Jump to content



Photo

The case for a trading tax.


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#11 LongShort168

LongShort168

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 10:00 PM

It makes sense to place the heaviest tax burden on those who benefit the most from government.
Tax the rich at a very high rate and government will shrink in size. Then the tax burden on everyone will fall.
I doubt that a transaction tax will accomplish that. Chances are a transaction tax would be as heavy a burden on small investors as on the huge institutions that have a hand in formulating public policy.

James



http://www.portfolio...n-Stock-Trading


I am an advocate of a trading tax even back when George Bush Sr. sent out a trial balloon for one which, of course, was quickly shot down. (If I recall correctly the trial balloon lasted one day and was never heard from again :D ) Most on this board are opposed to ANY tax on trading which I fully understand, however, the tax would fall only on the user. Not unlike a gasoline tax, toll tax, telephone tax, etc. The tax need not be .0025% on the total transaction. Actually a flat fee user tax of say $20 per transaction would be acceptable to many I believe. With trillions of debt it is well understood taxes will be raised for the many. IMO this is one of the least egregious ways to raise revenue.

Good trading to all.



I agreed...let's tax the politicians.... they are the onc benefit the most from government.
something like this:
a. tax 1 bill for president
b. tax 1/2 bill for vice president
c. tax 100 mill for congress men/woman
....
:lol:

Edited by fool_bush, 18 January 2009 - 10:01 PM.


#12 James Quillian

James Quillian

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,364 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 10:08 PM

Just keep thinking about it and it will make sense.

It makes sense to place the heaviest tax burden on those who benefit the most from government.
Tax the rich at a very high rate and government will shrink in size. Then the tax burden on everyone will fall.
I doubt that a transaction tax will accomplish that. Chances are a transaction tax would be as heavy a burden on small investors as on the huge institutions that have a hand in formulating public policy.

James



http://www.portfolio...n-Stock-Trading


I am an advocate of a trading tax even back when George Bush Sr. sent out a trial balloon for one which, of course, was quickly shot down. (If I recall correctly the trial balloon lasted one day and was never heard from again :D ) Most on this board are opposed to ANY tax on trading which I fully understand, however, the tax would fall only on the user. Not unlike a gasoline tax, toll tax, telephone tax, etc. The tax need not be .0025% on the total transaction. Actually a flat fee user tax of say $20 per transaction would be acceptable to many I believe. With trillions of debt it is well understood taxes will be raised for the many. IMO this is one of the least egregious ways to raise revenue.

Good trading to all.



I agreed...let's tax the politicians.... they are the onc benefit the most from government.
something like this:
a. tax 1 bill for president
b. tax 1/2 bill for vice president
c. tax 100 mill for congress men/woman
....
:lol:



#13 pdx5

pdx5

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 6,682 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 10:40 PM

Tax the rich at a very high rate and government will shrink in size. Then the tax burden on everyone will fall.

James


You obviously don't understand how politicians operate. They will always and I mean always
expand the spending to soak up any increase in revenue via taxes.

Under Reagan tax revenues doubled. The congress spent all of that plus more ending
in TRIPLING in spending. Ok you are not smoking, then lets drink that stuff together :lol:
"Money cannot consistently be made trading every day or every week during the year." ~ Jesse Livermore Trading Rule

#14 James Quillian

James Quillian

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,364 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 10:54 PM

This really is a big deal. You have to think about it for a while. Its obvious but it won't click until you think about it.

James

Tax the rich at a very high rate and government will shrink in size. Then the tax burden on everyone will fall.

James


You obviously don't understand how politicians operate. They will always and I mean always
expand the spending to soak up any increase in revenue via taxes.

Under Reagan tax revenues doubled. The congress spent all of that plus more ending
in TRIPLING in spending. Ok you are not smoking, then lets drink that stuff together :lol:



#15 U.F.O.

U.F.O.

    U.F.O.

  • TT Patron+
  • 5,605 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 11:03 PM

In the 1960's when the Brits raised their top tax rate to 90%, if memory serves, there was a mass exodus of hyper-wealthy individuals from England, including various members of The Beatles and Rolling Stones. If enough wealthy individuals change national residency for tax purposes a lower high net worth tax base would have the effect of shrinking tax receipts and therefore...the economy along with the govt. itself. Do I win a prize? U.F.O.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
~Benjamin Franklin~

#16 IYB

IYB

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 7,110 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 11:38 PM

Tax the rich at a very high rate and government will shrink in size. Then the tax burden on everyone will fall.
James


.....would have the effect of shrinking tax receipts and therefore...the economy along with the govt. itself.

Yes- the economy would go further into tailspin allright....but who in their right mind could possibly want that? This is positively the single most bizarre presciption for economic well being I've ever seen. :huh: :o :lol:

Edited by IYB, 18 January 2009 - 11:40 PM.

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.” Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

#17 U.F.O.

U.F.O.

    U.F.O.

  • TT Patron+
  • 5,605 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 11:40 PM

I agree. I was just trying to win the prize for answering James' question. U.F.O.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
~Benjamin Franklin~

#18 James Quillian

James Quillian

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,364 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 11:42 PM

U.F.O
The incentive for growth in government is something that is not acknowledged or even recognized. Given enough time and suffering folks will start to question some erroneous ideas that are ingrained in their brains. If a smaller government would benefit the super rich, then the size and cost of government would shrink. Government could not grow in size against the wishes of those with the money and power to make it small if that was to their advantage.

Besides myself and a few others, economists have simply not observed how democracy corrupts free markets. The democratic process is regularly used to circumvent the free market when it is to the advantage of anyone enough power to influence government. Democracy has become as important factor in determining the the allocation of resources as price is assumed to be. This was not so much the situation in the 60's.
There is a big understanding gap in economic theory and it has to close.

James

In the 1960's when the Brits raised their top tax rate to 90%, if memory serves, there was a mass exodus of hyper-wealthy individuals from England, including various members of The Beatles and Rolling Stones. If enough wealthy individuals change national residency for tax purposes a lower high net worth tax base would have the effect of shrinking tax receipts and therefore...the economy along with the govt. itself. Do I win a prize?

U.F.O.



#19 IYB

IYB

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 7,110 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 11:45 PM

I agree. I was just trying to win the prize for answering James' question.

U.F.O.

I know. But I have no idea if that is what he means or if he truly believes this is somehow a wonderful idea which the rest of us just can't grasp... ;)
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.” Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

#20 U.F.O.

U.F.O.

    U.F.O.

  • TT Patron+
  • 5,605 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 11:48 PM

Beats me. I just read his explanation and I'm still not sure what he meant. I don't think I won the prize though. :( U.F.O.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
~Benjamin Franklin~