The Democratic Party Platform Committee has taken a position in support of a tax on Wall Street transactions, according to a statement by committee member Rep. Keith Ellison. This is just the latest sign of the mainstreaming of a bold policy that would shrink the size and power of Wall Street.
How about this for an economic policy analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaBjY-zm0sI
So just how do they plan to use the proceeds? Sanders position stated the need for the tax and how it was to be spent. Democrats saying they are for raising taxes is nothing new; it's how they plan to spend the money that concerns me.
There are millions of transactions happening every minute.
There are a few exchanges in the US that have many companies listed. These companies are often based offshore to avoid National regulations and taxes. There are other mechanisms through which transactions happen that are not directly related to an exchange.
If the new law governs the US exchanges, then Companies might choose to do their business in London, where Boris Johnson or another such cretin may choose not to exact the measure. Actually, the majority of the existence of the British Economy relies on the financial market. It will be of great benefit to them if the US puts this new regulation in its place, and the UK does not. Banks in the UK and Europe are under severe duress, and an additional tax may make some of them go under.
Those transactions that have to be based in US will be the only ones that will be taxed. Technological innovation can also create products that do not fall under any new law created, which means the dog chasing its tail can go on ad nauseum.
The question is, the current bailout of 60-80 billion in Quantitative easing can be given to the banks out of thin air, why on earth do we need a tax on banks? This money can easily substitute for the tax and be given to the state.
There are a gazzillion regulations currently in a place. If you try to enforce them, you are threatened on national television, as the New York state attorney has been, or you might meet a high class hooker and be paraded through the media, like Elliot Spitzer was.
There is massive schism in between the financial market, the written law, and the true exchange of goods and services.
So I come back to my old line - The system of money itself has to be changed. A central bank which has no co relation to main street and is secretive with so much control would be a good place to start.
Was thinking along those same lines. In the "art" of compromise the new successor to the PNAC could cajole the Wall St. gamblers to support it as long as it is earmarked for the military, which carries their water anyhow.
Yup, the business of America has become monetary manipulation.
Yes, we all want a transaction tax. However, I don't see Hillary doing it if she is crowned. While this is encouraging, I don't see it making it under a Clinton presidency because she is totally owned by the Wall Street crew, especially Goldman Sachs her buddies. Nah, she'll ignore it or throw it out.
You are right, the revolution will end up in the streets. The lawsuit was filed today against the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz. This too could change the outcome of the convention.
This is the same DNC that refuses to include opposition to TPP in the Party platform. TPP will enable corporate tribunals to effectively nullify any such tax, so Hillary or others only need to sign off on TPP to ax the transaction tax.
"the president initially supported the financial transaction tax. Larry Summers, who was then serving as Obama’s Director of the National Economic Council, put the kibosh on it."
Was Obama in charge of anything???
A tax on Wall Street transactions is a necessary step in the effort to tame income unbalance and improve the state of the middle class. The short term hedge fund traders add no value to anything. They are just a drag on transactions that may have some real value. If we tax this millionaire gambling market and slow it down some and use the funds for what these high flyers should be contributing to and aren't, then we improve the economy and provide more jobs and wages to the middle class. We all know that we need to replenish our infrastructure and improve education opportunities. These things increase the value of all our country's assets. If we do that trade of profits for the very rich for infrastructure improvements and better education, everybody gains over the long term.
It is ironic that Trump is proposing massive tax breaks for the rich with no plan to finance infrastructure improvements or improve educations. The Republicans that are always yelling about deficits have a plan to increase deficits dramatically. Trump even says he will not reduce social security and medicare. The American public must come to an understanding that Trump can not reduce taxes on the rich and corporations without reducing spending. That approach is just not possible - just economics 101. It is just wishful thinking or is it really awful lies.
Let's just say that Barry the Liar was easily dissuaded from the idea. He may talk the talk but it seems a lot harder for him to walk it.
Such a tax is long overdue! It is no surprise that business leaders are for it, for the purpose of a sale of stock was so a company could take on outside investors, grow their business and pay dividends. How does one grow a business when shiftless jerk-wads invest thousands for all of 0.4 seconds?!! That needed to stop a long time ago!
I am an investor. I say bring on a 0.1% tax on each item purchased. And don't stop there, make capital gains tax rate 40% or tax it as regular income! Then reinstate the estate tax and finally, raise the top incremental rate on compensation in any form over $5 million a year at 90% until the debt is paid off. Then never drop it below a disincentivizing 85%
First, the idea of higher cost for a stock transaction is not new.
Way back (decades) in the day, the Wall Street brokerage firms were allowed 'restraint of trade' that commissions on stock trades had to be >x%, and their regulator signed off on that. -- Back in the late 1970s their regulator changed its mind, and that was how Charles Schwab became the first big success discount brokerage.
No surprise that the leviathan-government wants yet more money, and sees this as one source. It is money and it belongs to people hated by many other people.
As an aside, what the high frequency trading algorithms seek to do is called 'arbitrage', and attempt to profit from a difference in prices between here and there. Back in 2009 someone said that the work is akin to picking up pennies in front of a steam roller. However it apparently is profitable enough, and they've avoided the risk sufficiently, that they continue to exist.
As progressives, you should push to make this proposed tax progressive, according to either the amount of money traded or the number of transactions (or both). This is because people hate the very rich Wall Streeters more than the mere rich. There should also be taxes assessed separately on investors and on brokers. This is because people hate big Wall Street brokers more than ordinary sized brokers. The purpose, particularly for the separate brokers tax, is to prefer small players over big players.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
You can bet that Hillary will stop this sort of talk as soon as she is appointed Queen. On the other hand, maybe that's how her owners on wall street will be paying her, one never knows.
Just want to know for what purpose additional taxes will be used. I'm not opposed to taxes in general, just to the ways they are spent. If this money is to be used to bolster the MIC, or give more subsidies to fossil fuel companies, I am against it. If this money is to be used to reduce college debt or otherwise directly help "We the :People" in our hour of economic need, then I'm all for it.
Talk about making America great again - back to the Eisenhower days when one worker per family could support an entire family, union membership was rising and the wars were winding down, sort of down. On the other hand, and it had nothing to with taxes, let's not return to the racism and Jim Crowism od era that Trump seems to want.
Deficit reduction, and
A systemic device to impede the distortions of short-term speculation (i.e., you know, make the markets more efficient).
Hillary is probably right, Conservatives would never go for it!
It is just plain disgusting how many writers portray Obama as the victim of his underlings. If Obama had half a spine to go along with his big mouth, he would never, ever be the victim of the Wall Street policy prostitutes he appoints to tell him what to do. He would instead take their advice into consideration, and them preside. Presiding is a concept he remains a stranger to.
HRC, no one doubts, can preside. Her problem is that she is a bully, a narrow-minded authoritarian, and is so brimming full of anger from so far back she cannot imagine she is a victim of her own self-imposed PTSD. She is not emotionally competent to bring "all that experience" to bear on anything, not even her own temper.
We must never put a hot head's finger on the button.