Nader Tax Plan thoughts? 1/2 cent tax per dollar on every stock trade

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by Anarchist420

Bad idea because the govt already taxes more than 10% of national income. The govt should tax less than 1% of national income in order to minimize sin. They should make the income tax a flat marginal rate of 1% while not taxing tips or CG and while also keeping all current loopholes and exemptions... and all other taxes should be repealed.

So if all other taxes are repealed, where is the needed income going to come from?
Or are you also proposing cutting the Federal government.

What does sin have to do with anything; who defines it and wehre doee the authorization come from?

[yllus]

Originally Posted by halik

So you'd replace the broker with a computer, but keep specialists on the floor... as that's efficient? That akin to have some guy on the other end of expedia.com typing in your flight information into AA reservation system.

Guess who fought decimalization of of NYSE the hardest?

What would be a good way to constrain high frequency trading. Or is it a problem to begin with?

[halik]

Originally Posted by yllus

What would be a good way to constrain high frequency trading. Or is it a problem to begin with?

Well what exactly are you trying you address?

If people are worried about the messaging growth/latency arms race, you can either do micro auctions every so often (queue up orders 100ms, match them up and fill them) or the simpler way that many exchanges are doing now is minimum quote life (aka you can't cancel your limit order for certain amount of time)

[yllus]

Originally Posted by halik

Well what exactly are you trying you address?

If people are worried about the messaging growth/latency arms race, you can either do micro auctions every so often (queue up orders 100ms, match them up and fill them) or the simpler way that many exchanges are doing now is minimum quote life (aka you can't cancel your limit order for certain amount of time)

It's a potential issue in my mind for two reasons:

1. Nobody will be able to stop an algorithm-induced crisis; we can only clean up afterwards. By necessity make decisions without human intervention, and two or more algorithms that square off can and will continue to destroy segments of the market because the next set of rules entered into them drive each other crazy. I recognize that markets now have built-in trading halts in case of too precipitous a drop, but that's addressing the symptoms and not the cause.

2. Fairness. I accept that there are going to be organizations out there that can use their existing wealth to gain a significant information advantage on the rest of us, but to make that advantage literal in the form of computers with a level of connectedness that not even professional day traders can aspire to seems dangerous to me.

I can't fully articulate why and for that reason I'm willing to acknowledge that this could be a fear of a boogeyman, but I would think that granting some people special market access based on their ability to pay can only lead in a bad direction.

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally Posted by ichy

Ralph Nader shouldn't be taken seriously on any policy issue.

Hmmm interesting because had people implemented his airline safety ideas 9/11 would not have happened, at least not the way it happened.

Oh and seatbelts.

[hal2kilo]

Originally Posted by MooseNSquirrel

Hmmm interesting because had people implemented his airline safety ideas 9/11 would not have happened, at least not the way it happened.

Oh and seatbelts.

Hey man. Live free or die! When I used to drive through New Hampshire in the fall, I thought the way they drive, it should have been Live free and die.

[ElFenix]

Originally Posted by Anarchist420

They should make the income tax a flat marginal rate of 1% while not taxing tips or CG and while also keeping all current loopholes and exemptions.

you do realize that the first part of your sentence is in conflict with the second half, don't you?

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by Fern

Why do the Libs think every answer to some objectionable behavior is a tax?

I don't know, but it's probably the same reason social conservatives think every answer to some objectionable behavior is to pass a law banning it. Or that we must keep existing laws even though they're totally ineffective.

[piasabird]

I think this is too high. I would just use a transaction fee. No limit on the amount. one penny (or some other amount) for every transaction. Does not sound like much but there are millions of transactions every day.

Who this hurts is those megatrader super computers that can make thousands of trades a minute.

[Thump553]

On the positive side, as far as retail "investors" go this is a tax on gambling. On he negative side , this wouldn't work well-it would probably drive a big chunk of stock trades to overseas markets, especially the the massive micro-second trades that the big boys use.

[hal2kilo]

Originally Posted by piasabird

I think this is too high. I would just use a transaction fee. No limit on the amount. one penny (or some other amount) for every transaction. Does not sound like much but there are millions of transactions every day.

Who this hurts is those megatrader super computers that can make thousands of trades a minute.

I agree, I'm not a fan of charging a percentage on the dollar amount in the transaction, but there should be a fixed amount even if it's only a penny on each transaction.

[Double Trouble]

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In other words, if you're an idiot liberal and believe taxes can be used to solve just about anything, then taxes are the obvious answer to this supposed 'problem' as well.

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Fern

Why do the Libs think every answer to some objectionable behavior is a tax?

If you don't want "speculation and volatility", which I don't personally have a problem with, just enact laws to prevent it.

Furthermore, if you tax every stock trade you also tax people who are not even engaging in "speculation and volatility".

Another stupid frickin Lib idea.

Fern

Agreed. I get stock from my company, both as ESPP and as a performance award...I'm not speculating at all, I'm getting it and selling at a gain. A tax that is meant to punish speculating also punishes those just going about their lives.

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

I don't know, but it's probably the same reason social conservatives think every answer to some objectionable behavior is to pass a law banning it. Or that we must keep existing laws even though they're totally ineffective.

You mean like gun control?

Oh wait, that's the liberals.

[Acanthus]

Originally Posted by Jadow

so I buy $5000 dollars worth of a stock and he expects me to pay $25 in taxes.

Fuck him

It would have to be 5000 trades. No.

[GWestphal]

I think Nader's plan is not per trade, but per dollar of each trade. But obviously it was just an idea and not a well thought out policy.

[shady28]

Do you people understand who the "big boy" traders are?

If you don't, here's a clue: Its YOU.

It's you pension plan.

It's your 401k.

It's your IRA.

So, Naders big plan is to make them pay more to invest your money / pension etc.

Want to guess who will actually pay for that? You don't really think it'll come out of the fund managers wallet do ya???

[iGas]

I think it is a great idea for frequency of less than 30 days hold on to the stock, and 31 days hold or longer are exempt.

[monovillage]

Nader says that Obama is a war criminal and a worse president than G.W. Bush. I think we should all listen to him when he makes so much sense.

Ralph Nader has called President Barack Obama a "war criminal" whose military and foreign policies have been worse than that of his predecessor George W. Bush.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1914154.html

We should really bank on what this guy says.

[Acanthus]

Originally Posted by GWestphal

I think Nader's plan is not per trade, but per dollar of each trade. But obviously it was just an idea and not a well thought out policy.

Oh, well then that is stupid.

You would want a tax that would be trivial to regular investing, but would slam HFT.

[3chordcharlie]

Originally Posted by piasabird

I think this is too high. I would just use a transaction fee. No limit on the amount. one penny (or some other amount) for every transaction. Does not sound like much but there are millions of transactions every day.

Who this hurts is those megatrader super computers that can make thousands of trades a minute.

The proposed rate seems high. Maybe even 5-10x too high to accomplish it's limited purpose.

I think it *should* be a rate, not a flat fee, because I think the goal is to kill the profit of large and/or frequent trades based on very small price changes (i.e. 'gaming the market').

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Wouldn't it increase volatility since it decreases volume?

Not really, the discouraged volume would mostly be day trading 'noise'. If the rate is set low enough, it shouldn't have an appreciable effect on investment trading.

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Another stupid liberal idea just like seatbelts in every car. The correct solution is to simply let the free market be. Small investors can get overclocked i7's, fat internet pipes, and Redbull and do all the high frequency trading they want. There's your level playing field.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by RampantAndroid

You mean like gun control?

Oh wait, that's the liberals.

No, I mean things like "decency rules", anti-abortion laws, anti-drug laws, restricting adoption to only heterosexual couples, etc.

[Texashiker]

Originally Posted by GWestphal

Nader Tax Plan thoughts? 1/2 cent tax per dollar on every stock trade

Why not allow the states to collect an 8% sales tax on stock trades?

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by Texashiker

Why not allow the states to collect an 8% sales tax on stock trades?

Because this would result in Black Monday looking like the Internet Boom