It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Economy Could Be In Surplus In Less Than A Year With A 1% Wall Street Sales Tax

page: 17
69
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er
why is taxing the only answer to democrat failures?


What they covet is a nationwide Value Added Tax.

The Wall Street Sales Tax is just easier to sell to low information Americans.




posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jefwane
I'm generally anti-tax unless there are also spending cuts going with it, but I could live with this for one reason. HFT (High Frequency Trading) has allowed institutions that practice it to steal a penny millions of times a day from other market participants. I'd personally like to see a method that exposed HFT traders to execution risk instead of allowing them to put in hundreds or thousands of bids and move the price in the way they wish and then cancel the bids. Making all bids valid for 2 or 3 seconds (possibly even shorter) would help reduce the impact of HFT on the markets.


I'd love to see some predatory malware slipped into some of these networks. Just to watch those sh*ts freak out when their systems (designed by physics PhDs and completely incomprehensible to regulators) begin eating their bank accounts. Man, I'd pay-per-view that meltdown.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jefwane
 




I don't necessarily support a 1% tax on all market transactions, but I could definitely get behind a $.01 per share/issue tax on executed trades. There is usually a $.02 + difference between the bid and the ask in a trade. This spread is how the market makers earn their money. I don't think a $.01 tax per share/issue traded would have that great of an impact on our markets.

Oh contrare Pierre!
I earn a paycheck. I'm taxed at 13%
I invest part of it. Now I'm taxed another 1%
I lose money in the investment. I'm taxed 1% on whats left? Not fair!
I gain a profit. I'm taxed at 15% cap gians. Plus another 1%?

Are both parties taxed at 1%? buyers and sellers?

Say you work for Ford. You have a pension in 20 years. That pension is invested in the markets.
The investments consist of 100 stocks.
These stocks are bought and sold three times in a year to lock in profits.
That's 3 buys and 3 sells times 100. Or 600 bites at 1%.
Zero money left.

We don't need to discus this anymore because it's dead before it gets to paper.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by jefwane
 




I don't necessarily support a 1% tax on all market transactions, but I could definitely get behind a $.01 per share/issue tax on executed trades. There is usually a $.02 + difference between the bid and the ask in a trade. This spread is how the market makers earn their money. I don't think a $.01 tax per share/issue traded would have that great of an impact on our markets.

Oh contrare Pierre!
I earn a paycheck. I'm taxed at 13%
I invest part of it. Now I'm taxed another 1%
I lose money in the investment. I'm taxed 1% on whats left? Not fair!
I gain a profit. I'm taxed at 15% cap gians. Plus another 1%?

Are both parties taxed at 1%? buyers and sellers?

Say you work for Ford. You have a pension in 20 years. That pension is invested in the markets.
The investments consist of 100 stocks.
These stocks are bought and sold three times in a year to lock in profits.
That's 3 buys and 3 sells times 100. Or 600 bites at 1%.
Zero money left.

We don't need to discus this anymore because it's dead before it gets to paper.



Make it an extreme short term stock hold tax, and it would never touch your investment portfolio. Only day traders and those pico-second stock flippers would get tagged. Tell me THAT would bother you, and we'll be able to see that the entire debate is about knee-jerk ideology for you.
edit on 3/23/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by jefwane
 




I don't necessarily support a 1% tax on all market transactions, but I could definitely get behind a $.01 per share/issue tax on executed trades. There is usually a $.02 + difference between the bid and the ask in a trade. This spread is how the market makers earn their money. I don't think a $.01 tax per share/issue traded would have that great of an impact on our markets.

Oh contrare Pierre!
I earn a paycheck. I'm taxed at 13%
I invest part of it. Now I'm taxed another 1%
I lose money in the investment. I'm taxed 1% on whats left? Not fair!
I gain a profit. I'm taxed at 15% cap gians. Plus another 1%?

Are both parties taxed at 1%? buyers and sellers?

Say you work for Ford. You have a pension in 20 years. That pension is invested in the markets.
The investments consist of 100 stocks.
These stocks are bought and sold three times in a year to lock in profits.
That's 3 buys and 3 sells times 100. Or 600 bites at 1%.
Zero money left.

We don't need to discus this anymore because it's dead before it gets to paper.



The progressives love to attack capitalism.

Stop taxing and reduce spending.

Long Live The Sequester !



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon

However, in a democracy, people vote ignorantly and with their feelings all the time. Hence, the debts, wars, social programs, etc. that we all have.
edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)


If it weren't for a social safety net, you and your family would be in hiding right now. Maybe you think you're a badass that can keep the poor from simply taking what it wants from you, if they're given no reason not to, but that's only because you've never lived in a country where the poor really don't have any reason to not kill off the haves and take what they can until someone or something kills them off. Especially from the folks who have, but aren't rich enough to fully isolate themselves and their loved ones from those who haven't got anything.

And even if you could defend your home and family, forget about ever going back to work, because your job wouldn't pay you to defend your home and family, and eventually you'd have to choose between the two masters in your life.

The social safety net exists so that you can go out and make a living without worrying about "lazy" people taking everything you care about away from you as soon as you drive off in the morning. Welfare and Medicaid isn't much, but it's been enough (so far) to keep the streets from running with your blood.


edit on 3/23/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If my money were invested in a market-return ETF, it'd be earning 6.5%/ year. Compounded over a lifetime, average Americans would be retiring millionaires. (if i were investing it myself, even more than that)

What does social security's investments return? Seeing as it's all been spent, -100%.

I'm not talking about war in general, social safety nets in general.. I'm talking about the idiotic wars and social safety nets that voters vote for out of emotions. Social Security is undeniably retarded but helping old people feels good. So, people vote for the -100% return option..

Now, people in this thread want to carry over that same level of genius onto voluntary retirement accounts; IRAs, 401Ks, etc. They want to enact structural reforms to the ENTIRE economy, things that people earn livings from and the last bit of retirement money that the government doesn't control, that they're completely ignorant about, didn't bother to educate themselves about, and didn't even think 2 seconds about.
edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Make it an extreme short term stock hold tax, and it would never touch your investment portfolio. Only day traders and those pico-second stock flippers would get tagged.

Define extreme short term.

Most day traders are not rich. I would bet they make 100k or less per year.

How would you tax someone in the UK who buys Apple stock? Are overseas people exempt?

Are you going to exempt me when I lose money on the trade? If so how would you know if I lost or profited?
Remember in a short position I sell the stock before I buy it.

What if I buy an 'option ' on a stock? I'm not really buying the stock but instead I am buying the'right' to a stock.


This is simply a simple idea for simple people who have no clue.


If this were to be implemented I would pull my money out. Most others would also. The market would collapse.
No market means no money for new companies expand.
No Microsoft.
No Apple.
No Dell.
No Bestbuy.

There is no large company in the world that did not expand using investors money.

Can you name a large Russian company?
Can you name a large Chinese company?



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


No, Apple wouldn't cease to exist. They'd just be listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange? They'd probably move to Hong Kong too. Hong Kong thanks American national socialist democracy!
edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





If it weren't for a social safety net, you and your family would be in hiding right now.

Who pays for this social safety net? Not the people at the bottom.
Did I read 47% of Americans pay nothing in income tax? That not the 47% at the top on the scale either.
edit on 23-3-2013 by samkent because: spelling



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by jefwane
 




I don't necessarily support a 1% tax on all market transactions, but I could definitely get behind a $.01 per share/issue tax on executed trades. There is usually a $.02 + difference between the bid and the ask in a trade. This spread is how the market makers earn their money. I don't think a $.01 tax per share/issue traded would have that great of an impact on our markets.

Oh contrare Pierre!
I earn a paycheck. I'm taxed at 13%
I invest part of it. Now I'm taxed another 1%
I lose money in the investment. I'm taxed 1% on whats left? Not fair!
I gain a profit. I'm taxed at 15% cap gians. Plus another 1%?

Are both parties taxed at 1%? buyers and sellers?

Say you work for Ford. You have a pension in 20 years. That pension is invested in the markets.
The investments consist of 100 stocks.
These stocks are bought and sold three times in a year to lock in profits.
That's 3 buys and 3 sells times 100. Or 600 bites at 1%.
Zero money left.

We don't need to discus this anymore because it's dead before it gets to paper.



Make it an extreme short term stock hold tax, and it would never touch your investment portfolio. Only day traders and those pico-second stock flippers would get tagged. Tell me THAT would bother you, and we'll be able to see that the entire debate is about knee-jerk ideology for you.
edit on 3/23/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


With no day traders or pico-second stock flippers, who would you buy stock from and sell your stock to? How much more would it cost? Over a lifetime, how much value would that erode from your retirement account? Exactly how far did you think this through?

How many peoples' lives were you prepared to destroy without thinking it through?
edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


Yes, what we need to do is remove these tax and spenders from office. Then no one would even have to ask the question would we have a surplus if we taxed the wealthy even more than they already pay. The wealthy already pay the lion's share, with people working the system paying pretty much nothing, because we already have the Progressive graduated income tax the Communists want, it's just not enough for them. Time to get these people out of office (with NO golden parachutes-since these tax and spenders got a lot of their money from insider trading to begin with or from putting their hands in the public cooky jar).

The Progressives want regulations...how about regulating these tax and spenders out of office and stop them from having access to insider trading deals the entire time they are in office, and maybe term limits for these people who have been in for years and years.
Barney Frank was the oversight guy in Congress for Fannie/Freddie and it is well known he made a profit off the deal while telling Congress that there were no problems with it. So no matter what we do, people like this will steal right from under the public noses.
I still have never seen Progressives make him responsible for what he did to the market in collusion with Bill Clinton. These people are all thieves.
edit on 23-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


That is just it.

It will not be implemented. The Progressives are throwing stuff at the wall and watching

to see what sticks.

In reality, we are doing what really works. --- The Sequester ---

Just ignore the Progressive Pipe dreams. They are delusional.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If my money were invested in a market-return ETF, it'd be earning 6.5%/ year. Compounded over a lifetime, average Americans would be retiring millionaires. (if i were investing it myself, even more than that)

What does social security's investments return? Seeing as it's all been spent, -100%.


Keeping poor men from having no concern over whether this entire society crashes or not isn't a bad investment. Besides, it's our society's investment in its own survival, and if you want to enjoy the good parts of this society (safety, security, job prospects, whatever) then pitch in along with the rest of us. If that's too much of a problem for you, then there are plenty of 3rd world sh*tholes that'd be more to your liking.

You're not forced to stay here and be a part of what the rest of us have decided to build as a society. No ones forcing anyone to stay here and hate what we've done with the place.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


I believe I have discussed this before, and generally I refer to operating costs, which is all inclusive.

Yes, labor costs are higher in the US. So are taxes, bureaucratic nonsense and the associated costs.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon

Originally posted by NorEaster

Make it an extreme short term stock hold tax, and it would never touch your investment portfolio. Only day traders and those pico-second stock flippers would get tagged. Tell me THAT would bother you, and we'll be able to see that the entire debate is about knee-jerk ideology for you.
edit on 3/23/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


With no day traders or pico-second stock flippers, who would you buy stock from and sell your stock to? How much more would it cost? Over a lifetime, how much value would that erode from your retirement account? Exactly how far did you think this through?

How many peoples' lives were you prepared to destroy without thinking it through?
edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)


Are you kidding? Do you even now what I'm referring to? Those stock flipping machines move through ongoing trades and never actually affect a damn thing, as they pull 1/10 of a cent here and 1/4 of a cent there, with billions per week being drained from the market into off shore bank accounts.

Day traders are idiots who'd probably lose their shirts in Atlantic City. The Stock Market is worthless if it's not about investing in the futures of companies. You're an ideologue. I don't expect you to figure any of this out.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



the rest of us


Ya, you are implying that most of the people go along with your ideals. How about the rest of you take a hike....easy playing that game. Oh, and enjoy your social safety net. It does encourage laziness, and eventually your social entitlements will run out of funding as more and more take and give nothing back.

The typical progressive class warfare bait. Hey, look at those guys living it up, we should get a piece of that. I don't even disagree with taxing the wall street crooks, but when I see ZERO intent of those on the left to reduce spending why even bother.


edit on 23-3-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by RedDragon

Originally posted by NorEaster

Make it an extreme short term stock hold tax, and it would never touch your investment portfolio. Only day traders and those pico-second stock flippers would get tagged. Tell me THAT would bother you, and we'll be able to see that the entire debate is about knee-jerk ideology for you.
edit on 3/23/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


With no day traders or pico-second stock flippers, who would you buy stock from and sell your stock to? How much more would it cost? Over a lifetime, how much value would that erode from your retirement account? Exactly how far did you think this through?

How many peoples' lives were you prepared to destroy without thinking it through?
edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)


Are you kidding? Do you even now what I'm referring to? Those stock flipping machines move through ongoing trades and never actually affect a damn thing, as they pull 1/10 of a cent here and 1/4 of a cent there, with billions per week being drained from the market into off shore bank accounts.

Day traders are idiots who'd probably lose their shirts in Atlantic City. The Stock Market is worthless if it's not about investing in the futures of companies. You're an ideologue. I don't expect you to figure any of this out.


Actually, I know things and am not ignorant about the market. You're an ideologue.

Stock flipping machines are modern day specialists and market makers. They're cheaper than human market makers and are responsible for narrowing the spread between the buy-sell price, lowering commissions through volume, and decreasing volatility through better price discovery (also due to increased trading volume).

If everyone actually bought and held stocks for years, how could you sell on the second of the day you want to? How could you buy on the day that you want to? You'd have to wait years for the next guy to sell to you, or buy from you. Unless you want to pay him a lot of money to buy or sell from you (widening the bid-ask spread).

If this actually went through, you wouldn't collect a dime. It would damage GDP enough in not only trading/ brokering, but also other industries, enough to negate any revenue you think you might collect. Even the government, not only the economy, would lose because it would have less of an economy to tax in other areas.


You have NO idea what you're talking about and you're ready to destruct a huge part of the nation's economy, destroy lives, all because an idea feels good to you.. This is a huge problem with democracy.

Look - your opinion effects other people. We trust you with power in a democracy. Your ignorance holds power in our society. It HURTS people. You need to exercise your civic power responsibly, not ignorantly.

Of course, this is all completely irrelevant. Tax financial transactions and financial exchanges will simply move overseas. All they have to do is upload their exchange software to a different country. That would take like 5 minutes.
edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by RedDragon

Originally posted by NorEaster

Make it an extreme short term stock hold tax, and it would never touch your investment portfolio. Only day traders and those pico-second stock flippers would get tagged. Tell me THAT would bother you, and we'll be able to see that the entire debate is about knee-jerk ideology for you.
edit on 3/23/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


With no day traders or pico-second stock flippers, who would you buy stock from and sell your stock to? How much more would it cost? Over a lifetime, how much value would that erode from your retirement account? Exactly how far did you think this through?

How many peoples' lives were you prepared to destroy without thinking it through?
edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)


Are you kidding? Do you even now what I'm referring to? Those stock flipping machines move through ongoing trades and never actually affect a damn thing, as they pull 1/10 of a cent here and 1/4 of a cent there, with billions per week being drained from the market into off shore bank accounts.

Day traders are idiots who'd probably lose their shirts in Atlantic City. The Stock Market is worthless if it's not about investing in the futures of companies. You're an ideologue. I don't expect you to figure any of this out.


"Day traders are idiots ?"

I think now would be a good time to stop name calling.

If you hate Capitalism, just say so.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

NorthEasterKeeping poor men from having no concern over whether this entire society crashes or not isn't a bad investment. Besides, it's our society's investment in its own survival, and if you want to enjoy the good parts of this society (safety, security, job prospects, whatever) then pitch in along with the rest of us. If that's too much of a problem for you, then there are plenty of 3rd world sh*tholes that'd be more to your liking.

You're not forced to stay here and be a part of what the rest of us have decided to build as a society. No ones forcing anyone to stay here and hate what we've done with the place.



So, is it just a coincidence that there were no numbers or cause->effect relationships mentioned in your reply? Or, are you 'thinking' with only emotions (self-destructive ones), just like I accused you of?
edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
69
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join