AFL-CIO, Dems push new Wall Street tax

[Patranus]

The nation?s largest labor union and some allied Democrats are pushing a new tax that would hit big investment firms such as Goldman Sachs reaping billions of dollars in profits while the rest of the economy sputters.

The AFL-CIO, one of the Democratic Party?s most powerful allies, would like to assess a small tax ? about a tenth of a percent ? on every stock transaction.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...sh-new-wall-street-tax

How about we have a "union" tax?

I find it comical that in the worst economy since Jimmy Carter the Democrats and the labor unions want to raise taxes on investments. Probably one of the worst things the Democrats could do to the economy. Discourage investment....sounds like a plan!

However, this is the way that I see this playing out...Obama will veto this legislation if it passes because he *promised* that taxes would not be raised on those making under $250,000 just like he *promises* that you can keep your health insurance if you are happy with it.....LOL

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Patranus

The nation?s largest labor union and some allied Democrats are pushing a new tax that would hit big investment firms such as Goldman Sachs reaping billions of dollars in profits while the rest of the economy sputters.

The AFL-CIO, one of the Democratic Party?s most powerful allies, would like to assess a small tax ? about a tenth of a percent ? on every stock transaction.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...sh-new-wall-street-tax

How about we have a "union" tax?

I find it comical that in the worst economy since Jimmy Carter the Democrats and the labor unions want to raise taxes on investments. Probably one of the worst things the Democrats could do to the economy. Discourage investment....sounds like a plan!

However, this is the way that I see this playing out...Obama will veto this legislation if it passes because he *promised* that taxes would not be raised on those making under $250,000 just like he *promises* that you can keep your health insurance if you are happy with it.....LOL

I find all your posts comical....

 

[Acanthus]

That would actually be a fantastic revenue source for the govt. as long as it remained TINY so that it doesn't stifle investing in the market.

One thing is for sure, Goldman should be paying a lot more than it does. Didn't they pay 1% last year using some voodoo accounting?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
That would actually be a fantastic revenue source for the govt. as long as it remained TINY so that it doesn't stifle investing in the market.

One thing is for sure, Goldman should be paying a lot more than it does. Didn't they pay 1% last year using some voodoo accounting?

Don't forget one of Goldman's big businesses is creating tax avoidance schemes for the rich. They're SOB's for our country; have you seen the Rolling Stone article?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Acanthus
That would actually be a fantastic revenue source for the govt. as long as it remained TINY so that it doesn't stifle investing in the market.

One thing is for sure, Goldman should be paying a lot more than it does. Didn't they pay 1% last year using some voodoo accounting?

Don't forget one of Goldman's big businesses is creating tax avoidance schemes for the rich. They're SOB's for our country; have you seen the Rolling Stone article?

Actually yes, i read it.

"Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately what it does is not good for America."

 

[ProfJohn]

Best part of the article:

?This would discourage numerous financial transactions. People flip their assets several times in an hour or a day. They make money but does it really add to the productive base of the United States??

Based on the bolded part we should tax union membership since unions don't add to the productive base of the United States. (They actually subtract from it by placing a burden on employees and employers.)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Best part of the article:

?This would discourage numerous financial transactions. People flip their assets several times in an hour or a day. They make money but does it really add to the productive base of the United States??

Based on the bolded part we should tax union membership since unions don't add to the productive base of the United States. (They actually subtract from it by placing a burden on employees and employers.)

Nonsense.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Best part of the article:

?This would discourage numerous financial transactions. People flip their assets several times in an hour or a day. They make money but does it really add to the productive base of the United States??

Based on the bolded part we should tax union membership since unions don't add to the productive base of the United States. (They actually subtract from it by placing a burden on employees and employers.)

Nonsense.

Exactly, it's nonsense that people continue to believe in these antiquated thug groups. They do not add productivity to the US - they in fact are one of the leading factors in why our manufacturing base has dwindled to almost nothing. And yes, they also add a monetary burden to workers by taking X amount of their wages for "dues" even if the person doesn't want to be in the union... well atleast in the thug states that aren't right to work states.

 

[Thump553]

Disclaimer-this tax would directly effect me-negatively.

Commentary: This is NOT a tax on investment. The proposed tax is a transactional tax-a tiny percentage of each stock sale, like a sales tax on stock.

I think it is an excellent idea and will have a minimal effect, at most, on real investment. It will potentially have a significant effect on stock speculation and potentially will make stock price manipulation more difficult and less profitable. Nothing wrong there at all. For too long I feel Wall Street types have cloaked stock trading under the patriotic mantle of capitalism. Stock trading doesn't grow the country's economy, its a glorified casino basically. Nothing wrong with the house pulling in a penny a hand or so for the general good.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Best part of the article:

?This would discourage numerous financial transactions. People flip their assets several times in an hour or a day. They make money but does it really add to the productive base of the United States??

Based on the bolded part we should tax union membership since unions don't add to the productive base of the United States. (They actually subtract from it by placing a burden on employees and employers.)

Absolutely nonsense. I work in management for a full union company. We have, over the years, tried to work non-union and every single time we have lost money and finally decided to quit trying. Yes our labor is expensive but they are very productive and know what they are doing. End of the day we make money. In fact many of the non-union companies in our field have gone out of business.

 

[spidey07]

This is terrible, this idea.

STOP TAXING US TO DEATH!

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Acanthus
That would actually be a fantastic revenue source for the govt. as long as it remained TINY so that it doesn't stifle investing in the market.

One thing is for sure, Goldman should be paying a lot more than it does. Didn't they pay 1% last year using some voodoo accounting?

Don't forget one of Goldman's big businesses is creating tax avoidance schemes for the rich. They're SOB's for our country; have you seen the Rolling Stone article?

I don't see how it is possible though, too many Wall street types have their hands in this administration especially Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs Reaps $6B After $1M Obama Contribution

During the 2008 campaign, those at Goldman Sachs donated $955,473 to the Obama campaign. Morgan Stanley, though further down the list, still made the top 20 with a bundled donation of $485,823.

Mr. Obama has also dipped in the Goldman Sachs pool in making his presidential appointments. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner?s loyalty to Goldman Sachs has been an issue of contention and, upon assuming his post at the Treasury Department, he named Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, as a top aide.

And as early as last December, reports Mr. Geithner favored Goldman Sachs surfaced when the New York Times Editorial Board questioned the motivation of then New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner?s decision to let Lehman Brothers fail. Then, two days later, he advocated for the bailout of AIG and its counterparties.

Add to the mix Mr. Geithner arranged a September meeting to discuss the AIG bailout, and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein was the only Wall Street leader at the meeting. At the time, Goldman Sachs was AIG?s largest trading partner, which raises more questions.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama had strong connections with Goldman Sachs, as he was invited to a private Goldman Sachs dinner in May 2007 when his candidacy was in its infancy. When it came time to name a vice presidential running mate, Mr. Obama turned to Goldman Sachs Board Member James Johnson. Mr. Johnson was forced to vacate the post under controversy.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Disclaimer-this tax would directly effect me-negatively.

Commentary: This is NOT a tax on investment. The proposed tax is a transactional tax-a tiny percentage of each stock sale, like a sales tax on stock.

I think it is an excellent idea and will have a minimal effect, at most, on real investment. It will potentially have a significant effect on stock speculation and potentially will make stock price manipulation more difficult and less profitable. Nothing wrong there at all. For too long I feel Wall Street types have cloaked stock trading under the patriotic mantle of capitalism. Stock trading doesn't grow the country's economy, its a glorified casino basically. Nothing wrong with the house pulling in a penny a hand or so for the general good.

By who's standard? Sickening nonsensical, feel good, BS.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Patranus

The nation?s largest labor union and some allied Democrats are pushing a new tax that would hit big investment firms such as Goldman Sachs reaping billions of dollars in profits while the rest of the economy sputters.

The AFL-CIO, one of the Democratic Party?s most powerful allies, would like to assess a small tax ? about a tenth of a percent ? on every stock transaction.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...sh-new-wall-street-tax

How about we have a "union" tax?

I find it comical that in the worst economy since Jimmy Carter the Democrats and the labor unions want to raise taxes on investments. Probably one of the worst things the Democrats could do to the economy. Discourage investment....sounds like a plan!

However, this is the way that I see this playing out...Obama will veto this legislation if it passes because he *promised* that taxes would not be raised on those making under $250,000 just like he *promises* that you can keep your health insurance if you are happy with it.....LOL

Is it really worthwhile to make a thread for every House and Senate bill introduced, every CBO recommendation, every GAO report, and so forth?

Why not at least wait until it gets to the floor? No use in worrying about bills that have no chance of getting considered.

 

[JS80]

This is a great way to kill liquidity and increase spreads.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Thump553
Disclaimer-this tax would directly effect me-negatively.

Commentary: This is NOT a tax on investment. The proposed tax is a transactional tax-a tiny percentage of each stock sale, like a sales tax on stock.

I think it is an excellent idea and will have a minimal effect, at most, on real investment. It will potentially have a significant effect on stock speculation and potentially will make stock price manipulation more difficult and less profitable. Nothing wrong there at all. For too long I feel Wall Street types have cloaked stock trading under the patriotic mantle of capitalism. Stock trading doesn't grow the country's economy, its a glorified casino basically. Nothing wrong with the house pulling in a penny a hand or so for the general good.

By who's standard? Sickening nonsensical, feel good, BS.

As taxes go, at least the proposal is a use tax. Let the people making the trades pay for the SEC who is supposed to oversee the market and make sure it's a level playing field.

On general principle I'm opposed to most taxes, but this is one of the less onerous ones.

 

[Atreus21]

Hopefully this goes the way of the government option.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Hopefully this goes the way of the government option.

Implemented in full despite (R) objections?

 

[b0mbrman]

Oh, and this is nowhere near new: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1068:

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Best part of the article:

?This would discourage numerous financial transactions. People flip their assets several times in an hour or a day. They make money but does it really add to the productive base of the United States??

Based on the bolded part we should tax union membership since unions don't add to the productive base of the United States. (They actually subtract from it by placing a burden on employees and employers.)

Nonsense.

Exactly, it's nonsense that people continue to believe in these antiquated thug groups. They do not add productivity to the US - they in fact are one of the leading factors in why our manufacturing base has dwindled to almost nothing. And yes, they also add a monetary burden to workers by taking X amount of their wages for "dues" even if the person doesn't want to be in the union... well atleast in the thug states that aren't right to work states.

No, our manufacturing base was going to dwindle to almost nothing anyway. When there are no major barriers to both indirect and FDI in nations that are labor rich, the labor will move to these countries. It would obviously be more "fair" to labor if the transactional costs of capital mobility were as high as labor mobility.

One could argue that unions are the natural result of the greater of efficiency of money over labor.

You might also consider that although the union is taking X wages from you, most workers will have a higher wage than they would've had otherwise. In some cases, the wage might be greater for everyone. If your wage benefit is greater than the union dues, you have a net benefit and thus a monetary advantage, not burden.

 

[CitizenKain]

People on wallstreet should be lucky they aren't hanging from lightposts while their houses burn instead of complaining about being taxed.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: JS80
This is a great way to kill liquidity and increase spreads.

+1 exactly right. And wider spreads end up hurting retail investors the most. Love those unintended consequences of govt intrusion...

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: JS80
This is a great way to kill liquidity and increase spreads.

+1 exactly right. And wider spreads end up hurting retail investors the most. Love those unintended consequences of govt intrusion...

unintended my ass. they know, we know, they will just never admit it. after all, it's "for our own good."

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I read the AFL-CIO's letter to the University of California urging pay cuts for people making over $200,000. Despite the UC claims that professors are making 25% under market rates, teh AFL-CIO wants to cut pay by at least 20% starting from 200,000, and going up into the 30%s for people making over 300k. It's disgusting. Proposed savings was like $200 million. So your solution to the CA budget crisis is to take our best professors away and have them work for better paying schools?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I read the AFL-CIO's letter to the University of California urging pay cuts for people making over $200,000. Despite the UC claims that professors are making 25% under market rates, teh AFL-CIO wants to cut pay by at least 20% starting from 200,000, and going up into the 30%s for people making over 300k. It's disgusting. Proposed savings was like $200 million. So your solution to the CA budget crisis is to take our best professors away and have them work for better paying schools?

That's a terrible idea. Do you have a link to the letter?