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

Like I said, you have no idea to whom you are talking, or what you are talking about.

reply to post by wildtimes



Fancy that, Nancy Pelosi is on ATS!!!



I jest, I jest!... please don't bite me!

Stop taxing labor, start taxing investors who play the market like it is a craps game.

Pay off the debt.

Sounds like the solution to me.

Originally posted by poet1b

Stop taxing labor, start taxing investors who play the market like it is a craps game.

Pay off the debt.

Sounds like the solution to me.

simple and to the point i like it,

i remember an einstein quote, (not direct quote)

continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different out come is crazy,

time for poet1b's approach

xploder

reply to post by MsAphrodite

I jest, I jest!... please don't bite me!

So far, you're fine! No worries. Honestly, I don't know much about Nancy Pelosi..
I only know that what I believe seems to be the right thing to do. (Like everyone else here, right?)

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I like this idea, if feasible.

I have questions, though.

I assume the 4 quadrillion per year sum applies to all trades, including sales. So assuming that, if you have some shares worth in total, say, 500 dollars, and you sell them (you lose 1% of what you sold them for,) then buy more shares (losing 1% of their value,) sell some of them (again losing 1% of whatever you sell them for,) and so on, if you conduct too many transactions at some point don't you end up losing 100% of value or at least enough value that trading becomes prohibitive?

Or would it be possible, even with heavy volume trading, to buy low enough and sell high enough to stay ahead of this effect? And would doing so make trading in any way more difficult for the average person (i.e. retirees, etc.)?

Peace.

The whole point of a 'transaction tax' is to cut down on transactions and speculation; so, in a sense, your analysis is correct. The original intent of 'investing' was to become a partial owner of a specific company. One didn't touch one's capital, only the dividends that were dispersed. The value of a stock was based on real performance not perceived performance. You didn't get your 'value' from stock price so much as from consistant performance and dispersal of profits to shareholders. The market is cockamammy now - stock values rise and fall on inuendo and gossip - false appearances. The value goes up - when they lay people off - not because the company is doing better - just because they are converting capital from productive growth and production to cash. It unsustanable as we can see.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by LibertysTeeth

 

What? That's just plain stupid. What about the majority of Americans that have no Wall Street transactions? If Wall Street is such a sacred cow (clearly untouchable no matter how badly they anally ream the country) why are THEY doing so well yet the People are doing so poorly? Why are they too-big-to fail, too-big-to-prosecute yet the economy limps along?

You need to think beyond the end of your own nose. How many American's work for a company that is publicly traded? How many have their retirement invested? How many small businesses surround larger publicly traded businesses and those jobs are totally dependent on the health of the larger? How many small businesses rely on products created by the large publicly traded businesses every single day?

Honey I don't know what US you are living in but it ain't the world you perceive. Most new jobs may be in publically traded companies (though the trend is to take public companies private) but these jobs don't provide any pension plans or benefits, let alone pay enough for people to save on their own. More and more jobs are in small businesses where the same rule applies.

You are living in the past - the Union past, I add - where "what was good for GM was good for the country". Which was before GM turned into a vulture company. That bought other companies (viable - solid companies like Hughes Aircraft) and just sold off the assets to make there balance sheet look better. No value was added to the community by this - only money in the pockets of a limited few.

Take a look around - and see how many 50s & 60s style jobs are still around. I can only think of two people I know that have Union jobs with good pay and benefits.

It used to be a bus driver could buy a modest home and raise a family with a stay at home mom, retire comfortablly after thirty years. That world doesn't exist any more and that is the world you still think we are living in.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I agree that it is unsustainable. And I also agree that reducing speculation - or at least curbing it - is probably healthy. Now more than ever. My concern is that people might continue to do so anyway, though, and devalue much of the market. Is there any possibility of that, or would the specter of that on its own be sufficient to keep people at bay in your opinion?

Peace.

America has a huge problem with people and corporations that do not pay their taxes and that sequester funds offshore. These things are done legally. It doesn't mean that it is right to do so or that the government shouldn't put a stop to it. The derivatives market was legal too.

The oners are driving everyone else into the gutter. It is suicidal for the government not to do something about wealth distribution in America. When you have people like Warren Buffet saying "Tax me more.", you know you have a problem.

People who oppose the 1% Wall St. sales tax or other such schemes, think that they are the real Americans and that everyone else is a commie (socialist is the new term for commie). They are what used to be called "true believers", people with tunnel vision, people who think there is room for one more unscrupulous laissez faire capitalist, themselves, at the top of the heap. They think that there is no emergency going on and that the broad mass of the peons can support what is becoming an inverted pyramid of wealth, like you have in Mexico.

Wake up folks. The party is over. Unless you want a massive criminal economic war on the streets, like Mexico has, or 50,000 people with ARs and handguns jumping the fence around the Whitehouse, somebody with the power to do it has got to find a way to redistribute wealth in America.

The Bush style winner take all capitalists have run the table. They have taken it all. The game is over. Time to redeal the deck. Time for a second New Deal.

reply to post by poet1b


this thread is a good example of why it wont happen. the one's with money refuse to let anyone touch it.. yet wait.. when the dollar crashes and the stock market tanks because of debt.. hell America make even break up like the old ussr over this. but touch 1% of their money.. oh hell no!

the only people who are against entitlement programs are people who have no use for them like the super rich...

obviously Humans should not have to work until they die and when we reach a certain age we should be free and taken care of...


that is of course if you have a civilized society




also there is trillions of dollars going into shadow ops/black projects in the military that we do not know about...

countless money going into all kinds of not so nice stuff like...follow the money...

oh and we have for-profit banking systems here too

Originally posted by Kali74
A 1% Wall Street Sales Tax

I don't think so, Tim...

I find it amusing that the solution to deficit spending is to take more money from someone. A tax on Wall Street is a tax on you! The sh&$ rolls down hill and you are at the bottom. When costs of doing business are raised the increase in expense has to be made up somewhere else, it is passed along to the consumers. I own my own business and I can tell you first hand that people don't understand this fact.
Oil companies are vilified because of four dollar gas paid directly by the consumer. They also make 10% profit.
Apple makes 40% + profit. But nobody says they make to much money.

The real problem in not tax revenue it's over spending. The government needs to ween itseft from deficit spending.
It may hurt a little but it's better than what's down the road.

Originally posted by cornucopia
the only people who are against entitlement programs are people who have no use for them like the super rich...

obviously Humans should not have to work until they die and when we reach a certain age we should be free and taken care of...


that is of course if you have a civilized society

also there is trillions of dollars going into shadow ops/black projects in the military that we do not know about...

countless money going into all kinds of not so nice stuff like...follow the money...

oh and we have for-profit banking systems here too

Didn't realize that I was super rich. I work, I work hard every damn day for what I have.

I don't expect anyone to give me a damn thing. The people who cry about wanting more social programs are leeches on society, you have to be willing to go out and work your ass off. Don't cry that someone is putting you down - you know you are worth something - then go out and show everyone what you are worth.

This entitlement culture is creating a bunch of defeatists that are not willing to put in the blood and sweat, the hours of pain and sacrifice into what they love. They are not willing to try, because if they don't make it, they cry about how unfair the world is. Well kids, the world is unfair, cold and uncaring.

Originally posted by neo96

There is no "we" here I am against taxing them what is the logic of giving them more money to blow?

I am not No one should be paying income tax.

So who is going to pay for the war machine and welfare complex? The one percenters should. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I find it hypocritical that conservatives want to shrink welfare and grow the military but everyone looks out for their own best interest, don't they?

At least with welfare people like you don't have to face the lynch mob!

reply to post by MidnightTide


Haha. Another denialist! Do you live in the 60s where jobs are plenty? Did you go back in time?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Right what is hyocritical is to shrink the "war machine" and grow the welfare machine what is the difference?

"the one percent should pay" how about people paying for what they WANT

.



Population grows new programs are being added when what they already can't be paid for but hell who cares make that 1% pay!!!

Those Champagne wish and caviar dreams all on a wal mart pay check!!

Awesome!

reply to post by ipsedixit


So tell me, who gets to decide who gets what? Who decides on what is taken, who is at the top of your spreading the wealth solution? Who gets to decide how much I should make, how much I should spread around.

Again, I have no problem with taxing the rich, from stopping the corruption taking place from the power brokers (like Warren Buffet, whose company owes about a billion in taxes) but lets be fair....until their is a equilibrium is spending and revenue all this glorious talk about "FOR THE PEOPLE" is just word games.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I like this idea, if feasible.

I have questions, though.

I assume the 4 quadrillion per year sum applies to all trades, including sales. So assuming that, if you have some shares worth in total, say, 500 dollars, and you sell them (you lose 1% of what you sold them for,) then buy more shares (losing 1% of their value,) sell some of them (again losing 1% of whatever you sell them for,) and so on, if you conduct too many transactions at some point don't you end up losing 100% of value or at least enough value that trading becomes prohibitive?

Or would it be possible, even with heavy volume trading, to buy low enough and sell high enough to stay ahead of this effect? And would doing so make trading in any way more difficult for the average person (i.e. retirees, etc.)?

Peace.

The whole point of a 'transaction tax' is to cut down on transactions and speculation; so, in a sense, your analysis is correct. The original intent of 'investing' was to become a partial owner of a specific company. One didn't touch one's capital, only the dividends that were dispersed. The value of a stock was based on real performance not perceived performance. You didn't get your 'value' from stock price so much as from consistant performance and dispersal of profits to shareholders. The market is cockamammy now - stock values rise and fall on inuendo and gossip - false appearances. The value goes up - when they lay people off - not because the company is doing better - just because they are converting capital from productive growth and production to cash. It unsustanable as we can see.

Exactly. Wall Street has transformed from investment to speculation, and most of the speculation is of the insider trading type, where those that are well connected split the money and rip off everyone else. The politicians themselves are suspect imo.

The securities exchange commission is at the very least incompetant. I would say they are *bought out* in reality! They keep turning a blind eye to white collar crime and simply go after the drug offenders and other blue collar criminals who can't afford any decent representation.

The bubbles are formed from wide spread rumors who take advantage of the gullible. The smart buy after everyone sells and the stupid sell when there is no demand. It is a continous inflation and deflation cycle of goodwill(hot air).

reply to post by neo96


The charts provided by the heritage foundation are known to be skewed to paint social welfare programs as evil and military programs as necessary. Every think tank has its own charts to make its own points.

The real problems are neglected by most. Too many illegals, too much outsourcing, too much automation, tax evasion via offshoring, taxing the middle class into poverty.

Maybe you should look at the trade deficits we have been running with china for +20 years now. Many trillions of dollars in lost revenue from america. Workers work in service industry with no union protection for the most part, get paid less and government collects less taxes. Workers need unemployment and then welfare which further drains the funds.

Combine all the bush era wars that Obama has been continuing and the DHS and patriot act bullcrap that steals money from the SS trust.

I don't relly on one dimensional charts for my evaluation. Nice try!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

The charts provided by the heritage foundation are known to be skewed to paint social welfare programs as evil a

No they aren't the reason they aren't is this thread, tax them rich folk because they are spending too much.

16 trillion dollars in debt more when people add up the total owed to them social programs are SCAMS worthy of all street.

Tho none will ever admit it. first in first out leave others holding the bag this case "Wall Street".