Double-Digit Unemployment Doesn't Have to Continue

[Heracles 417]

It isn't baiting, it is a serious question. Do you really think a new tax will solve the unemployment situation?

Likewise, repubs answer to everything is lower taxes. It's no different to Stevens stance on illegal immigration, baseless and basically driven by opinion.

It's what you do with taxes that counts. If higher taxes are worse than slavery, then surely every other country with them would not have a higher Q.O.L, higher income, lower unemployment, Higher GDP per capita, higher GNI per capita, lower poverty, lower crimes, 1,000 times better infrastructure etc etc etc. Get the drift?

If all of those examples still don't work, as many here who marry foreigners care little about the rest of the world - which is bizarre - but anyway. Surely you would look at America's history and realize that during the roaring 50's and 60's, when America was today's China, they wealthy were taxed 90% vs the 35% now.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Small Business hey... Now what does a small business need? Customers or even more tax breaks, considering they already pay negligible tax versus an individual earning less than them.

Money has to be taken out of the hands of businesses or the wealthy that are hording it and put into the hands of people actually working. Trust funds or wealthy families hoarding money does nothing for the Average Joe or the American economy. If it did, like many liberteapartians would have us believe, then third world countries would be killing it. Yet trickle down economics seems to have failed in every single country using it. What is working though, is the exact opposite.

Spoken like a true clock watcher.

[Heracles 417]

Spoken like a true clock watcher.

Dude you service RVs. In other words have #### all knowledge about economics. Did you like go to trade school for 6 months or just start an apprenticeship?

RV repair businesses are not propelling America bud, it's Google's and Apple's and so forth. Your type needs to get with the program or at least the correct century.

Now if you want to talk about wealth and how to grow it, you have come to the right person. Wealth is not generated through tax breaks, it's generated by means of investments.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Heracles

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Dude you service RVs. In other words have #### all knowledge about economics. Did you like go to trade school for 6 months or just start an apprenticeship?

RV repair businesses are not propelling America bud, it's Google's and Apple's and so forth. Your type needs to get with the program or at least the correct century.

Now if you want to talk about wealth and how to grow it, you have come to the right person. Wealth is not generated through tax breaks, it's generated by means of investments.

Did you see all that through Google Earth Streetview?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

FSA backs global tax on transactions

The head of Britain’s top banking watchdog supports the idea of new global taxes on financial transactions, warning that a “swollen” financial sector paying excessive salaries has grown too big for society.

....

Lord Turner’s suggestion that a “Tobin tax” – named after the economist James Tobin – should be considered for financial transactions is also likely to reverberate around the world. The proposed tax, which has previously been championed by development economists and the French government as a means of funding the developing world, has been fiercely opposed by the finance industry.

Lord Turner appears worried about a return to “business as usual” in the banking sector, suggesting that new taxes may be necessary to curb excessive profits and pay in the financial sector.

“If you want to stop excessive pay in a swollen financial sector you have to reduce the size of that sector or apply special taxes to its pre-remuneration profit,” he says.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08943b5a-926a-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

......................

Steinbrück calls for global finance tax

Germany's finance minister has called for a global tax to be imposed on financial transactions in a bid to end what he derided as "binge-drinking" on markets.

In one of the more radical steps mooted by a world leader to reform the financial system, Peer Steinbrück said receipts from the tax would be used to repay the cost to governments of tackling the crisis, including fiscal stimuli and bank rescue operations.

"The cost of the crisis should not be borne alone by small taxpayers," he told the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f6db1262-9f34-11de-8013-00144feabdc0.html

[Heracles 417]

Did you see all that through Google Earth Streetview?

NO I saw it through the BA and MA I have from Universities ranked in the top 50th in the world. How about yourself RV service man?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

NO I saw it through the BA and MA I have from Universities ranked in the top 50th in the world. How about yourself RV service man?

Top 50?

[Heracles 417]

Top 50?

Yes, out of 9,000+

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes, out of 9,000+

I didn't think the Perth School for Sheilas made anybody's list.

Edited October 8, 2010 by ##########

[scandal 951]

Could there not be a tax charged in the same way that fees are currently charged for such transactions?

The idea of a Financial Speculation Tax can even be found in the Financial Times:

There *could* be a tax, sure. The question is: *should* there be one?

Some countries already have aggressive trading taxes: For example the UK has a stamp duty on shares trading: http://www.thetaxguide.co.uk/StampDutyShares.html

Japan has even more onerous duties for non-resident trading firms.

The experience in those countries is that such taxes tend to drive away volume and/or cause trading firms to find ways of trading synthetics or off-shore (e.g. NDF) instruments to avoid the tax. That decreases liquidity on the exchanges, harms price discovery, and is a net-negative to a pro-business pro-investment climate in those countries. Are you sure that's what you want to advocate for America's markets?

I am not opposed to taxes, particularly when levied equitably and the proceeds are used wisely. I *AM* opposed to using the tax system as a way to penalize a vilified industry (financial trading, in this case). And I *AM* opposed to levying it to target one segment (so-called 'speculators') from another (so-called 'investors'). It's become popular sport to target tobacco companies, big oil, Wall St. and other bad-boys with targeted taxes. That makes for good political rhetoric but very bad economic policy.

America's capital markets are vital to its long term economic growth. It's very fashionable to blame the markets for all the woes of our economy. There certainly were (and are) abuses and they should be addressed through regulation, risk controls, capital requirements, and the like. Increasing trading costs, and thus decreasing liquidity and price discovery does no one any favors.

I am not an apologist for Wall St. firms. I think the management of GS, BofA/MLCO, MS and the rest acted terribly during the crisis and have done everything in their power to water down the regulation attempts since. But I also think our capital markets are one of the true wonders of the modern world and have led to an increased standard of living and prosperity that has been the envy of the world. I want to preserve and strengthen those markets, not see them crippled. Obviously this piddly tax won't cripple anything, it's a gnat, but to suggest that a speculators-only trading tax is progressive and beneficial policy is ridiculous in my view. There are far more productive things for our Congresscritters to be focused on.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There *could* be a tax, sure. The question is: *should* there be one?

Some countries already have aggressive trading taxes: For example the UK has a stamp duty on shares trading: http://www.thetaxgui...DutyShares.html

Japan has even more onerous duties for non-resident trading firms.

The experience in those countries is that such taxes tend to drive away volume and/or cause trading firms to find ways of trading synthetics or off-shore (e.g. NDF) instruments to avoid the tax. That decreases liquidity on the exchanges, harms price discovery, and is a net-negative to a pro-business pro-investment climate in those countries. Are you sure that's what you want to advocate for America's markets?

I am not opposed to taxes, particularly when levied equitably and the proceeds are used wisely. I *AM* opposed to using the tax system as a way to penalize a vilified industry (financial trading, in this case). And I *AM* opposed to levying it to target one segment (so-called 'speculators') from another (so-called 'investors'). It's become popular sport to target tobacco companies, big oil, Wall St. and other bad-boys with targeted taxes. That makes for good political rhetoric but very bad economic policy.

America's capital markets are vital to its long term economic growth. It's very fashionable to blame the markets for all the woes of our economy. There certainly were (and are) abuses and they should be addressed through regulation, risk controls, capital requirements, and the like. Increasing trading costs, and thus decreasing liquidity and price discovery does no one any favors.

I am not an apologist for Wall St. firms. I think the management of GS, BofA/MLCO, MS and the rest acted terribly during the crisis and have done everything in their power to water down the regulation attempts since. But I also think our capital markets are one of the true wonders of the modern world and have led to an increased standard of living and prosperity that has been the envy of the world. I want to preserve and strengthen those markets, not see them crippled. Obviously this piddly tax won't cripple anything, it's a gnat, but to suggest that a speculators-only trading tax is progressive and beneficial policy is ridiculous in my view. There are far more productive things for our Congresscritters to be focused on.

But if it were on a more global scale, then there wouldn't be any viable way for trading firms to escape it. I'm not going to even pretend to fully understand all the nuances of trading, but this does some like a fairly recent phenomenon (day trading) and while it may bring in a lot of revenue that helps the economy, I'm wondering if that fairly new source of revenue is worth the risk it has added to our economy?

Edited October 8, 2010 by El Buscador

[scandal 951]

But if it were on a more global scale, then there wouldn't be any viable way for trading firms to escape it.

This is unrealistic. It assumes a global collusion with everyone acting in concert. Not going to happen. As to "escaping it" - traders have a way of finding an outlet to trade what they want how they want. Brazil doesn't allow its currency (the Real) to be convertible abroad - the markets compensate. They invent the NDF (Non Deliverable Forward) which acts as a synthetic Real and is tradeable on the FX ECNs globally and causes the Brazilian central bank to react in its monetary policy just as if the Real was convertible. The moral of the story: traders will find ways of putting on the trades they want. If you make the costs too high on the regulated public onshore exchanges, they'll take their business to the shadows somewhere else. That is NOT a good thing for our capital markets.

Markets are also competitive. The German treasury futures (Bund etc.) used to be the flagship product on the LIFFE (London International Financial Futures Exchange) until its arch-rival Eurex (the competitive Frankfurt Futures Exchange) stole them away from LIFFE with lower fees, better technology, and as a result increased liquidity.Eurex is now one of the biggest Futures exchange in the world, rivaling CME by traded contract volume. The stakes are real. Don't think that ICE and CME could not one day be supplanted by foreign exchanges (Eurex has eyed the US market for years) to trade our flagship products - S&P minis, Eurodollars, Treasury Futures. This is a vital US industry in its own right, and in the role it serves to manage risk and to raise the capital America's businesses need to expand and grow and serve customers and hire employees. Do you want foreign markets to be the venue for that critical function? Why would we take any steps that hobble our exchanges and disadvantage them on the global competitive stage?

I'm not going to even pretend to fully understand all the nuances of trading, but this does some like a fairly recent phenomenon (day trading) and while it may bring in a lot of revenue that helps the economy, I'm wondering if that fairly new source of revenue is worth the risk it has added to our economy?

The issue here is not day-trading, per se. Retail day trading is a fairly insignificant amount of market flow. The "speculators" being targeted are primarily hedge funds, bank proprietary trading desks, and other similar presumably "predatory" bad boys. I'm not in favor of speculation, nor am I against it. Like most things, it can do harm, and it does good. It can distort our markets, but it can also add liquidity and price discovery and help create orderly and fair markets.

Regarding the proposed tax: Speculators have always existed and will always exist. Every market participant is to some degree a speculator, it's silly to try to distinguish them from "investors". Every participant is taking on some level of risk for some perceived reward. It's a sliding scale, not a black/white distinction. If the Honorable Member from Oregon really wants to impose a trading tax then let him just do that across the board without this pretense of singling out "speculators" for special treatment.

To summarize, I'm trying to say 2 things:

1. Beware, be very aware, of any attempt to impede our capital markets and make them less competitive globally. That can do very serious harm to America's economic best interests. A small trading tax is probably not a big deal, and if the revenue raised is put to better use than the business activity lost to slightly less efficient markets, then I suppose it can be economically justified. But beware of how "small" the small tax is. At some point if it's big enough it will be a step in the direction of less efficient markets that will lose share to foreign markets.

2. Vilifying "speculators" and categorizing them on the basis of a notional $100K annualized trading volume offends my intelligence. It's political pandering at its worst. If you're going to have a tax, apply it as a surcharge across the board for everyone.

[mawilson 2,133]

This is an affordable agenda. In the short-term, the deficits are clearly not a problem.

Yes, they are. The debt is approaching 100 percent of GDP at a rate of 10 percent of GDP per year.

At this rate, we will break 100 percent next year and 200 percent by 2020.

GWB's worst deficit in a single year was 5 percent of GDP.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Dude you service RVs. In other words have #### all knowledge about economics. Did you like go to trade school for 6 months or just start an apprenticeship?

RV repair businesses are not propelling America bud, it's Google's and Apple's and so forth. Your type needs to get with the program or at least the correct century.

Now if you want to talk about wealth and how to grow it, you have come to the right person. Wealth is not generated through tax breaks, it's generated by means of investments.

No need to get nasty, after all, it's a forum and it's his opinion, right? Where's the respect for an opinion that differs from yours?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No need to get nasty, after all, it's a forum and it's his opinion, right? Where's the respect for an opinion that differs from yours?

No worries. Booyah is an investment guru now. He can zoom in on any investment using Google Earth, and tell you right away, whether to buy, sell, or hold.