• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Financial transactions tax

The concerns are real, but there are better ways than taxing it.

But it's so easy and so painless, why not tax it? Like fuel taxes for roads. Roads must be built, and humans will gamble for sure. ;)
 
Thoughts?

Dumb idea. It will just drive trades overseas. The article mentions London as a stock-trading powerhouse, but note that although the market cap of securities listed on the London Stock Exchange is about one-fourth of the combined NASDAQ and NYSE market caps, trading volume in London is about one-sixteenth as much. Hong Kong's stock exchange is about one-half the size of London's, but trading volume is almost the same. London is known less as a stock-trading center nowadays than a metals and currency trading center. And New York shouldn't take its position for granted, either. Hong Kong will gladly take over those trades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges
 

My first impression...

Common Dream...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

What a loser site.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Ever fact check the material?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Only liberal lemmings source that site.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Ever see what the requirements are to make an article?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Yet the types who believe their BS poison the well of legitimate sites.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...
 
But it's so easy and so painless, why not tax it? Like fuel taxes for roads. Roads must be built, and humans will gamble for sure. ;)

I agree fuel taxes need to be raised. It's a user tax, and we need to maintain better roads. However, with the switch to electric, hybrid, etc; maybe we need to increase the taxes on tires instead.
 
I agree fuel taxes need to be raised. It's a user tax, and we need to maintain better roads. However, with the switch to electric, hybrid, etc; maybe we need to increase the taxes on tires instead.

This proposed tax is ALSO a user tax, and thanks for mentioning that. Those who play the casino pay to play, a fairly just method of taxation, eh?
 
This proposed tax is ALSO a user tax, and thanks for mentioning that. Those who play the casino pay to play, a fairly just method of taxation, eh?
No.

The casino profits are taxed, and there is a point in which if a player wins over a certain amount, it is filed with the IRS and they pay taxes on it.

Do the roads wear out in a casino?
 
No.

The casino profits are taxed, and there is a point in which if a player wins over a certain amount, it is filed with the IRS and they pay taxes on it.

Do the roads wear out in a casino?

By casino, I'm referring to the Stock Market where so many of my friends bet most of the day. They are the users that will pay this small tax for using the system in which they gamble.

Most corporations represented on Wall Street do not pay taxes, as many of them are moved offshore to avoid tax liabilities. Some do pay, but most don't pay. 10 years ago and probably since, I paid more in taxes than General Electric did.
 
After reading about the Panama papers, I have zero faith in our tax system anymore or our government's ability to evenhandedly apply the tax code. They build in loopholes so that the wealthy can find ways around it. This new tax will be no different.
 
After reading about the Panama papers, I have zero faith in our tax system anymore or our government's ability to evenhandedly apply the tax code. They build in loopholes so that the wealthy can find ways around it. This new tax will be no different.

I totally agree with your sentiment there regarding faith in government, but the simple truth is that government accountability can be achieved with proper regulations and enforcement of those laws. That don't happen much in today's society.

But a proper and accountable system can be designed, is my point.
 
LOL...

I've tuned several PID loops.

720px-PID_en_updated_feedback.svg.png


e3eed9f0bf326788949aaa88d84d3d9c.png


I don't think you can tune tax "D's" as well.

I'm thinking you have a lot to learn on feedback control systems.
 
By casino, I'm referring to the Stock Market where so many of my friends bet most of the day. They are the users that will pay this small tax for using the system in which they gamble.

Most corporations represented on Wall Street do not pay taxes, as many of them are moved offshore to avoid tax liabilities. Some do pay, but most don't pay. 10 years ago and probably since, I paid more in taxes than General Electric did.

So...

Taxing the transaction, are you going to eliminate capital gains taxes?
 
Now you're being silly.

Dead serious.

Why is some lazy person whose sole contribution to the economy is putting their worth into the market taxed at a lower rate than 40, 50, or 60+ hour/week laborers ?
 
Dead serious.

Why is some lazy person whose sole contribution to the economy is putting their worth into the market taxed at a lower rate than 40, 50, or 60+ hour/week laborers ?

Because it is a risk. If you tax risky transactions at the same rate and a paycheck, people stop taking the risk.

You don't always win in the market. Sometimes you lose your money. If I play 10 stocks in the tax year, lose 3K with three of them, make 7K with 7 of them, my net gain is $4k. It may have taken $100K of capital to make that $4K. What would you tax my $100K worth of transactions at? Would I still play the market after the end tax result? I'm already getting taxed on my $4K profit.
 
The level if simplicity people think at. In cases of inequity, taxes, entitlements, it's generally liberal/progressives. You guys only look at the immediate result. Do you ever look at the concept in a full circle fashion? Do you ever consider pros and cons? The repercussions?

The economy is not static. It is very dynamic. When you prod one aspect of it, it changes.
 
Because it is a risk. If you tax risky transactions at the same rate and a paycheck, people stop taking the risk.

You don't always win in the market. Sometimes you lose your money. If I play 10 stocks in the tax year, lose 3K with three of them, make 7K with 7 of them, my net gain is $4k. It may have taken $100K of capital to make that $4K. What would you tax my $100K worth of transactions at? Would I still play the market after the end tax result? I'm already getting taxed on my $4K profit.

We all risk.

The government already subsidizes investment losses.

You're just making up excuses, you're grasping at straws.
 
Speaking of changes, that's why changing tax rates have so little effect of government revenue. When you lower a tax rate, the receipts are a little lower for the first year or two, but stabilize back to where they were before. Same with raising a tax. For a short amount of time, revenues increase, but it all balances back out to a specific level. In the case of the federal government, it balances at around 18.5% of GDP.

This is why I am for lowering tax rates. Let the people spend their money in the economy, instead of government. We should take the top marginal rate back down to the rage of 20% to 25%, and remove nearly all tax breaks.
 
The government already subsidizes investment losses.
Only in losing deals that politicians want. And it's the lefties who want that. Not right leaning people. They push for things that corporations would never risk their own money for, like Solyndra.
 
Only in losing deals that politicians want. And it's the lefties who want that. Not right leaning people. They push for things that corporations would never risk their own money for, like Solyndra.

What ...?
 
What ...?

LOL...

Apt name...

Absent glare...

I'm sure there are good reasons to have the government guarantee a loan... though I can't think of any at the moment. They shouldn't do so just for the current liberal pet project like solar energy corporations. If investors see it as a viable option, they will risk their personal capital! If these experts can't convince other experts, but can convince our elected officials... I'm sorry, in my view, everyone who approved of Solyndra should be out of a job. Their job should have been tied to that company. What a travesty and waste of tax dollars.
 
Last edited:
LOL...

Apt name...

Absent glare...

I'm sure there are good reasons to have the government guarantee a loan... though I can't think of any at the moment. They shouldn't do so just for the current liberal pet project like solar energy corporations. If investors see it as a viable option, they will risk their personal capital! If these experts can't convince other experts, but can convince our elected officials... I'm sorry, in my view, everyone who approved of Solyndra should be out of a job. Their job should have been tied to that company. What a travesty and waste of tax dollars.

Not really, those green energy loans are on course to be a net gain for the government.

Businesses fail all the time, why latch on to Solyndra ?
 
Not really, those green energy loans are on course to be a net gain for the government.
Really?

I've run the numbers before. The small gains after several years, after inflation, is a loss. Not a gain.

Do you have numbers that show differently?

Businesses fail all the time, why latch on to Solyndra ?
Yes, businesses fail from time to time. That's why we don't tax capital investors very much, because they are risking complete losses. If a capital investor doesn't want to risk his money, why should the government risk our tax dollars?

It was a loan that should have never happened. It was never going to succeed. It was a liberal feel-good loan. "We will fund green energy." How many votes did they buy from easily duped people?
 
Back
Top Bottom