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

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,312
Reaction score
4,325
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.
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
you get to pick the funds your contributions are used to invest in.
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.
Without the match a 401K is just an IRA except with higher contribution limits.

And where did you get that 2.72% return figure?

The returns you get on the money in you 401 K are directly related to the investments you pick. All you are saying is that most people don't structure their investments inside of their 401K very well.

And all you have to do is look at the funds you are picking and examine the performance and fees of each one. This isn't rocket science and you're blaming the the 401K for the poor choices of the people picking the funds.

I have a 401K that averaged double digit returns for the past 10 years
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,312
Reaction score
4,325
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.
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.
You really need to educate yourself.

You have 2 possibilities with an employer provided 401K

That of a traditional where the money is contributed pretax or a Roth where the contributions are after taxes.

Your employer match in the first case is split among the exact same investments as your contribution and get the same tax treatment. You pay regular income tax on the entire amount of your portfolio in retirement.


If you opt for a Roth 401K your contributions are after tax but you pay no income tax on your money when you withdraw it. In this case your employer match is treated like a traditions 401 and is considered a pretax contribution and you would pay regular income taxes on that portion of your portfolio when you withdraw money.

In both cases the performance of the investments has nothing to do with the 401K tax structures and everything to do with what investment are chosen
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,471
Reaction score
9,883
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
Just giving you some facts my friend
It's all in the point.
I am as conservative and pro business as one gets... for instance, I don't believe companies should have to pay ANY income taxes.
Having said that, I am anti-corporatist to the core.
Corporatism/Globalism is destroying the middle class and eroding the American livelihood.
401ks are a great example of that.
401ks were developed to allow corporations to shed the high cost of pensions. They save $trillions a year. $Trillions that use to go to employees.
Companies also got rid of sick days, no longer do companies pay their employees for getting sick. Now...by renaming vacation days as "PTO" - very quickly companies simply deleted sick days. Use to employees got whatever weeks of vacation they earned - plus sick time on top of that. Now...all you get is "PTO" ... end result is employees have to use vacation days of they get sick.
Now many companies also no longer provide disability insurance. Use to most companies paid 100% of the cost of both short term and long term disability.
Companies, year after year, are paying less and less for their employee health insurance. Rising deductibles while lowering the % they pay of the premiums.
My bet - in another 10 - 15 years... employers will start shedding off health insurance all together. Many already have.
Meanwhile, CEO compensation keeps right on skyrocketing... share values rising and rising... board compensation is ludicrously high.

And here we are... now believing companies are doing us a favor to provide a token paltry sum for our 401ks.... Jesus.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
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
It's all in the point.
I am as conservative and pro business as one gets... for instance, I don't believe companies should have to pay ANY income taxes.
Having said that, I am anti-corporatist to the core.
Corporatism/Globalism is destroying the middle class and eroding the American livelihood.
401ks are a great example of that.
401ks were developed to allow corporations to shed the high cost of pensions. They save $trillions a year. $Trillions that use to go to employees.
Companies also got rid of sick days, no longer do companies pay their employees for getting sick. Now...by renaming vacation days as "PTO" - very quickly companies simply deleted sick days. Use to employees got whatever weeks of vacation they earned - plus sick time on top of that. Now...all you get is "PTO" ... end result is employees have to use vacation days of they get sick.
Now many companies also no longer provide disability insurance. Use to most companies paid 100% of the cost of both short term and long term disability.
Companies, year after year, are paying less and less for their employee health insurance. Rising deductibles while lowering the % they pay of the premiums.
My bet - in another 10 - 15 years... employers will start shedding off health insurance all together. Many already have.
Meanwhile, CEO compensation keeps right on skyrocketing... share values rising and rising... board compensation is ludicrously high.

And here we are... now believing companies are doing us a favor to provide a token paltry sum for our 401ks.... Jesus.
I am not sure where you are getting some of this...some companies certainly offer pensions, and paid sick days.

Employees also paid into pensions. Pensions are really not a great business plan, because no matter what the business is on the hook...automakers needed bailouts and unions still do because of the fact they aren't good system.

Companies also certainly provide insurance if they want to....and we have worker's comp...businesses pay into that.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,783
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
Washington State
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
It's all in the point.
I am as conservative and pro business as one gets... for instance, I don't believe companies should have to pay ANY income taxes.
Having said that, I am anti-corporatist to the core.
Corporatism/Globalism is destroying the middle class and eroding the American livelihood.
401ks are a great example of that.
401ks were developed to allow corporations to shed the high cost of pensions. They save $trillions a year. $Trillions that use to go to employees.
Companies also got rid of sick days, no longer do companies pay their employees for getting sick. Now...by renaming vacation days as "PTO" - very quickly companies simply deleted sick days. Use to employees got whatever weeks of vacation they earned - plus sick time on top of that. Now...all you get is "PTO" ... end result is employees have to use vacation days of they get sick.
Now many companies also no longer provide disability insurance. Use to most companies paid 100% of the cost of both short term and long term disability.
Companies, year after year, are paying less and less for their employee health insurance. Rising deductibles while lowering the % they pay of the premiums.
My bet - in another 10 - 15 years... employers will start shedding off health insurance all together. Many already have.
Meanwhile, CEO compensation keeps right on skyrocketing... share values rising and rising... board compensation is ludicrously high.

And here we are... now believing companies are doing us a favor to provide a token paltry sum for our 401ks.... Jesus.
I can only hope so.

You should get paid for your work 100 percent of the value. One of the major reasons our healthcare is so fucked is that you interests are not represented in the system since the vast majority of us get insurance from our employer.

Splitting things up into retirement options that narrow my long term planning, medical insurance that takes away my potions with care and other 'perks' just makes sure other people are deciding what the majority of my earnings are spent on.

It also allows them to reduce my pay without even telling me by working better deals out with the insurance company or, as you point out, switch your retirement plan to a 401k. Just give me the gross of what I cost the company, I will decide where it goes.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,471
Reaction score
9,883
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
Just giving you some facts my friend
It's all in the point.
I am as conservative and pro business as one gets... for instance, I don't believe companies should have to pay ANY income taxes.
Having said that, I am anti-corporatist to the core.
Corporatism/Globalism is destroying the middle class and eroding the American livelihood.
401ks are a great example of that.
401ks were developed to allow corporations to shed the high cost of pensions. They save $trillions a year. $Trillions that use to go to employees.
Companies also got rid of sick days, no longer do companies pay their employees for getting sick. Now...by renaming vacation days as "PTO" - very quickly companies simply deleted sick days. Use to employees got whatever weeks of vacation they earned - plus sick time on top of that. Now...all you get is "PTO" ... end result is employees have to use vacation days of they get sick.
Now many companies also no longer provide disability insurance. Use to most companies paid 100% of the cost of both short term and long term disability.
Companies, year after year, are paying less and less for their employee health insurance. Rising deductibles while lowering the % they pay of the premiums.
My bet - in another 10 - 15 years... employers will start shedding off health insurance all together. Many already have.
Meanwhile, CEO compensation keeps right on skyrocketing... share values rising and rising... board compensation is ludicrously high.

And here we are... now believing companies are doing us a favor to provide a token paltry sum for our 401ks.... Jesus.
I can only hope so.

You should get paid for your work 100 percent of the value. One of the major reasons our healthcare is so fucked is that you interests are not represented in the system since the vast majority of us get insurance from our employer.

Splitting things up into retirement options that narrow my long term planning, medical insurance that takes away my potions with care and other 'perks' just makes sure other people are deciding what the majority of my earnings are spent on.

It also allows them to reduce my pay without even telling me by working better deals out with the insurance company or, as you point out, switch your retirement plan to a 401k. Just give me the gross of what I cost the company, I will decide where it goes.
Health Insurance is fucked up for a number of reasons.
Health Insurance, when factoring in ever rising deductibles, has risen 8 times faster than inflation since 2008.
Deductibles is where they really fuck you. Obviously the higher the deductible, the lower the chance the provider will have to pay anything.
Like I said to the morons that supported Obamacare - all ACA really did was take catastrophic only care which was dirt cheap. Call it healthcare insurance, and make the deductible outrageously high. So for the vast majority of ACA "members"... all they really got was the right to carry a plastic card around. It is absolutely not health insurance when it doesn't even pay anything until you shell out at least $1,500 PLUS the at least $600/mo. So in reality you may very well have to pay out $8,700 out of pocket before ACA kicks in, in a years time.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,783
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
Washington State
542 has 3 links in it, try again.
Not 3 links

not even 1 link
excuse me, 546
22% of the budget isn't exactly small
Some of it could and should be cut but certainly not all of it
There is no need for the government to pay farmers to grow any particular crop. There is no need for government price fixing of agricultural goods either
Farmers face a lot of problems

Flooding, drought, pestilence, disease.

A small farmer particularly is in a vulnerable position

When conditions are favorable he makes a good crop.

But so does everyone else and prices fall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big cash goes to big business.

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

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

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

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,783
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
Washington State
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
It's all in the point.
I am as conservative and pro business as one gets... for instance, I don't believe companies should have to pay ANY income taxes.
Having said that, I am anti-corporatist to the core.
Corporatism/Globalism is destroying the middle class and eroding the American livelihood.
401ks are a great example of that.
401ks were developed to allow corporations to shed the high cost of pensions. They save $trillions a year. $Trillions that use to go to employees.
Companies also got rid of sick days, no longer do companies pay their employees for getting sick. Now...by renaming vacation days as "PTO" - very quickly companies simply deleted sick days. Use to employees got whatever weeks of vacation they earned - plus sick time on top of that. Now...all you get is "PTO" ... end result is employees have to use vacation days of they get sick.
Now many companies also no longer provide disability insurance. Use to most companies paid 100% of the cost of both short term and long term disability.
Companies, year after year, are paying less and less for their employee health insurance. Rising deductibles while lowering the % they pay of the premiums.
My bet - in another 10 - 15 years... employers will start shedding off health insurance all together. Many already have.
Meanwhile, CEO compensation keeps right on skyrocketing... share values rising and rising... board compensation is ludicrously high.

And here we are... now believing companies are doing us a favor to provide a token paltry sum for our 401ks.... Jesus.
I can only hope so.

You should get paid for your work 100 percent of the value. One of the major reasons our healthcare is so fucked is that you interests are not represented in the system since the vast majority of us get insurance from our employer.

Splitting things up into retirement options that narrow my long term planning, medical insurance that takes away my potions with care and other 'perks' just makes sure other people are deciding what the majority of my earnings are spent on.

It also allows them to reduce my pay without even telling me by working better deals out with the insurance company or, as you point out, switch your retirement plan to a 401k. Just give me the gross of what I cost the company, I will decide where it goes.
Health Insurance is fucked up for a number of reasons.
Health Insurance, when factoring in ever rising deductibles, has risen 8 times faster than inflation since 2008.
Deductibles is where they really fuck you. Obviously the higher the deductible, the lower the chance the provider will have to pay anything.
Like I said to the morons that supported Obamacare - all ACA really did was take catastrophic only care which was dirt cheap. Call it healthcare insurance, and make the deductible outrageously high. So for the vast majority of ACA "members"... all they really got was the right to carry a plastic card around. It is absolutely not health insurance when it doesn't even pay anything until you shell out at least $1,500 PLUS the at least $600/mo. So in reality you may very well have to pay out $8,700 out of pocket before ACA kicks in, in a years time.
Whatever other problems are with healthcare, connecting insurance to your job is one of them and a MAJOR one at that as anyone with a condition that is expensive knows considering the problems you have changing insurers at that point.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
25,794
Reaction score
18,422
Points
2,365
542 has 3 links in it, try again.
Not 3 links

not even 1 link
excuse me, 546
22% of the budget isn't exactly small
Some of it could and should be cut but certainly not all of it
There is no need for the government to pay farmers to grow any particular crop. There is no need for government price fixing of agricultural goods either
Farmers face a lot of problems

Flooding, drought, pestilence, disease.

A small farmer particularly is in a vulnerable position

When conditions are favorable he makes a good crop.

But so does everyone else and prices fall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big cash goes to big business.

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

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

This is what it looks like when government interferes with markets, competition dries up and the largest players swell enormously as they get to take over entire markets.
most farmers are small but most food processors are large

thats no different today than it was 100 years ago
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,569
Reaction score
41,245
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
More taxes and regulations favor the big guys, the institutional brokerage houses, they can afford it is easier than smaller houses. What happened with increased banking regulations? They could not manage all of the regulations and got bought by the big boys.


Remember this?

"Dan Rostenkowski, standing next to the candidate in front of the cameras and the cheering crowd at the convention after the fateful speech, whispered to Mondale, "You've got a lot of balls, pal." According to Rostenkowski, Mondale whispered back, "Look at 'em, we're going to tax their ass off." Mondale says: "We're going to tax their ass off"
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top