A New Tax?

[Perchoutofwater]

 

The AFL-CIO and Dems push fro a new Wall Street Tax. With the way this congress and administration are spending unprecedented amounts of money there is no doubt some taxes are going to have to be raised. Like many things this congress and the administration have proposed I'm not sure if it is the best way to go about things and question if the unintended consequences won't outweigh any short term benefit that might be realized. What I don't get is why is the AFL-CIO backing this?

[dmarc117]

The AFL-CIO and Dems push fro a new Wall Street Tax. With the way this congress and administration are spending unprecedented amounts of money there is no doubt some taxes are going to have to be raised. Like many things this congress and the administration have proposed I'm not sure if it is the best way to go about things and question if the unintended consequences won't outweigh any short term benefit that might be realized. What I don't get is why is the AFL-CIO backing this?

 

 

wall street gives alot more money to the pols than the afl-cio

[Duchess Jack]

The AFL-CIO and Dems push fro a new Wall Street Tax. With the way this congress and administration are spending unprecedented amounts of money there is no doubt some taxes are going to have to be raised. Like many things this congress and the administration have proposed I'm not sure if it is the best way to go about things and question if the unintended consequences won't outweigh any short term benefit that might be realized. What I don't get is why is the AFL-CIO backing this?

 

with all that said - how do you feel about banks getting loans from the fed at batsht crazy rates and charging folk insaine interest rates and penalties and jacking up their fees to ungodly levels?

[bpwallace49]

with all that said - how do you feel about banks getting loans from the fed at batsht crazy rates and charging folk insaine interest rates and penalties and jacking up their fees to ungodly levels?

 

Duchess that is just called "good capitalism".

[Perchoutofwater]

with all that said - how do you feel about banks getting loans from the fed at batsht crazy rates and charging folk insaine interest rates and penalties and jacking up their fees to ungodly levels?

 

I have no problem with banks enforcing the covenants they entered into. I do have a problem with banks receiving federal funds, particularly those banks that were healthy being forced to take federal funds so that you and I were kept in the dark as to which banks were actually in trouble. The best I can tell the banks that are making the profits are the banks that were forced to take the money, no the ones that were insolvent. With regard to interest rates, they are still at historical lows, so they aren't charging insane rates on loans right now, but even if they were if that was part of the covenant they made with the borrower then I have no problem with it. Also, I won't feel sorry for the banks when they are stuck with all these low interest loans when interest rates go up either. Of course I doubt you'll care about how hard it will be on the bank when interest rates are in the double digits but they are stuck holding all these 5% loans. Of course you won't care, and neither will I.

[Savage Beatings]

The premise within the article seems to be that trading on speculation is inherently bad (they list the discouragment of speculation as a benefit of the tax). I honestly don't know one way or another if that's true or not, but I'd like to see some arguments as to why it would be the case that trading on speculation is bad and should be discouraged through taxation. Wiegie?

[Perchoutofwater]

The premise within the article seems to be that trading on speculation is inherently bad (they list the discouragment of speculation as a benefit of the tax). I honestly don't know one way or another if that's true or not, but I'd like to see some arguments as to why it would be the case that trading on speculation is bad and should be discouraged through taxation. Wiegie?

 

I'd like to hear Muck's thoughts on this as well.

[wiegie]

The premise within the article seems to be that trading on speculation is inherently bad (they list the discouragment of speculation as a benefit of the tax). I honestly don't know one way or another if that's true or not, but I'd like to see some arguments as to why it would be the case that trading on speculation is bad and should be discouraged through taxation. Wiegie?

I don't have time to look it up fully, but there is some evidence that "noise traders" create additional risk in the market. (My quick cite comes from R. Glenn Hubbard's Money and Banking textbook that I teach out of.)

 

(That is not to say that I agree with the tax, I was just talking about a potential downside of speculation to the overall system.)

Edited September 2, 2009 by wiegie

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I don't think a handful of speculators should be able to drive the price of commodities like oil up into the stratosphere. But that's just me.

[westvirginia]

The premise within the article seems to be that trading on speculation is inherently bad (they list the discouragment of speculation as a benefit of the tax). I honestly don't know one way or another if that's true or not, but I'd like to see some arguments as to why it would be the case that trading on speculation is bad and should be discouraged through taxation. Wiegie?

 

So, because it's "bad" it should be banned?

 

That which is not forbidden is kompulsory, kommrades. I'm soooooooo ever flippin' tired of politicians who lie, steal, cheat on their families, etc. getting up on a moral highhorse about ANYTHING.

 

Not coming at you SB, I just think taxation is for revenue raising for the proper functions of goverment. NOT for political/moral agenda.

[Perchoutofwater]

So, because it's "bad" it should be banned?

 

That which is not forbidden is kompulsory, kommrades. I'm soooooooo ever flippin' tired of politicians who lie, steal, cheat on their families, etc. getting up on a moral highhorse about ANYTHING.

 

Not coming at you SB, I just think taxation is for revenue raising for the proper functions of goverment. NOT for political/moral agenda.

 

The problem is at least 60% of the taxes we pay do not go to the proper functions of government.

[Ursa Majoris]

So, because it's "bad" it should be banned?

 

That which is not forbidden is kompulsory, kommrades. I'm soooooooo ever flippin' tired of politicians who lie, steal, cheat on their families, etc. getting up on a moral highhorse about ANYTHING.

 

Not coming at you SB, I just think taxation is for revenue raising for the proper functions of goverment. NOT for political/moral agenda.

The "proper functions of government" include ensuring that a few wildass cretins with far too much money and influence on the so-called free market do not ruin it for the rest of us who also rely on it - and invest in it.

[westvirginia]

The "proper functions of government" include ensuring that a few wildass cretins with far too much money and influence on the so-called free market do not ruin it for the rest of us who also rely on it - and invest in it.

 

You have mentioned many times of your 401K - you're investing hoping just that your money stays put, right? You're not "speculating" that the funds will increase in value, are you?

[Ursa Majoris]

You have mentioned many times of your 401K - you're investing hoping just that your money stays put, right? You're not "speculating" that the funds will increase in value, are you?

No, of course not. I'm lending it to the capitalists because I'm a devotee of Sharia.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

I find it disturbing that nobody can have an avatar of a pretty girl in a bikini, yet this clown can openly mock and degrade the President of the United States with his.

I wonder how long an avatar openly degrading Dubya would've lasted around these parts?? I'm guessing about 4 seconds.

[dmarc117]

this speculation problem is a myth concocted by the libs to demonize free markets.

[detlef]

So, because it's "bad" it should be banned?

 

That which is not forbidden is kompulsory, kommrades. I'm soooooooo ever flippin' tired of politicians who lie, steal, cheat on their families, etc. getting up on a moral highhorse about ANYTHING.

 

Not coming at you SB, I just think taxation is for revenue raising for the proper functions of goverment. NOT for political/moral agenda.

I didn't see anyone mention the word "banned" prior to you. I believe the intention is to make certain forms of investing unsavory by raising the costs involved. That doesn't mean you can't do it Rather that you'd better freaking know what you're doing because it's harder to make money doing so. I don't know enough about the specific subject at hand to say whether the guys they are going after are actually causing enough trouble that the government should do what the markets are not, that being lower the upside and, thus forcing some marginal players out of the game.

 

But, in general, and if wisely wielded, I can get behind the notion. After all, while the markets are a fine way to link people who have money to invest with those who have projects in need of capitalization, they have also spawned many needless and costly drains on our society. Taxing the hell out of short term capital gains, for instance, is a fine way of handling this. If you want to jerk around and use the markets in a manner they weren't intended, that's cool, just prepare to pay dearly to do so.

 

Once again, I'm not commenting on the specific tax at hand because I don't know enough to say one way or another how fair or effective it is. Rather just pointing out, wv, that you're a one trick pony with almost nothing useful to say.

Edited September 3, 2009 by detlef

[Ursa Majoris]

this speculation problem is a myth concocted by the libs to demonize free markets.

And the colossal spike in oil prices just over a year ago plus the horribly inefficient government having to step in to save the super-sleek and efficient regulation-free capitalism was a total myth too.

[bpwallace49]

I didn't see anyone mention the word "banned" prior to you. I believe the intention is to make certain forms of investing unsavory by raising the costs involved. That doesn't mean you can't do it Rather that you'd better freaking know what you're doing because it's harder to make money doing so. I don't know enough about the specific subject at hand to say whether the guys they are going after are actually causing enough trouble that the government should do what the markets are not, that being lower the upside and, thus forcing some marginal players out of the game.

 

But, in general, and if wisely wielded, I can get behind the notion. After all, while the markets are a fine way to link people who have money to invest with those who have projects in need of capitalization, they have also spawned many needless and costly drains on our society. Taxing the hell out of short term capital gains, for instance, is a fine way of handling this. If you want to jerk around and use the markets in a manner they weren't intended, that's cool, just prepare to pay dearly to do so.

 

Once again, I'm not commenting on the specific tax at hand because I don't know enough to say one way or another how fair or effective it is. Rather just pointing out, wv, that you're a one trick pony with almost nothing useful to say.

 

 

I like you more every post detlef . . . . I need to visit those restaurants of yours.

[dmarc117]

And the colossal spike in oil prices just over a year ago plus the horribly inefficient government having to step in to save the super-sleek and efficient regulation-free capitalism was a total myth too.

 

 

supply and demand

[Perchoutofwater]

I find it disturbing that nobody can have an avatar of a pretty girl in a bikini, yet this clown can openly mock and degrade the President of the United States with his.

I wonder how long an avatar openly degrading Dubya would've lasted around these parts?? I'm guessing about 4 seconds.

 

You have a short memory if you don't remember any avatars that portrayed Bush in a poor light.

[Perchoutofwater]

I didn't see anyone mention the word "banned" prior to you. I believe the intention is to make certain forms of investing unsavory by raising the costs involved. That doesn't mean you can't do it Rather that you'd better freaking know what you're doing because it's harder to make money doing so. I don't know enough about the specific subject at hand to say whether the guys they are going after are actually causing enough trouble that the government should do what the markets are not, that being lower the upside and, thus forcing some marginal players out of the game.

 

But, in general, and if wisely wielded, I can get behind the notion. After all, while the markets are a fine way to link people who have money to invest with those who have projects in need of capitalization, they have also spawned many needless and costly drains on our society. Taxing the hell out of short term capital gains, for instance, is a fine way of handling this. If you want to jerk around and use the markets in a manner they weren't intended, that's cool, just prepare to pay dearly to do so.

 

Once again, I'm not commenting on the specific tax at hand because I don't know enough to say one way or another how fair or effective it is. Rather just pointing out, wv, that you're a one trick pony with almost nothing useful to say.

 

If you make the penalty, uh I mean tax on short term capital gains too high you will end up with fewer people in the market. What happens if I have an unbonded subcontractor fail, and I have to liquidate some investments to cover him? If I know I'm going to have to pay a hugh penalty, ur uh tax on short term gains why would I invest money that I need to be fairly liquid if you make the reward less, and the risk stays the same, I might just decide to keep that money that I might need access to under the mattress instead of in the market.

[WaterMan]

Obama to Wall Street: Play Poker instead of Stocks.

[WaterMan]

If you make the penalty, uh I mean tax on short term capital gains too high you will end up with fewer people in the market. What happens if I have an unbonded subcontractor fail, and I have to liquidate some investments to cover him? If I know I'm going to have to pay a hugh penalty, ur uh tax on short term gains why would I invest money that I need to be fairly liquid if you make the reward less, and the risk stays the same, I might just decide to keep that money that I might need access to under the mattress instead of in the market.

 

You are now understanding how Fox writes their columns. Keep up the yellow, I mean good work.

[detlef]

If you make the penalty, uh I mean tax on short term capital gains too high you will end up with fewer people in the market. What happens if I have an unbonded subcontractor fail, and I have to liquidate some investments to cover him? If I know I'm going to have to pay a hugh penalty, ur uh tax on short term gains why would I invest money that I need to be fairly liquid if you make the reward less, and the risk stays the same, I might just decide to keep that money that I might need access to under the mattress instead of in the market.

That’s a really good question. Why in god’s name would you want to put money that you need to be liquid into the market? So, when you’re done complaining about the overreaching nature of this policy, you might want to write Big Brother a thank you note for saving you from yourself.

 

What’s one of the first questions any financial advisor asks you? How much of this money do you think you might need in the next few years? Whatever that amount is, they typically tell you to keep on the sidelines in some sort of lower yielding interest-earning account. If you’ve got money that you might need to bail out your business in the stock market, the least of your worries should be taxes or penalties involved in pulling it out too soon. You’re biggest concern is whether or not it’s even freaking there when you need it.

 

So, sounds like to me you’re seeing this as not only a penalty on using the markets in a manner other than that which they were designed for, but also a penalty on being stupid and reckless. Frankly, that’s fine with me.