that's a nice idea...but the wall street types are smart enough to figure out how to cook the books to route around that sort of thing.

It would be very appropriate to name such a tax after a thief.

Weaver95: that's a nice idea...but the wall street types are smart enough to figure out how to cook the books to route around that sort of thing.

It's pretty simple, actually. Treat it like a sales tax, put the burden on the stock exchange to report the sales that they are essentially brokering and collect the tax.

the only way it would work is if all countries with major exchanges passed such a law. otherwise, it would probably just lead to a ton of delistings and moves to other exchanges.

Dumb idea. Just change the capital gains laws to tax income from trades as regular income, and reserve the lower capital gains rates for investment gains in actual capital expansion. If the investment ends up somewhere on the companies balance sheet, it's a capital investment. If the investment ends up in the pocket of the dude that sold it to you, it's not a capital investment.

Investment in new business growth now has a genuine tax incentive, while rich assholes no longer get away with paying half the tax rate as actual productive labor.

isn't that kind of oxymoronic to associate a gov't tax with robin hood? shouldn't it be "50 cents donated to the hungry or homeless charities" directly or whatnot?

thomps: the only way it would work is if all countries with major exchanges passed such a law. otherwise, it would probably just lead to a ton of delistings and moves to other exchanges.

Not really. The US Government doesn't care where you earned your revenue, and claims the right to tax you no matter where you earned it, or how. It's still a bad idea though.

Step 1: Move all your business to Singapore
Step 2: Profit

Welcome to Wall Street.

Rent Party: Dumb idea. Just change the capital gains laws to tax income from trades as regular income, and reserve the lower capital gains rates for investment gains in actual capital expansion. If the investment ends up somewhere on the companies balance sheet, it's a capital investment. If the investment ends up in the pocket of the dude that sold it to you, it's not a capital investment.

Investment in new business growth now has a genuine tax incentive, while rich assholes no longer get away with paying half the tax rate as actual productive labor.

This is a really good idea.

/I've heard it somewhere before, too.

King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is!

thomps: the only way it would work is if all countries with major exchanges passed such a law. otherwise, it would probably just lead to a ton of delistings and moves to other exchanges.

Don't really care.

Somewhere, others can argue when and why, our economy has crossed the tipping point between a foundation and purpose of investment to one of gambling. In this environment only the gamblers play the system with repeated success and hedged "failures". The rest of us looking for sound investments are at the mercy of their degenerate whims left to suffer the instability of the markets their irresponsible actions cause and the overall degraded economy. Don't forget, this is all done with YOUR money.

As many economists have been telling us, this is a recipe for national self destruction... of course a select few will make insane profit off each successive market bust and that's been their whole MO now since the mid 90's.

The 'new truth' is that our nation should no longer be concerned with actual productivity and industry... see we are super smart white ppl and we can make money out of thin air so lets just roll with that. (you can see how it's been working out so far. really good for a select few, really badly for the rest of us)

Since we can't just say "please stop being insufferable ass-clowns playing games for personal profit with the global markets" (because these people just don't give a shiat about you or anyone else) we must legislate something.

Screw a $0.50 tax... I want them all in court for theft, subversion of democracy. treason and whatever other crimes you can find on the books (a cop can find about 22 violations just from my license plate light going out, I'm sure the AG can do better).

I then want them (provided they are found guilty) to be drug into the street and shot. And not just any street. WALL STREET.

Since I won't get to see any of that, we have the $0.50 tax?
Make it so

"shoot a stag in the king's deep, green wood"

Is that an double entendre?


/fap

CujoQuarrel: Step 1: Move all your business to Singapore
Step 2: Profit

Moving the capital overseas?
Expatriation tax: 300% of all depreciation, deductions, and expenses taken in US. Ever.
Or never sell any product in the US again.

Rent Party: Dumb idea. Just change the capital gains laws to tax income from trades as regular income, and reserve the lower capital gains rates for investment gains in actual capital expansion. If the investment ends up somewhere on the companies balance sheet, it's a capital investment. If the investment ends up in the pocket of the dude that sold it to you, it's not a capital investment.

Investment in new business growth now has a genuine tax incentive, while rich assholes no longer get away with paying half the tax rate as actual productive labor.

I'm a fan of taxing capital gains as regular income, but... why not both? I mean, is a 0.5% tax really going to be that much of an impediment to price-seeking?

I have a better idea. Why don't we just kill all day traders, and the programmers who arm them with the tools to destroy the world economy?

Arkanaut: Rent Party: Dumb idea. Just change the capital gains laws to tax income from trades as regular income, and reserve the lower capital gains rates for investment gains in actual capital expansion. If the investment ends up somewhere on the companies balance sheet, it's a capital investment. If the investment ends up in the pocket of the dude that sold it to you, it's not a capital investment.

Investment in new business growth now has a genuine tax incentive, while rich assholes no longer get away with paying half the tax rate as actual productive labor.

I'm a fan of taxing capital gains as regular income, but... why not both? I mean, is a 0.5% tax really going to be that much of an impediment to price-seeking?

Check the bid-ask spread averages and broker fees first.

Lost Thought 00: I have a better idea. Why don't we just kill all day traders, and the programmers who arm them with the tools to destroy the world economy?

Too late for that... the software is already loose.

Arkanaut: Rent Party: Dumb idea. Just change the capital gains laws to tax income from trades as regular income, and reserve the lower capital gains rates for investment gains in actual capital expansion. If the investment ends up somewhere on the companies balance sheet, it's a capital investment. If the investment ends up in the pocket of the dude that sold it to you, it's not a capital investment.

Investment in new business growth now has a genuine tax incentive, while rich assholes no longer get away with paying half the tax rate as actual productive labor.

I'm a fan of taxing capital gains as regular income, but... why not both? I mean, is a 0.5% tax really going to be that much of an impediment to price-seeking?

Well, any tax is a disincentive to buy, so while it might not be much, it is at least a little. My point is where you want to put the incentive and where you don't. You want to put the incentive into new business growth, because that usually means companies hire. If you and I spend all day selling each other stock, that doesn't drive any new capital expansion and so the gains on those sales should be treated as regular income. If I buy new issues of stock that result in a company buying new equipment or building a new plant (which is what we want to happen) then you've participated in economic expansion. That should be something we make as easy as possible.

I also believe that this rate should be managed by the fed as a lever to control the economy. If things are looking inflationary and we want to slow things down, rather than limiting the money supply, they simply raise the actual capital gains rate a bit. If they need an economic jump start, rather than expanding the money supply, they lower that rate.

Not sure of this particular idea, but it's a step in the right direction.

The pendulum has swung way too far to the right. Something needs to bring it back a little more towards the center.

AcneVulgaris: Lost Thought 00: I have a better idea. Why don't we just kill all day traders, and the programmers who arm them with the tools to destroy the world economy?

Too late for that... the software is already loose.

Change the rules: Every trade must be individually initiated by a human being with a random delay, say, up to 5 seconds, on executing each one. Generate truly random seeds for the timer and change at randomly-determined intervals not to exceed 5 minutes.

Who makes money on higher trading volume? The farking brokers.

Rent Party: If you and I spend all day selling each other stock, that doesn't drive any new capital expansion and so the gains on those sales should be treated as regular income. If I buy new issues of stock that result in a company buying new equipment or building a new plant (which is what we want to happen) then you've participated in economic expansion. That should be something we make as easy as possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cap gains rate only kicks in once you've held the asset for a year. Otherwise, it is counted as income.

But yeah, there shouldn't be a time limit on that. Cap gains are money that your money made, and if anything, should be taxed at a HIGHER rate than the value of labor is. Investing in companies, while a necessary part of their funding (and a good thing for the economy as a whole), shouldn't come at the expense of investing in actual people. I seem to recall the Market doing just fine when cap gains were taxed at 25%.

// cue Debeo Summa Credo telling me that cap gains are already taxed at 45% because other people pay taxes on their share of money before you pay taxes on your share

I'd want to read a few studies before making it a law. Laws designed to seem "feel good" like this often cause unintended consequences.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Change the rules: Every trade must be individually initiated by a human being with a random delay, say, up to 5 seconds, on executing each one. Generate truly random seeds for the timer and change at randomly-determined intervals not to exceed 5 minutes.

I've heard a few people suggest this before, seems much better thought out. Not sure how you'd regulate it though - one person with a non-handicapped computer could make a lot of money with very little risk.

Gunther: I'd want to read a few studies before making it a law. Laws designed to seem "feel good" like this often cause unintended consequences.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Change the rules: Every trade must be individually initiated by a human being with a random delay, say, up to 5 seconds, on executing each one. Generate truly random seeds for the timer and change at randomly-determined intervals not to exceed 5 minutes.

I've heard a few people suggest this before, seems much better thought out. Not sure how you'd regulate it though - one person with a non-handicapped computer could make a lot of money with very little risk.

Not when the randomized delay is on the execution side.

Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Tax! Thrust!

Gunther: I've heard a few people suggest this before, seems much better thought out. Not sure how you'd regulate it though - one person with a non-handicapped computer could make a lot of money with very little risk.

It's actually not the making money part that's the problem. It's the part where everyone tries to save their money when an "event" happen. High speed trading is very dangerous in this scenario, and perhaps a tax will not change that. Timing restrictions, on the other hand, will definitely help mitigate that problem by putting it closer to what we had before fully automated trades.

Here's my problem with this. The group pushing for this is wanting the tax go to their own pet projects and charities. Good on paper, just like Social Security. Here's the problem, just like with Social Security, the federal government is going to take it and spend it else where.

A better idea, instead of protesting to get a law passed to tax those with money to pay more money to the government to help out the needy (which never works). Why not find some way to get those with the money to donate, willingly, to your charity? Me, I have no problem with charitable donations, and as soon as I have the wealth, I'll give. What I don't need, what no one needs, is the government coming in and telling them that this new tax, that they can not opt out of, because it's a tax, is for charity. That's no longer charity, it's a tax. Charity gives you a warm feeling inside when you give money to it. Taxes, well, no one likes that.

Maybe this is just charity services just complaining that the rich just aren't giving what they feel is, enough of their wealth, to the charity service, or their charity service.

I always love the whole "Robin Hood stole from the rich" thing.

Actually, Robin was rich, until a corrupt government stole his riches. After that, he stole from the corrupt government that was over-taxing the people. (All the while waiting for his rich, 1% friends to come to his aid and restore him back to the 1%.)

Yeah, it's not like that isn't just gonna trickle back down to us... Hell, Wall Street might even find a way to turn it into more profit.

Dr Dreidel: Rent Party: If you and I spend all day selling each other stock, that doesn't drive any new capital expansion and so the gains on those sales should be treated as regular income. If I buy new issues of stock that result in a company buying new equipment or building a new plant (which is what we want to happen) then you've participated in economic expansion. That should be something we make as easy as possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cap gains rate only kicks in once you've held the asset for a year. Otherwise, it is counted as income.



That's correct, and frankly I think it just highlights how dumb the existing cap gains rules are. It either is or it isn't a capital gain.


But yeah, there shouldn't be a time limit on that. Cap gains are money that your money made, and if anything, should be taxed at a HIGHER rate than the value of labor is. Investing in companies, while a necessary part of their funding (and a good thing for the economy as a whole), shouldn't come at the expense of investing in actual people. I seem to recall the Market doing just fine when cap gains were taxed at 25%.

I agree that we need to value labor, but the best way to value labor and invest in people is to ensure that companies can raise capital quickly and hire people. Make genuine capital gains attractive, and you create a market demand for new business expansions. That is good for labor and investors alike.

Great Janitor: Here's my problem with this. The group pushing for this is wanting the tax go to their own pet projects and charities. Good on paper, just like Social Security. Here's the problem, just like with Social Security, the federal government is going to take it and spend it else where.

A better idea, instead of protesting to get a law passed to tax those with money to pay more money to the government to help out the needy (which never works). Why not find some way to get those with the money to donate, willingly, to your charity? Me, I have no problem with charitable donations, and as soon as I have the wealth, I'll give. What I don't need, what no one needs, is the government coming in and telling them that this new tax, that they can not opt out of, because it's a tax, is for charity. That's no longer charity, it's a tax. Charity gives you a warm feeling inside when you give money to it. Taxes, well, no one likes that.

Maybe this is just charity services just complaining that the rich just aren't giving what they feel is, enough of their wealth, to the charity service, or their charity service.

No. The best bang for the federal buck comes from the following expenditures, in this order: food stamps, extending unemployment benefits, and fixing roads and bridges.

/Or are you one of those knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who has "government is the problem" as an article of faith?
//*Rereads what you posted.* Yup, you're "common clay of the new West. You know..."

Blech. Just knock out the possibility of loopholes and make a tax on all stock trades at something small like 0.05%. The guy managing his 401k won't even see it, but firms like Goldman Sachs will feel it.

IrateShadow: Blech. Just knock out the possibility of loopholes and make a tax on all stock trades at something small like 0.05%. The guy managing his 401k won't even see it, but firms like Goldman Sachs will feel it.

As Rent Party is trying to point out, the status quo incentivizes destructive behaviors.

What we have now is a perfect storm of bad policies, worse laws, a farked-up tax system, underregulation (where there is regulation), underfunded regulators, and arguably corrupt politicians.

demaL-demaL-yeH: What we have now is a perfect storm of bad policies, worse laws, a farked-up tax system, underregulation (where there is regulation), underfunded regulators, and arguably corrupt politicians.

What we have now is a perfect storm of bad people. Canada has less banking regulation than the US in various areas, yet their banks haven't raped and pillaged the country(yet?).

demaL-demaL-yeH: Great Janitor: Here's my problem with this. The group pushing for this is wanting the tax go to their own pet projects and charities. Good on paper, just like Social Security. Here's the problem, just like with Social Security, the federal government is going to take it and spend it else where.

A better idea, instead of protesting to get a law passed to tax those with money to pay more money to the government to help out the needy (which never works). Why not find some way to get those with the money to donate, willingly, to your charity? Me, I have no problem with charitable donations, and as soon as I have the wealth, I'll give. What I don't need, what no one needs, is the government coming in and telling them that this new tax, that they can not opt out of, because it's a tax, is for charity. That's no longer charity, it's a tax. Charity gives you a warm feeling inside when you give money to it. Taxes, well, no one likes that.

Maybe this is just charity services just complaining that the rich just aren't giving what they feel is, enough of their wealth, to the charity service, or their charity service.

No. The best bang for the federal buck comes from the following expenditures, in this order: food stamps, extending unemployment benefits, and fixing roads and bridges.

/Or are you one of those knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who has "government is the problem" as an article of faith?
//*Rereads what you posted.* Yup, you're "common clay of the new West. You know..."

You didn't actually read what I wrote, you just attacked what you thought I said. I didn't say that we shouldn't use tax dollars for food stamps or unemployment benefits. What I said that while the group wants to use this tax for their charity services, that's not what the Federal Government is going to do with it.

thomps: the only way it would work is if all countries with major exchanges passed such a law. otherwise, it would probably just lead to a ton of delistings and moves to other exchanges.

You mean exchanges where huge investment firms don't have their economy-destroying programs all but hard coded into the system? I don't see the problem.

Another way to gouge money from the population. Why don't they demand the government spend less, or not spend money they don't have?

demaL-demaL-yeH: CujoQuarrel: Step 1: Move all your business to Singapore
Step 2: Profit

Moving the capital overseas?
Expatriation tax: 300% of all depreciation, deductions, and expenses taken in US. Ever.
Or never sell any product in the US again.

So all the American companies go out of business and all that's left is foreign firms. Good idea..

cig-mkr: Another way to gouge money from the population. Why don't they demand the government spend less, or not spend money they don't have?

The not spending money they don't have is the biggest problem that has to be solved, and the best way to solve it is the way that won't happen: Congress working with a budget that they actually have. The alternative is raising taxes and that can't be the go to solution.

About a year ago I was listening to the Dave Ramsey Show and he mentioned that the spending budget that Congress passes each year is about twice the money that is collected, with 2/3 being Military Spending and social security. Or rather, all the taxes actually collected goes to the military. Social Security shouldn't be apart of that budget. Social Security should be a separate program in an of it's self. We pay into it, it pays out. Congress shouldn't have access to it (Social Security should be an optional thing for each American, but that's for a different discussion). The reason why raising taxes should not be the answer is that the average salary is about $40,000/year. Nine out of ten households live pay check to pay check. This means that 90% of families out there have just enough money out there to survive on, and nothing extra (which is why payday lenders are making money. Something happens, a family needs cash fast, they have no savings, a payday lender helps them out short term, farks them over long term). Raising taxes is only going to hurt families. Now for those who say "But, families should just make sacrifices!" I agree, but first, let's see Congress make a few. A cut in benefits for starters. Break their salaries up to what they get paid per hour, they only get paid for hours actually worked, that kind of stuff. Let's see the budget also take a few cuts. PETA and Greenpeace receive money from Congress each year, let's cut that completely out. Let's end the pork spending. Let's also move a few things to the private sector. Let's cut some foreign aid.

Robin Hood stole from the rich and GAVE to the poor.

When you are the poor and you steal from the rich - that just makes you d-bag.

Great idea! Because only the wealthy invest. And, of course, one's ETF or mutual fund would in no way, shape or form become more expensive due to additional "management fees" being tacked on.

Face it, the parasites on Wall Street are more savvy than you are. So get an education, get a job and stop blaming everyone else for your shiatty financial situation.

So if I move a $100,000 401K account to a Rollover IRA I will have to pay $1000 ($500 to sell and $500 to buy)? That kinda would suck.

bhcompy: demaL-demaL-yeH: What we have now is a perfect storm of bad policies, worse laws, a farked-up tax system, underregulation (where there is regulation), underfunded regulators, and arguably corrupt politicians.

What we have now is a perfect storm of bad people. Canada has less banking regulation than the US in various areas, yet their banks haven't raped and pillaged the country(yet?).

Nonsense. The Canadians have different policy goals, so their regulation regime is different. Their single regulatory agency also isn't underfunded and vigorously enforces regulations. Regulations are designed to ensure the soundness of the banks. They have a central bank modeled on Bank of England, for crying oot loud. They also keep loans on their farking balance sheets. Their banking system has less international exposure and is much, much smaller than ours.

CujoQuarrel: demaL-demaL-yeH: CujoQuarrel: Step 1: Move all your business to Singapore
Step 2: Profit

Moving the capital overseas?
Expatriation tax: 300% of all depreciation, deductions, and expenses taken in US. Ever.
Or never sell any product in the US again.

So all the American companies go out of business and all that's left is foreign firms. Good idea..

You've got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy. Show your homework. 'Cause what I proposed only hits if you're shipping the jobs and wealth overseas.

Just change the capital gains laws to tax income from trades as regular income, and reserve the lower capital gains rates for investment gains in actual capital expansion.

This can not be said enough

demaL-demaL-yeH: CujoQuarrel: Step 1: Move all your business to Singapore
Step 2: Profit

Moving the capital overseas?
Expatriation tax: 300% of all depreciation, deductions, and expenses taken in US. Ever.
Or never sell any product in the US again.

So all the American companies go out of business and all that's left is foreign firms. Good idea..

If they are moving over seas to avoid taxes, they are no longer american businesses. Wave goodbye and replace them. It might be good to have a bunch of new small companies instead of these monoliths.

NotARocketScientist: Just change the capital gains laws to tax income from trades as regular income, and reserve the lower capital gains rates for investment gains in actual capital expansion.

This can not be said enough

I know I'm just a caveman tax guy, but this is essentially how it is now.

Short term cap gains are taxed at ordinary rates, while long term cap gains are taxed at lower rates to...wait for it....encourage investment in actual expansion.

"Capital expansion" is so nebulous a phrase that it can still be construed to mean expansion of wages.

Regardless, how is any company that is able to accept capital infusions going to be able to track whether it went to capital investments or wages? Dollars are fungible.

Rent Party: If you and I spend all day selling each other stock, that doesn't drive any new capital expansion and so the gains on those sales should be treated as regular income. If I buy new issues of stock that result in a company buying new equipment or building a new plant (which is what we want to happen) then you've participated in economic expansion. That should be something we make as easy as possible.

True, but my understanding is -- and I could be wrong, since I don't work in finance -- that most regular investors aren't actually directly contributing to a company's coffers, even when the company is issuing new stock. That transaction is going through an underwriter or several underwriters. In other words, Goldman or Morgan Stanley, and maybe their top customers, are the ones actually putting cash into the company's coffers; everybody else is just giving money to the intermediaries. You can say, of course, that without the demand from investors, there wouldn't be a market for these securities, but once again, how much of a difference does 0.5% make?

The_Six_Fingered_Man: NotARocketScientist: Just change the capital gains laws to tax income from trades as regular income, and reserve the lower capital gains rates for investment gains in actual capital expansion.

This can not be said enough

I know I'm just a caveman tax guy, but this is essentially how it is now.

Short term cap gains are taxed at ordinary rates, while long term cap gains are taxed at lower rates to...wait for it....encourage investment in actual expansion.

"Capital expansion" is so nebulous a phrase that it can still be construed to mean expansion of wages.

Regardless, how is any company that is able to accept capital infusions going to be able to track whether it went to capital investments or wages? Dollars are fungible.

Wages don't show up on a company balance sheet. That is where capital assets are listed. If an investment doesn't effect the companies non-current assets line on their balance sheet, it shouldn't be listed as a capital gain, regardless of how long it is held. Ensuring that a stock is held for a year before it is credible as a cap gain is dumb. It does nothing to promote actual capital investment.

GAAP. It's a biatch!

Arkanaut: Rent Party: If you and I spend all day selling each other stock, that doesn't drive any new capital expansion and so the gains on those sales should be treated as regular income. If I buy new issues of stock that result in a company buying new equipment or building a new plant (which is what we want to happen) then you've participated in economic expansion. That should be something we make as easy as possible.

True, but my understanding is -- and I could be wrong, since I don't work in finance -- that most regular investors aren't actually directly contributing to a company's coffers, even when the company is issuing new stock. That transaction is going through an underwriter or several underwriters. In other words, Goldman or Morgan Stanley, and maybe their top customers, are the ones actually putting cash into the company's coffers; everybody else is just giving money to the intermediaries. You can say, of course, that without the demand from investors, there wouldn't be a market for these securities, but once again, how much of a difference does 0.5% make?

That is entirely correct, and would be a point in the Rent Party Financial Services Reform Act. That's how the system works now, but that can be corrected via statute, either by requiring the underwriter to notify the purchaser where their money went, or by opening up the capital markets directly to investors. The former is easier. The latter would be really messy.

Rent Party: Wages don't show up on a company balance sheet.

Seriously?

Salaries and wages that have yet to be paid are "liabilities."

Capital assets are listed under "assets."

Do you know what a balance sheet is and the information it conveys, or are you just trying to sound smart?

Here's a primer for you: http://www.teachmefinance.com/the_bala nce_sheet.html (look under "Accrued expenses" under the "Current Liabilities" header)