Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[rightwinger]

Problem with the super wealthy is that we have an income tax

The super wealthy don’t need income.....they are freakin* rich. They hide their wealth overseas where we can’t touch it

That is why we need to tax their transactions

I buy a truck for $50,000 and I pay $3,000 tax on it
If the wealthy buy stock for $50,000....let them pay tax on it

Why would anyone hide their wealth? With all this talk of an illegal wealth tax, what do you think everyone with a substantial net worth is doing with that wealth today?

If you're buying a $50,000 truck, you're doing pretty well and are using it for business.

When the person who bought those stocks for $50,000 sells them for $150,000 in five years, what do they pay on that $100,000 profit?

If you use that $50,000 truck for business, don't you get to deduct $0.58 per mile from your income? You drive 25,000 miles you deduct $14,500 from you gross income from that business, right? If the buyer of that $50,000 in stock has it drop to $35,500 would he get anything back?

Taxation occurs when money is transferred
When an employer makes a profit he pays a tax on it
When he pays you, you pay a tax on it
When you spend the money you earn, you pay a sales tax

Taxing stock and business transactions would prevent the wealthy from hiding their wealth

No, it would discourage them from investing.

Do brokerage fees discourage them from investing?

It will just be the cost of doing business

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But unless we did it my way, not everybody will pay. It would be politics as usual. Our tax system only taxes most of the people. Other people get away scott free for all cash transactions.

A VAT is a terrible idea. Before you could blink your eye it would be at 20% PLUS we'd still have all the other taxes.

The tax code needs to be changed so that there no longer is 47% of workers paying no Federal Income Tax at all. If you earn $5,000 you pay a portion in Federal Income Tax. If you earn $10,000 you pay a portion in Federal Income Tax and so on. EVERYONE needs to have skin in the game. That's the way our tax code operated for many decades.

Another thing we need to do is repeal the 17th Amendment. The states need to be represented.

A VAT tax is more intrinsic. A sales tax hits you in the eyeballs every time you purchase something. It's like how they created this system of automatic deductions from paychecks. If people were paid every dollar they earned, then had to write a check to various governments, people would be outraged. But because it's automatically deducted, it gives them the false impression it was not their money to begin with. They don't rebel.

Like I said, in the county I live in, we have a consumption tax of 8%. The rich pay it, the poor pay it, everybody in between pays it. It's a combined state and county tax. When I go through my receipts, the tax is clearly marked on your receipt. You can't miss it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sixty or seventy hours a week is not that much. We have 168 hours in the week. We sleep what, 45-50 hours a week? Perhaps it sounds a lot to you because of poor time management. Perhaps you also do not also realize that as a Realtor, we get to pick the hours we work.

168 - 70 leaves 98 hours. 6 hours a sleep per night leave 56 hours for the family, assuming all you do is work, sleep and spend time with the family but never do another thing.

We give our time to that which we love the most.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Problem with the super wealthy is that we have an income tax

The super wealthy don’t need income.....they are freakin* rich. They hide their wealth overseas where we can’t touch it

That is why we need to tax their transactions

I buy a truck for $50,000 and I pay $3,000 tax on it
If the wealthy buy stock for $50,000....let them pay tax on it

Why would anyone hide their wealth? With all this talk of an illegal wealth tax, what do you think everyone with a substantial net worth is doing with that wealth today?

If you're buying a $50,000 truck, you're doing pretty well and are using it for business.

When the person who bought those stocks for $50,000 sells them for $150,000 in five years, what do they pay on that $100,000 profit?

If you use that $50,000 truck for business, don't you get to deduct $0.58 per mile from your income? You drive 25,000 miles you deduct $14,500 from you gross income from that business, right? If the buyer of that $50,000 in stock has it drop to $35,500 would he get anything back?

Taxation occurs when money is transferred
When an employer makes a profit he pays a tax on it
When he pays you, you pay a tax on it
When you spend the money you earn, you pay a sales tax

Taxing stock and business transactions would prevent the wealthy from hiding their wealth

No, it would discourage them from investing.

Do brokerage fees discourage them from investing?

It will just be the cost of doing business

No, it does not discourage them because they write-off their brokers fees. A broker charges you for the transaction, not by how much you made or lost on the trade. Speaking of which, if we are to have an additional 1% tax on profit, then it's only fair to increase the loss on trades as well by another 1%. Then there would be no gain in the long run.

 

[rightwinger]

Problem with the super wealthy is that we have an income tax

The super wealthy don’t need income.....they are freakin* rich. They hide their wealth overseas where we can’t touch it

That is why we need to tax their transactions

I buy a truck for $50,000 and I pay $3,000 tax on it
If the wealthy buy stock for $50,000....let them pay tax on it

Why would anyone hide their wealth? With all this talk of an illegal wealth tax, what do you think everyone with a substantial net worth is doing with that wealth today?

If you're buying a $50,000 truck, you're doing pretty well and are using it for business.

When the person who bought those stocks for $50,000 sells them for $150,000 in five years, what do they pay on that $100,000 profit?

If you use that $50,000 truck for business, don't you get to deduct $0.58 per mile from your income? You drive 25,000 miles you deduct $14,500 from you gross income from that business, right? If the buyer of that $50,000 in stock has it drop to $35,500 would he get anything back?

Taxation occurs when money is transferred
When an employer makes a profit he pays a tax on it
When he pays you, you pay a tax on it
When you spend the money you earn, you pay a sales tax

Taxing stock and business transactions would prevent the wealthy from hiding their wealth

No, it would discourage them from investing.

Do brokerage fees discourage them from investing?

It will just be the cost of doing business

No, it does not discourage them because they write-off their brokers fees. A broker charges you for the transaction, not by how much you made or lost on the trade. Speaking of which, if we are to have an additional 1% tax on profit, then it's only fair to increase the loss on trades as well by another 1%. Then there would be no gain in the long run.

A broker charges one to two percent on a transaction
A real estate broker charges seven percent.

How will the Government charging one percent destroy the market?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Problem with the super wealthy is that we have an income tax

The super wealthy don’t need income.....they are freakin* rich. They hide their wealth overseas where we can’t touch it

That is why we need to tax their transactions

I buy a truck for $50,000 and I pay $3,000 tax on it
If the wealthy buy stock for $50,000....let them pay tax on it

Why would anyone hide their wealth? With all this talk of an illegal wealth tax, what do you think everyone with a substantial net worth is doing with that wealth today?

If you're buying a $50,000 truck, you're doing pretty well and are using it for business.

When the person who bought those stocks for $50,000 sells them for $150,000 in five years, what do they pay on that $100,000 profit?

If you use that $50,000 truck for business, don't you get to deduct $0.58 per mile from your income? You drive 25,000 miles you deduct $14,500 from you gross income from that business, right? If the buyer of that $50,000 in stock has it drop to $35,500 would he get anything back?

Taxation occurs when money is transferred
When an employer makes a profit he pays a tax on it
When he pays you, you pay a tax on it
When you spend the money you earn, you pay a sales tax

Taxing stock and business transactions would prevent the wealthy from hiding their wealth

That's just silly and not thought out.

Do the uber-wealthy not pay sales tax on everything they buy? I buy a new Cadillac and they buy a new Bentley. Who pays the most in taxes?

If I am uber-wealthy, hiding my wealth overseas, would I be buying 100,000 shares of Amazon stock with that money?

It is well thought out

A consumption tax on the wealthy would keep them from hiding their emended wealth

A consumption tax would also put everybody in the game. If you sell illegal recreational drugs, if you are a prostitute or stripper, if you work for tips at a nice restaurant, if you do side work for cash such as construction, if you are in a band and play for cash at a bar, it hits everybody.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would anyone hide their wealth? With all this talk of an illegal wealth tax, what do you think everyone with a substantial net worth is doing with that wealth today?

If you're buying a $50,000 truck, you're doing pretty well and are using it for business.

When the person who bought those stocks for $50,000 sells them for $150,000 in five years, what do they pay on that $100,000 profit?

If you use that $50,000 truck for business, don't you get to deduct $0.58 per mile from your income? You drive 25,000 miles you deduct $14,500 from you gross income from that business, right? If the buyer of that $50,000 in stock has it drop to $35,500 would he get anything back?

Taxation occurs when money is transferred
When an employer makes a profit he pays a tax on it
When he pays you, you pay a tax on it
When you spend the money you earn, you pay a sales tax

Taxing stock and business transactions would prevent the wealthy from hiding their wealth

No, it would discourage them from investing.

Do brokerage fees discourage them from investing?

It will just be the cost of doing business

No, it does not discourage them because they write-off their brokers fees. A broker charges you for the transaction, not by how much you made or lost on the trade. Speaking of which, if we are to have an additional 1% tax on profit, then it's only fair to increase the loss on trades as well by another 1%. Then there would be no gain in the long run.

A broker charges one to two percent on a transaction
A real estate broker charges seven percent.

How will the Government charging one percent destroy the market?

On the transaction, not on the profit. It won't destroy the market, but it will slow it down some. Investors would look for different investments with less taxes.

 

[rightwinger]

Taxation occurs when money is transferred
When an employer makes a profit he pays a tax on it
When he pays you, you pay a tax on it
When you spend the money you earn, you pay a sales tax

Taxing stock and business transactions would prevent the wealthy from hiding their wealth

No, it would discourage them from investing.

Do brokerage fees discourage them from investing?

It will just be the cost of doing business

No, it does not discourage them because they write-off their brokers fees. A broker charges you for the transaction, not by how much you made or lost on the trade. Speaking of which, if we are to have an additional 1% tax on profit, then it's only fair to increase the loss on trades as well by another 1%. Then there would be no gain in the long run.

A broker charges one to two percent on a transaction
A real estate broker charges seven percent.

How will the Government charging one percent destroy the market?

On the transaction, not on the profit. It won't destroy the market, but it will slow it down some. Investors would look for different investments with less taxes.

Taxing wealth would be very difficult
This tax would be very easy

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it would discourage them from investing.

Do brokerage fees discourage them from investing?

It will just be the cost of doing business

No, it does not discourage them because they write-off their brokers fees. A broker charges you for the transaction, not by how much you made or lost on the trade. Speaking of which, if we are to have an additional 1% tax on profit, then it's only fair to increase the loss on trades as well by another 1%. Then there would be no gain in the long run.

A broker charges one to two percent on a transaction
A real estate broker charges seven percent.

How will the Government charging one percent destroy the market?

On the transaction, not on the profit. It won't destroy the market, but it will slow it down some. Investors would look for different investments with less taxes.

Taxing wealth would be very difficult
This tax would be very easy

I didn't say it would be hard. What I said is that it will discourage investments. That hurts a lot of Americans since many of us have our IRA's invested in that market. The reason the government keeps those taxes low is to encourage investment.

You see, you are an armchair quarterback because you don't have any real money invested. You do not have to deal with those tax issues at the end of the year. And what about the commodities market? Are we going to tax them too, especially given the fact not many hold on to commodity contracts for a long period of time?

 

[Markle]

A consumption tax would also put everybody in the game. If you sell illegal recreational drugs, if you are a prostitute or stripper, if you work for tips at a nice restaurant, if you do side work for cash such as construction, if you are in a band and play for cash at a bar, it hits everybody.

A consumption tax is simply a Value Added Tax. If you believe it would remain at 1 or 2 percent and not go to what a VAT is around the world, 18-20 percent, I have some land to show you at low tide!

Giving the government another huge source of revenue is like giving an alcoholic a bottle of booze and think he'll drink this one responsibly. Malarkey!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A consumption tax would also put everybody in the game. If you sell illegal recreational drugs, if you are a prostitute or stripper, if you work for tips at a nice restaurant, if you do side work for cash such as construction, if you are in a band and play for cash at a bar, it hits everybody.

A consumption tax is simply a Value Added Tax. If you believe it would remain at 1 or 2 percent and not go to what a VAT is around the world, 18-20 percent, I have some land to show you at low tide!

Giving the government another huge source of revenue is like giving an alcoholic a bottle of booze and think he'll drink this one responsibly. Malarkey!

Oh, I never said that it won't go up. It would. But the way things are now, it goes up, and only the wealthy or upper middle-class are aware of it. The people that support these unfair taxation policies love it. It won't cost them a dime for government healthcare, free college, paid time off, reparations for African Americans, and so on.

What my proposal is that if everybody had to pay for all these social goodies, it would be realized by a much larger part of our population, and they would no longer support it. In other words, the Democrats want to provide healthcare to illegal aliens. Okay, fine. But if you vote for those people making this promise, your consumption tax rate will go from ten cents on the dollar to thirteen cents. Do you see what my intent here is?

Right now, if the Democrats had control, and did provide this illegal alien healthcare, it doesn't matter to me. Good for those Democrats. It won't raise my taxes. It will go to a deficit I don't have to pay. It will do to a debt that has to be repaid by people in generations long after I'm gone.

If we had to pay for these social goodies through a consumption tax, people would be revolting against increases in it. They would reject all these attempts by Democrats to make people more government dependent, and reject helping people unworthy of our help.

 

[Markle]

A consumption tax would also put everybody in the game. If you sell illegal recreational drugs, if you are a prostitute or stripper, if you work for tips at a nice restaurant, if you do side work for cash such as construction, if you are in a band and play for cash at a bar, it hits everybody.

A consumption tax is simply a Value Added Tax. If you believe it would remain at 1 or 2 percent and not go to what a VAT is around the world, 18-20 percent, I have some land to show you at low tide!

Giving the government another huge source of revenue is like giving an alcoholic a bottle of booze and think he'll drink this one responsibly. Malarkey!

Oh, I never said that it won't go up. It would. But the way things are now, it goes up, and only the wealthy or upper middle-class are aware of it. The people that support these unfair taxation policies love it. It won't cost them a dime for government healthcare, free college, paid time off, reparations for African Americans, and so on.

What my proposal is that if everybody had to pay for all these social goodies, it would be realized by a much larger part of our population, and they would no longer support it. In other words, the Democrats want to provide healthcare to illegal aliens. Okay, fine. But if you vote for those people making this promise, your consumption tax rate will go from ten cents on the dollar to thirteen cents. Do you see what my intent here is?

Right now, if the Democrats had control, and did provide this illegal alien healthcare, it doesn't matter to me. Good for those Democrats. It won't raise my taxes. It will go to a deficit I don't have to pay. It will do to a debt that has to be repaid by people in generations long after I'm gone.

If we had to pay for these social goodies through a consumption tax, people would be revolting against increases in it. They would reject all these attempts by Democrats to make people more government dependent, and reject helping people unworthy of our help.

I needn't read about the need of a 20% VAT. The last thing we need is another huge pool of money for the government to spend.

If you're going to dream of the impossible dream, dream of repealing the 17th Amendment, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment.

 

[j-mac]

Well...if that employer is unwilling to share his wealth with employees, the taxpayer has to

Why is it you Marxists believe that because others have more than you then it is incumbent on them to give you theirs?

Do you do that? I'd like to know how much you have so I can determine if you need to send the excess to me...

If you can’t afford to support your family on what you are paid....the taxpayer has to

Or, like most rational people, you need to take stock of your life and what you are doing and choose something else that will compensate you at the level you need to make.

So why exactly are we cutting taxes on employers at the same time we have to pay for those who create his wealth?

What you are doing is actually paying for people who are either too dumb, or too lazy to better themselves. And why should they when you'll just pay for them?

 

[j-mac]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Bullshit poll. Watch how many votes Bernie gets to support such stupidity.

I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand....There's a reason that all of the Democrat candidates are pushing this very sort of crap....There's a reason for that.

 

[j-mac]

We are going to get there sooner or later are we not? Now I love Mr. Williams...he is spot on with everything he says...But we have to change attitudes, and we don't do that by saying 'it's not possible', and giving up.

Agreed. That's why I wrote the solution in my response to Gator. A consumption tax to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt would make everybody aware. Currently, only a small part of our country is aware of the problem, and a smaller amount even care. Hell, I'm almost 60 now. I'll likely be long off this earth when our country collapses. Why should I care? But if I had to pay for this debt every time I make a purchase, and pay even more for new social spending, you bet I'd care. You bet I would be going to the polls to make sure new spending politicians don't get into power.

fk dude, 47% of the country pays no money to the debt. how fking stupid is that? We have the stupidest folks representing our districts. By the way, we took in around 3.4 trillion in revenue last year, the spending is more than that amount. I'm not claiming to be a rocket scientist, but, anything over that amount means deficit. How about fking saying to the folks in congress, fk off and balance the budget?

So look at our spending and tell me what you would cut. Social Security? Medicare? Welfare? What?

Tell me what could be cut that would satisfy both parties enough to pass it.

Let's get in the way back machine all the way to the end of this past November....From The Hill:

"As Congress deals with yet another manufactured year end spending “crisis” that will result in more spending of money our country does not have, a new poll highlights a potential effective solution to the national spending problem that enjoys shockingly high levels of public support across all party lines. That solution is known as the penny plan, which simply requires the federal government to reduce the budget by one penny for every dollar it spends annually over a period of five years.

The new poll, commissioned by Club for Growth, found support for the penny plan runs wide as 76 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Independents, and 63 percent of Democrats surveyed said they back it. Why not? The penny plan is not some radical policy. It simply requires a spending cut of 1 percent in the next year. The penny plan is not new. Neither is its strong level of support across party lines. This new poll tracks what Tea Party Patriots found three years ago. In that survey, 82 percent said they would support reducing spending “by just one penny out of every dollar spent” over the next five years to balance the budget.

Why does the penny plan have such strong support? Because Americans have come to realize that the deficit problem in Washington is caused by spending too much rather than taxing too little."

Congress must pass the penny plan

Now, I believe that those kinds of numbers mean it could pass in a bipartisan fashion....

Unless we did away with Base Line budgeting, the penny plan would have no effect. None whatsoever.

Absolutely...Which is why I tried, (in my own way) that DC was the only place I can think of where a cut to a proposed increase is considered a cut....We have to do away with that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A consumption tax would also put everybody in the game. If you sell illegal recreational drugs, if you are a prostitute or stripper, if you work for tips at a nice restaurant, if you do side work for cash such as construction, if you are in a band and play for cash at a bar, it hits everybody.

A consumption tax is simply a Value Added Tax. If you believe it would remain at 1 or 2 percent and not go to what a VAT is around the world, 18-20 percent, I have some land to show you at low tide!

Giving the government another huge source of revenue is like giving an alcoholic a bottle of booze and think he'll drink this one responsibly. Malarkey!

Oh, I never said that it won't go up. It would. But the way things are now, it goes up, and only the wealthy or upper middle-class are aware of it. The people that support these unfair taxation policies love it. It won't cost them a dime for government healthcare, free college, paid time off, reparations for African Americans, and so on.

What my proposal is that if everybody had to pay for all these social goodies, it would be realized by a much larger part of our population, and they would no longer support it. In other words, the Democrats want to provide healthcare to illegal aliens. Okay, fine. But if you vote for those people making this promise, your consumption tax rate will go from ten cents on the dollar to thirteen cents. Do you see what my intent here is?

Right now, if the Democrats had control, and did provide this illegal alien healthcare, it doesn't matter to me. Good for those Democrats. It won't raise my taxes. It will go to a deficit I don't have to pay. It will do to a debt that has to be repaid by people in generations long after I'm gone.

If we had to pay for these social goodies through a consumption tax, people would be revolting against increases in it. They would reject all these attempts by Democrats to make people more government dependent, and reject helping people unworthy of our help.

I needn't read about the need of a 20% VAT. The last thing we need is another huge pool of money for the government to spend.

If you're going to dream of the impossible dream, dream of repealing the 17th Amendment, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment.

I couldn't agree with you more, it will never happen. We will continue down this road forever. There is nothing realistic about amending the Constitution. The Democrats would never let that happen.

 

[rightwinger]

Do brokerage fees discourage them from investing?

It will just be the cost of doing business

No, it does not discourage them because they write-off their brokers fees. A broker charges you for the transaction, not by how much you made or lost on the trade. Speaking of which, if we are to have an additional 1% tax on profit, then it's only fair to increase the loss on trades as well by another 1%. Then there would be no gain in the long run.

A broker charges one to two percent on a transaction
A real estate broker charges seven percent.

How will the Government charging one percent destroy the market?

On the transaction, not on the profit. It won't destroy the market, but it will slow it down some. Investors would look for different investments with less taxes.

Taxing wealth would be very difficult
This tax would be very easy

I didn't say it would be hard. What I said is that it will discourage investments. That hurts a lot of Americans since many of us have our IRA's invested in that market. The reason the government keeps those taxes low is to encourage investment.

You see, you are an armchair quarterback because you don't have any real money invested. You do not have to deal with those tax issues at the end of the year. And what about the commodities market? Are we going to tax them too, especially given the fact not many hold on to commodity contracts for a long period of time?

It would become the cost of doing business.

Brokers charging fees for real estate and stock transactions does not discourage investment. Neither would a small Government tax

 

[rightwinger]

A consumption tax would also put everybody in the game. If you sell illegal recreational drugs, if you are a prostitute or stripper, if you work for tips at a nice restaurant, if you do side work for cash such as construction, if you are in a band and play for cash at a bar, it hits everybody.

A consumption tax is simply a Value Added Tax. If you believe it would remain at 1 or 2 percent and not go to what a VAT is around the world, 18-20 percent, I have some land to show you at low tide!

Giving the government another huge source of revenue is like giving an alcoholic a bottle of booze and think he'll drink this one responsibly. Malarkey!

Oh, I never said that it won't go up. It would. But the way things are now, it goes up, and only the wealthy or upper middle-class are aware of it. The people that support these unfair taxation policies love it. It won't cost them a dime for government healthcare, free college, paid time off, reparations for African Americans, and so on.

What my proposal is that if everybody had to pay for all these social goodies, it would be realized by a much larger part of our population, and they would no longer support it. In other words, the Democrats want to provide healthcare to illegal aliens. Okay, fine. But if you vote for those people making this promise, your consumption tax rate will go from ten cents on the dollar to thirteen cents. Do you see what my intent here is?

Right now, if the Democrats had control, and did provide this illegal alien healthcare, it doesn't matter to me. Good for those Democrats. It won't raise my taxes. It will go to a deficit I don't have to pay. It will do to a debt that has to be repaid by people in generations long after I'm gone.

If we had to pay for these social goodies through a consumption tax, people would be revolting against increases in it. They would reject all these attempts by Democrats to make people more government dependent, and reject helping people unworthy of our help.

I needn't read about the need of a 20% VAT. The last thing we need is another huge pool of money for the government to spend.

If you're going to dream of the impossible dream, dream of repealing the 17th Amendment, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment.

I couldn't agree with you more, it will never happen. We will continue down this road forever. There is nothing realistic about amending the Constitution. The Democrats would never let that happen.

Neither would Republicans

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it does not discourage them because they write-off their brokers fees. A broker charges you for the transaction, not by how much you made or lost on the trade. Speaking of which, if we are to have an additional 1% tax on profit, then it's only fair to increase the loss on trades as well by another 1%. Then there would be no gain in the long run.

A broker charges one to two percent on a transaction
A real estate broker charges seven percent.

How will the Government charging one percent destroy the market?

On the transaction, not on the profit. It won't destroy the market, but it will slow it down some. Investors would look for different investments with less taxes.

Taxing wealth would be very difficult
This tax would be very easy

I didn't say it would be hard. What I said is that it will discourage investments. That hurts a lot of Americans since many of us have our IRA's invested in that market. The reason the government keeps those taxes low is to encourage investment.

You see, you are an armchair quarterback because you don't have any real money invested. You do not have to deal with those tax issues at the end of the year. And what about the commodities market? Are we going to tax them too, especially given the fact not many hold on to commodity contracts for a long period of time?

It would become the cost of doing business.

Brokers charging fees for real estate and stock transactions does not discourage investment. Neither would a small Government tax

Sure it would, because stocks are a risk. Unless the payout is enough to take such a risk, it's not worth it to them. They will find other things to invest in, perhaps overseas. And as I mentioned, brokerage fees are tax deductible, win, lose or draw.

 

[Markle]

It would become the cost of doing business.

Brokers charging fees for real estate and stock transactions does not discourage investment. Neither would a small Government tax

The difference is that anyone can sell their property themselves and save the commission. Also, my commission is negotiable, our area customarily charges 6% or 5% for a residential resale property. I charged 7% if it was going to a difficult property to show, I would keep 4% and pay 3% to the selling broker. 10% for vacant land or lots.

I can and do buy and sell stocks now for no fee whatsoever.

How does giving an alcoholic $50.00, outside a liquor store work out? Hey, they PROMISED to use it for a nutritious

meal!