pre-1980, not every company had a pension....also the 401K plan as we know it came about in 1978, not 1980.
Uh...ok
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,755
Reaction score
2,875
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 don't have active trades.

I'll bet 95% of the stock funds in the typical 401k trade actively.
:rolleyes:
Obviously I meant your own active trades. And those that allow minimal trading charge fees.
and this is just going to be yet another fee added to that. The folks getting hit the hardest by the dems new tax, will be the working class folks trying to save for retirement. The poor saps that thought a 401K was away to avoid taxes in the beginning...nope...
The value of a 401k is only that your employer matches. Because of that, a person would have to be an idiot not to take part. But other than that, 401ks are pretty much the most underperforming investment options out there. Like I said before, the return is less than what you use to get for money simply setting a bank account.
As well as.... I don't remember the exact percentage, but most people borrow and withdraw from their 401ks on a regular basis. And swallow the penalties and cash out when changing jobs.
401ks are an abysmal retirement plan for 90% of the population, if for no other reason than they are not disciplined enough to leave it alone.
huh? no it's not...the value of a the 401K is what the value is...the money you put in, and if you are lucky, your employer matches is invested on the market.

They are typically underperforming because people, when picking out how to invest typically go for long term, so lower risk, smaller gain stocks
Maybe I am not speaking English...
By saying the only value of a 401k is the company match... meaning.... without a company match, a 401k is not that lucrative. The average U.S. 401k return for 2020 was 2.72% minus fees... fucking horrible. That is pathetic.
And now the average company match is only 5%. Because most companies deceive their employee by saying they match "25%"... but only on the first 3% - 4% of your contribution. So...yeah... not 25%.
And when people look at returns on the internet or company literature it will say their return in say... 12%....wow!!... but that includes employer contribution. So in reality it is more like 5%... LESS than what a lowly savings account use to pay in interest.
I have a 401k, and a 403. I put money in it to get the employer match. If they didn't I wouldn't use it.
You can put as much as you want in a 401K....and you can get higher returns if you invest more aggressively.

I am not surprised at the average though, as most people aren't as aggressive with their 401K investments because it's meant to be a long term investment...like an IRA, which doesn't have company match by the way. Also, not every company that offers a 401K matches anything...there is no requirement to my knowledge. It's an extra and very nice perk by a company though.

All a 401K, or IRA is, is a tool to invest that allows you to defer taxation on the money for some period of time. You can still invest however you want.

The return on investment doesn't include company match...the return is the return on the investment. So if you invest 100 bucks, and your company matches 3%, you invest $103.00...and at the end of the qtr you have 115.36, your return on the investment is 12% (if I did my math right there) Likewise, if your company didn't match, and you invested $100,00, and at the end of the same qtr, you made $112.00....you still made a 12% return. Just not as much money because your company didn't match.
You're over-complicating this.
I am talking about market returns.
401ks greatly under perform the markets. For 2020, the average MARKET return was 2.72%. Employer contributions are a separate return.
And it is NOT "nice perk" for a company to contribute. Holy shit. That just shows us how brilliantly corporations got people to swallow the bullshit.
Companies everywhere pre 1980, large or small... gave employees a pension that did not cost them one red cent. (employee)
The contributions corporations made to pensions FAR-FAR exceeded the measly little pittance they contribute to 401ks.
Corporations save $trillions a year switching to 401ks.... and Jesus, just shows how easily people can be conditioned to accept something far less as a good thing.
Sure it's a nice perk...companies don't have to do it for their employees.

I am sure what on Earth you are talking about.....market returns are market returns...

as far as them "under performing" people are free to pick what they want to invest in, when they set up their 401K, and they can always change what they invest in. That's the individual investor's choice.

Pensions are invested in the market as well....and some companies still have them. number of them just got bailed out actually with the Dems 2 trillion dollar "Covid" relief bill....

With that said...yes employees contribute to their pensions as well. Also, I am not sure what you mean by "costing" the employee...it's their money, and their retirement, or savings....it's their money...it's not a cost, it's a savings. Since when did saving your own money become a cost?

In addition, pre-1980, not every company had a pension....also the 401K plan as we know it came about in 1978, not 1980.
Uh...ok
Just giving you some facts my friend
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top