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.
No, I don't. I want to invest my money as I see fit, understanding that if the company prospers I will make money, and if it fails I will lose my investment. I don't want you (the general you, meaning all taxpayers,) to have anything to do with my investment, whether it fails or increases 100 fold.
But that is not how it is. It's great to want it but it's not how it is.
I want my house to never burn down but I have insurance to mitigate any damage in case it does.
I'm all for it. As I said though, until then........
Just be aware. If the Fed turned off the presses today you will lose far more than a transaction fee. That is why they are not turned off.
Sorry..I know very well the Fed is propping up Wall Street.
I have already hedged my bets and took my initial investment money off the table.
I'm just playing with profit now and if it's gone...I didn't lose what I didn't have to begin with.
When it comes to Wall Street..it's every man for himself.
Sorry..I know very well the Fed is propping up Wall Street.
I have already hedged my bets and took my initial investment money off the table.
I'm just playing with profit now and if it's gone...I didn't lose what I didn't have to begin with.
When it comes to Wall Street..it's every man for himself.
I continue to be disturbed by the number of people who sit here arguing about the best way to give government more and more of our money.
I agree with you as well, that giving the government more money only gives them more power over us.
As the game goes though, I agree with a transaction tax not as a way to give the government more money, but as a de incentive to those that are involved in criminal High Frequency Trading, where they add no value to the markets, but steal a little from everyone, when they make thousands of transactions a day.
A transaction tax of .1% should suffice where it would not hurt those that move stocks a few times a month, but would be a death sentence for HFT's.
I agree with shrinking the government as a better alternative, but that will never happen when big money relies on big government to rig the markets in their favor. Big Government does not benefit the little people, but benefits the top elite.
This is the amount of lobbying money just for 2013 so far.
Notice how Labor (Unions) is a very small part of the crony capitalism involved.
Health $122,930,583
Finance/Insur/RealEst $119,083,313
Misc Business $114,094,643
Communic/Electronics $98,340,864
Energy/Nat Resource $90,910,485
Transportation $57,018,856
Other $50,321,868
Agribusiness $34,857,669
Defense $33,131,079
Ideology/Single-Issue $30,507,662
Construction $11,957,919
Labor $10,609,692
Lawyers & Lobbyists $5,067,312
So yea, lets shrink the Federal Government down to what our forefathers envisioned where we have a military solely only for border protection, and give all the power back to the states.
Say goodbye to the Military Industrial Complex, the Wall Street Rackets and MultiNational Corporations that would never survive without government rigging the rules in their favor where they would have to compete with everyone else on an even footing.
No. Most people put their money in their 401k and let it ride. They do not create many transactions with it.
Due to my job I meet with reps from mutual fund companies a few times per month. It is fairly typical for a fund to hold 200-300 positions and have 60%+ annual turnover. You can estimate that a given mutual fund is turning over 150 or so positions every year. If you impose transaction costs, the additional cost of that turnover will be passed directly to your fees, which will in turn lower the return gained on your 401k very significantly.
I don't want to insure the transaction. I want to insure that the next time there is a fund so that taxpayers do not have to foot the bill for the bail out.
And yet we are still doing that. It's going to crash and I want my losses mitigated.
So because you can't get something you want (more stringent insurance capitalization/ fed regulations/ no bailouts) you argue for something else you can't get (transactions tax)? The democrats will never let you hurt wall st. and the republicans will never agree to taxes without cuts. And, D.C. as a whole will never build a slush fund. Any money they get is going to be spent on pet projects.
I would be happy and satisfied if instead we would pass a law making any bail out illegal and a immediate stop to the current one.
If not that I want to mitigate our losses.
The problem of course is that we didnt bail out businesses we bailed out the federal government. The "loan" was a small price to pay had the mortgages all collapsed at the same time and the taxpayers would have become liable for the damages they insured.
Upwards of 97% of all mortgages in the nation are federal backed, could you imagine what the total would be?
Obviously they all think they are exempt and only Warren Buffet and Bill Gates will pay these "transaction taxes".
"Tax the rich" mentality.
The kicker is of course these people wont pay a dime because they sit on their stocks.
While Berkshire Hathaway would be subject to the tax, it would become a tax write off for them.
These people cant think beyond today, have no ability to think about the real ramifications of things they support.
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.
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.
