RoseAnn DeMoro on the Robin Hood Tax

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

RoseAnn DeMoro on the Robin Hood Tax | Moyers & Company


billmoyers.com

Bill talks to RoseAnn DeMoro, who heads the largest registered nurses union in the country, and will lead a Chicago march protesting economic inequality on May 18. DeMoro is championing the Robin Hood Tax, a small government levy the financial sector would pay on commercial transactions like stocks and bonds. The money generated, which some estimate could be as much as $350 billion annually, could be used for social programs and job creation — ultimately to people who, without a doubt, need it more than the banks do.

DeMoro and her organization, National Nurses United, have an inspiring history of defeating some of the toughest opponents in government and politics.
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on Sun May 13 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: fix title, quote




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I know occupy is in a lot of the news forums but this is fresh news.
Who could be more understanding of nurture better than nurses?
G20 is one thing but has it been looked at from this perspective?
I think there are some solutions here. Are they faulty or are they doable?
ATS usually as well balanced opinions. What do you think?
The best ljb

billmoyers.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
What the hell is she talking about? The money could be used for the government to create jobs?
What kind of jobs does the government create except beaurocratic positions who do nothing and get paid to screw the rest of us over?
Government does not create jobs. That is what is wrong with idiots like these. They think government should take care of them. This is called insane speech. Or just plain crazy.
We need businesses to create jobs. Jobs that count and contribute to the national product which can be sold elsewhere. She wants the businesses to be taxed out of business to create government positions with money that is printed and not earned.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
What the hell is she talking about? The money could be used for the government to create jobs?
What kind of jobs does the government create except beaurocratic positions who do nothing and get paid to screw the rest of us over?
Government does not create jobs. That is what is wrong with idiots like these. They think government should take care of them. This is called insane speech. Or just plain crazy.
We need businesses to create jobs. Jobs that count and contribute to the national product which can be sold elsewhere. She wants the businesses to be taxed out of business to create government positions with money that is printed and not earned.

Hi nite
So we all know what you are specifically objecting to---Could you quote a bit from the info in the OP.
thanks and cheers ljb



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Using government to "create jobs" is a bit of a stretch.

The problem with government's "creating jobs" is the fact that a lot of these jobs are completely dependent upon tax revenues. They do not produce a return or a lasting economic impact.

The trick to 'creating jobs' with government spending is to use tax revenues to invest in new infrastructure (such as the highway system or the massive hydro-electric projects of the 30s) or developing industries that will still have customers after the government check stops.

When you do that - yes, you can "create jobs" using government spending (though some would still argue that it's best to not use the government for such things).

Otherwise, what you're doing is just putting another person on the government pay roll (indirectly) - and the job will end when the government pay ends. Since governments collect their taxes from income (much as I do not approve - sales are the only valid taxable exchange) - it isn't a practical system where the solution to unemployment is to employ via the government... because you can't possibly collect enough money to pay everyone.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Nite_wing
What the hell is she talking about? The money could be used for the government to create jobs?
What kind of jobs does the government create except beaurocratic positions who do nothing and get paid to screw the rest of us over?
Government does not create jobs. That is what is wrong with idiots like these. They think government should take care of them. This is called insane speech. Or just plain crazy.
We need businesses to create jobs. Jobs that count and contribute to the national product which can be sold elsewhere. She wants the businesses to be taxed out of business to create government positions with money that is printed and not earned.

Hi nite
So we all know what you are specifically objecting to---Could you quote a bit from the info in the OP.
thanks and cheers ljb


This is what I was referring to.
The money generated, which some estimate could be as much as $350 billion annually, could be used for social programs and job creation...



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Using government to "create jobs" is a bit of a stretch.

The problem with government's "creating jobs" is the fact that a lot of these jobs are completely dependent upon tax revenues. They do not produce a return or a lasting economic impact.

The trick to 'creating jobs' with government spending is to use tax revenues to invest in new infrastructure (such as the highway system or the massive hydro-electric projects of the 30s) or developing industries that will still have customers after the government check stops.

When you do that - yes, you can "create jobs" using government spending (though some would still argue that it's best to not use the government for such things).

Otherwise, what you're doing is just putting another person on the government pay roll (indirectly) - and the job will end when the government pay ends. Since governments collect their taxes from income (much as I do not approve - sales are the only valid taxable exchange) - it isn't a practical system where the solution to unemployment is to employ via the government... because you can't possibly collect enough money to pay everyone.


the republicans won't allow this, this is called "big government wasteful spending" and they want to cut government spending....and...you are forgeting something...they have said they do not want Obama to do well, they want him to fail, so they can get a republican in office



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
If I am not mistaken the Robin Hood tax would be levied against banks and brokerage houses. Actually a sort of sur tax per trades and transactions.
A very small levy for the industry but big money for that Infrastructure etc.
And this is more an international movement than just the US



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Using government to "create jobs" is a bit of a stretch.

The problem with government's "creating jobs" is the fact that a lot of these jobs are completely dependent upon tax revenues. They do not produce a return or a lasting economic impact.


The same with government contracting. I'm not sure Halliburton or KBR would necessarily be more cost-effective than providing some of these services in-house - and some services I have seen contracted-out in recent years certainly seem to be better suited as in-house jobs. Contract services do tend to have an extra layer or two of management that receive pay but provide little service. Contracting is a good answer to some necessary services but not all of them.
________

I would have a problem with Robinhood steal-from-rich-and-give-to-poor in most instances. I like to see the inspired enterpriser receive his due without it being taken back by the government. However, not all enterprisers or corporations sell their products and services at a fair rate and it pains me none to see them pay to play.

In the instance of this tax it is to be levied against the financial sector where money is typically created out of thin air. I believe it is to come from trasaction fees that vastly exceed administrative costs and reasonable profit allowances. Perhaps a mythical folk hero Robinhood was still a thief, though likely more just and fair than a tax-collector. Is this a matter of better nutrition for the under-nourished vs bigger toys for the disgustingly rich?

Other countries have fewer global adventures and can offer their people better valued services for the money levied from them. It is difficult to pinpoint a single place to tap that could be considered the most reasonable. Like todays automobiles there are now more efficient models than those found in the junkyards. Keep fixing the old clunker if that's all we can afford.

edit on 13-5-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
This is an old idea. The Tobin tax was already tried in Sweden and was a failure.

Look at the spending we already are doing on borrowed money. The idea of raising more taxes on economic activity to spend more on social programmes when we already spend way in excess of our taxable revenues is madness.

Its like being trapped down a well and asking for a shovel to be sent down.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Steal from the rich and give to the poor?

Are you serious?

It is more like the RICH had been stealing from the poor to give to the rich all along, more so with corporate and religious entities throughout centuries.

We had all been born equal, and equally, when we leave this planet, we leave with nothing, not even our rotting bodies.

So, how did the Rich became rich if we are all equal? Weath had to come from someone else.

Some say its through capitalist enterprise - exchange of goods and services in a competitive free market, in return for money, saving it to wealth. A noble and fair aim for it promotes hardwork and thrift.

But take a long hard look at the financial crisis of '08. Was it truly 'capitalist enterprise' or pure gambling by financial houses with others hard earned and entrusted funds?

Look at corporations fleeing to 3rd world nations under the guise of 'globalisation'. Was it truly capitalist enterprise, or merely enslavement of fellow humans for personal or a minority group exploitation of wealth for self? Pay a worker for $100/mth, slave whip him to produce 100 pieces of products per mth, but sell that same product at $600 per piece to a world market of 7 billion humans.

Truth is, the rich had stolen from the poor ALL ALONG. Let's get the mindset clear, otherwise those ignorant, who believe stealing is a crime, came from the poor.

Remember always, a person who gets rich conscionably only do so within a civilised society. That society entails regulations, for all mortals are only flawed and not perfect, thus regulations exists to ensure rule of law is in place for a level playing groung for all, and wealth redistributed through social expenditure management -unions and gov programmes.

Without regulations, the free market becomes only a cowboy town, where the weak consumers and workers are exploited by the rich and powerful whom hoards up their funds,not circulating it, leaving all poorer in that economic cycle. This had been proven by the greedy and unconscionable Rail and Cattle barons of America's past and today's economic leaders. Only foolish elected congressmen will make the same mistake twice to support those robbers and their kind, and more.

And fools have no place in congress, the congregation where mortal men are enpowered by the constituents to create a fair and just society for all to co-exist seeking only natural humankind common aims in life - peace, progress, justice, equality, shared prosperity, responsible freedom, progress, etc, etc..
edit on 13-5-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


star and flag
and so it starts,
people realise that if you use labour to make momey you are taxed heavily,
if you use money to make money the taxes are much much less,
it is simple math here folks,
everyone should pay their fare share

even traders and bankers
you watch more and more groups are starting to act in the benifit of people,

xploder



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Hi XPL,
Thanks.
I am glad we hare at ATS can discuss these meaning full issues.
I will ask the mod who switched the thread to this political forum to return it to Breaking as it is economics. International economics and Breaking.
It might help if you agree with me on this to remind DonTredOnMe.
Breaking News is difficult to discern and referee I am sure.
cheers ljb
edit on 5/13/2012 by longjohnbritches because: finish missing post



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


I'm wondering if you even listened to the interview or you would know that this isn't about class warfare or milking the rich. This is nothing more than a simple sales tax on financial transactions like derivatives and stock and bond trades which rare currently taxed at 0%.

So you don't mind paying taxes on the money you make but the wall street insiders and the bankers are allowed to get away with paying nothing?

The money raised could be used to lower the National debt or reduce taxes on middle class working people. At any rate it would keep more money in circulation among those who who work hard and need some tax relief after years of being raped by Wall street.

edit on 13-5-2012 by Asktheanimals because: corrections
edit on 13-5-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Hi ask,
Bill Moyers is about the last strong hold of reason in the media.
RoseAnn was being interviewed by him this morning.
Have you checked out her ARMY of nurses?
Perhaps I can find a way to get her in a video.
She may have supported certain political figures in the past.
When you listen to her today she has seen the LIGHT IMO.
the best ljb
PS I wish them all a HAPPY MOTHERS DAY
edit on 5/13/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


I'm wondering if you even listened to the interview or you would know that this isn't about class warfare or milking the rich. This is nothing more than a simple sales tax on financial transactions like derivatives which rare currently taxed at 0%.

So you don't mind paying taxes on the money you make but the wall street insiders and the bankers are allowed to get away with paying nothing?

The money raised could be used to lower the National debt or reduce taxes on middle class working people. At any rate it would keep more money in circulation among those who who work hard and need some tax relief after years of being raped by Wall street.

edit on 13-5-2012 by Asktheanimals because: corrections


This is nothing more than saying break your piggy bank and give it to everybody else.
I guess it sounds good to those getting it but not to the owner of the piggy bank.
Nothing more than socialism. You like it...you keep it. Don't try to impose it on me.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Wow here it is dumbed down for the general populace:

Government creating jobs means more government jobs which means that money comes from taxpayers which essentially means the government is paying itself via taxation.

Private job creation means new wealth constantly being introduced in to that system where government taxes it.

Get it?

edit on 13-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Some here need to understand the STREET a little bit to grasp the ladies perspective.
I think she calls it RECONCEPTUALIZATION,
The taxes would be levied in this arena that presently skates for free.
The revenue collected from the people who place the bets is astronomical.
It is the house that needs to pony up.
Call it an ante. Like in a game of polka.

Jan-Dec 2011 Volume Trends
Global futures and options trading rose 11.4% in 2011 to 24.97 billion contracts. The rate of growth was down substantially from 2010, but more or less on par with the growth rate in the years preceding the 2008 crisis.

Trading Volume Statistics
www.futuresindustry.org/volume-.asp- Similarto Trading Volume Statistics

The report, which measures volume based on the number of contracts traded on derivatives exchanges worldwide, indicates that more than 15 billion futures ...



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 



the republicans won't allow this, this is called "big government wasteful spending" and they want to cut government spending....and...you are forgeting something...they have said they do not want Obama to do well, they want him to fail, so they can get a republican in office


Honestly, the National government should be very limited on what contracts it can pursue for what purposes. It should not be spending a single penny on healthcare. That is a state prerogative (and not a penny should be paid to the States by the national government). Social Security shouldn't exist (and we should return it to the state of not existing).

There are only a few things the national government should be doing. Defense, Interstate transportation, and a few other minor things regarding issues pertinent to regions (such as oceans) or interstate legal disputes.

That's it. It really shouldn't be the single largest pit of tax revenues.

I'm not at all pleased with the Republicans. They play a game with our nation against the Democrats and it has led to a surreal atmosphere where consequence doesn't compute.

None of them really grasp what it means to be in a republic, and what it means to raise/lower taxes.

They want to use the power of legislation to accomplish a specific goal rather than construct legislation as necessary to preserve functionality of the nation. Crichton's famous character, Ian Malcolm, said it perfectly: "You've been so caught up in whether or not you could do something, but you never stopped to think if you should."

And that perfectly describes the state of the U.S. political system (and, really, many of the Western systems, at present).



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Hi Aim
I think your post covers a lot of ground.
You have been doing some serious thinking.
Do you have some sort of solution senario?
Advice to help contain or reverse a situation you see as unfit?
thanks, It's a tough one ljb
I know you addressed fed and state.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join