U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Keosauqua, Iowa
9,160 posts, read 16,562,613 times
Reputation: 12283

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
How many trades do you do a year? I have no idea what the average is but I do little to none. None right now at all as since the first of the year, I'm out.
Most people don't invest in individual stocks, they invest in mutual funds. And they have no control over how many trades the mutual fund makes.

And there's more at stake that the direct cost to the small investor. When faced with a tax for making trades, large investors will be more likely to hold their positions which can cause the market to stagnate. This will have a much greater negative impact on small investors who are trying make their savings outpace inflation than large investors who are just parking their money.

Quote:
So a little investor does 100 trades. That's like $5.00 a year.
If the trades average $10, yes. I believe Bernie's plan is for a 50 cent tax on each $100 worth of trades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:23 PM
 
6,432 posts, read 3,047,478 times
Reputation: 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Employers will be required to contribute to health care just the same as they are doing now.
No, under Bernie's plan there will be a new payroll tax on employers.


That's irrelevant to the point I was making.


Bernie's plan assumes that the previous employer contributions to premium costs for employee insurance which will be eliminated is a savings to the employer that will be passed on to employees in the form of higher wages. That assumption is used to offset the presumed additional taxes on all Americans and then goes on to result in a net increase to income for all but the wealthiest Americans.


Seems like a pretty dubious and flawed(possibly fatally flawed)assumption to me. Oops no increase to the money in your pocket middle America..........here's your tax bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Rutherfordton,NC
14,087 posts, read 8,985,828 times
Reputation: 9542
Just a quick question here.




IF your one of those that are planning to vote for Trump, Hillary, Bush, etc. What are they offering that's different or better then what Sanders is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:26 PM
 
12,711 posts, read 4,596,955 times
Reputation: 5159
Lots of countries have some type of small transactions tax anyway. Even the US had it for many decades (and the economy was doing great).

It's just more scaremongering by Wall Street fat cats and as always, they like to pretend they are concerned about the little guy. Not credible. It can easily be targeted to protect the little guy with a tax credit which has been proposed and that's what's going to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:28 PM
 
77,956 posts, read 33,252,383 times
Reputation: 15582
Quote:
Originally Posted by duster1979 View Post
Most people don't invest in individual stocks, they invest in mutual funds. And they have no control over how many trades the mutual fund makes.

And there's more at stake that the direct cost to the small investor. When faced with a tax for making trades, large investors will be more likely to hold their positions which can cause the market to stagnate. This will have a much greater negative impact on small investors who are trying make their savings outpace inflation than large investors who are just parking their money.
Since you refuse to answer questions directed to you I really don't wish to waste my time.

Quote:
If the trades average $10, yes. I believe Bernie's plan is for a 50 cent tax on each $100 worth of trades.
You just pulled this out your backside.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:29 PM
 
12,711 posts, read 4,596,955 times
Reputation: 5159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy View Post
No, under Bernie's plan there will be a new payroll tax on employers.


That's irrelevant to the point I was making.


Bernie's plan assumes that the previous employer contributions to premium costs for employee insurance which will be eliminated is a savings to the employer that will be passed on to employees in the form of higher wages. That assumption is used to offset the presumed additional taxes on all Americans and then goes on to result in a net increase to income for all but the wealthiest Americans.


Seems like a pretty dubious and flawed(possibly fatally flawed)assumption to me. Oops no increase to the money in your pocket middle America..........here's your tax bill.
You are aware that the vast majority of employees today pay part of the employer based insurance premium right (you could argue that the employee pays all of it as it is part of the compensation but thats another story)? In addition, employees pay co-pays and deductibles. You get hit by a 2.2% payroll tax. Let's say you make 50 000. That's $1100 a year and you no longer have to pay any insurance premiums, no co-pays or deductibles and more importantly, peace of mind knowing you will always be covered and in addition improved bargaining power over your employer. That's a very good deal for the working class of America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:32 PM
 
77,956 posts, read 33,252,383 times
Reputation: 15582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy View Post
No, under Bernie's plan there will be a new payroll tax on employers.
That's what I said. They will still be required to contribute.

Quote:
That's irrelevant to the point I was making.
No it isn't.

Quote:
Bernie's plan assumes that the previous employer contributions to premium costs for employee insurance which will be eliminated is a savings to the employer that will be passed on to employees in the form of higher wages. That assumption is used to offset the presumed additional taxes on all Americans and then goes on to result in a net increase to income for all but the wealthiest Americans.
Generalizations do not make for good arguments.

Quote:
Seems like a pretty dubious and flawed(possibly fatally flawed)assumption to me. Oops no increase to the money in your pocket middle America..........here's your tax bill.
I pay out of pocket now. That will go away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:33 PM
 
77,956 posts, read 33,252,383 times
Reputation: 15582
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
Just a quick question here.




IF your one of those that are planning to vote for Trump, Hillary, Bush, etc. What are they offering that's different or better then what Sanders is?
Good luck....I've asked that over and over with no answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 3,661,539 times
Reputation: 2181
There is one and only one thing that will make a difference and Bernie has said he wants it, and that is to bring back Glass-Seagall. The Bankers and the theives of Wall Street have to be handcuffed and their gambling and middle class theft asphyxiated. Bernie is the only candidate who has clearly said we need to bring back Glass -Steagall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2016, 12:37 PM
 
6,432 posts, read 3,047,478 times
Reputation: 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
You are aware that the vast majority of employees today pay part of the employer based insurance premium right (you could argue that the employee pays all of it as it is part of the compensation but thats another story)? In addition, employees pay co-pays and deductibles. You get hit by a 2.2% payroll tax. Let's say you make 50 000. That's $1100 a year and you no longer have to pay any insurance premiums, no co-pays or deductibles and more importantly, peace of mind knowing you will always be covered and in addition improved bargaining power over your employer. That's a very good deal for the working class of America.


None of that is the point.


The entire cost benefit of Bernies plan(i.e. can he pay for it or not and what is the impact on each tax bracket) is based on the assumption that employers will return whatever they previously spent on Insurance for employees to the employee in the form of a raise. If that doesn't happen for all employees, his whole analysis is wrong.........maybe its off by a trillion, or 2, or 5, or 10. Who knows?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top