AFL-CIO, Dems push new Wall Street tax

[Chunkee]

All part of the plan....little by little the separation of haves and have nots will increase. If you happen to be a buddy of the current administration, then kudos to you!

 

[JS80]

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?

Uh, what professors make > $200k. I thought the avg prof (non medicine practicing) at top colleges makes like $150k.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: JS80

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?

Uh, what professors make > $200k. I thought the avg prof (non medicine practicing) at top colleges makes like $150k.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/special/pages/2005/ucsalary/

I just googled the first half the top of that list, all are medical professors.

 

[Fern]

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.

-snip-

Anybody thinking this new tax would hit wall Street is wrong.

Except in rare circumstances, this will hit investors - you and me. Wall Street will just pass it on through.

Fern

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: 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?

http://www.universityofcalifor...edu/news/article/21818 - Here's the summary of the communication


http://www.universityofcalifor...t_to_afscme_081809.pdf - UC response

Ok let me back track on some of the things I said. LOL. I glanced over this waiting in our company's fab so I didn't get a chance to really absorb it... Anyway, the UC claims that union members are making money above market at close to 20%. Not professors specifically:

As you know, we recently reached settlements with AFSCME that will see AFSCME members paid over $91 million in raises over the next three years. Raises are a true rarity in this economic climate. By your own statements, the agreement was "historic." Market surveys document that your members are compensated above market by as much as 20 percent. Other employee categories, such as our chancellors, by contrast are below market by as much as 37 percent. Clearly, the university is making every effort to address concerns about the welfare of members of your union.

The savings numbers were off the top of my head but the exact numbers are:

200-225k - 18% pay cut
225-250k - 20% pay cut
250-300k - 22% pay cut
300k+ - 24% pay cut.

Total savings? $220 million

Source: http://www.universityofcalifor...ents/afscme_081809.pdf

 

[WHAMPOM]

Remember the good old days(see below)when even poor people could afford to pay taxes.

 

[Craig234]

They can forget the tax the thread is about, if they'll pass meaningful finance industry reform that prevents 'too big to fail' and excessive derivative products bad for the nation.

If they'll pass regulation that make finance serve the economy again, instead of the other way around, that takes it back down from over 40% to under 15% of the economy.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Remember the good old days(see below)when even poor people used to pay taxes.

Fixed.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Fern

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.

-snip-

Anybody thinking this new tax would hit wall Street is wrong.

Except in rare circumstances, this will hit investors - you and me. Wall Street will just pass it on through.

Fern

Exactly. Your 401k, your retirement portfolio. Anytime you move things around this could end up costing you a good amount. This is a terrible idea.

 

[shadow9d9]

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

You mean the same wall street that caused a worldwide financial collapse and millions upon millions of jobs while walking away with no penalty and interest free loans, which they used to make billions off the taxpayers? WAAAAA!!!!!! OH NO POOR COMPANIES!!!!

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: 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.

I doubt you work in the industy so this is probably news to you, but traders already do pay an SEC fee to cover the costs of regulation (Section 31 fees). They were historically listed on confirms as SEC fees because that's what they are, but the regulators won't allow them to be called that anymore, presumably because they're self-conscious about the fact that they are causing fees to be charged.

And as for the OP, this "Wall Street Tax" will never be passed - Congress and Obama are too smart to piss off the folks selling all those billions/trillions of government debt that are being issued. In short, the wall street primary dealers have the Treasury by the balls and the unions are stupid to think otherwise.

 

[rudder]

It is costing the Obama administration millions and millions of dollars to bus all these AFL-CIO goons to all the town hall meetings across the country. Someone has to pay for it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: 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.

I doubt you work in the industy so this is probably news to you, but traders already do pay an SEC fee to cover the costs of regulation (Section 31 fees). They were historically listed on confirms as SEC fees because that's what they are, but the regulators won't allow them to be called that anymore, presumably because they're self-conscious about the fact that they are causing fees to be charged.

And as for the OP, this "Wall Street Tax" will never be passed - Congress and Obama are too smart to piss off the folks selling all those billions/trillions of government debt that are being issued. In short, the wall street primary dealers have the Treasury by the balls and the unions are stupid to think otherwise.

I was not aware of that, thanks for the brief education.

 

[YoungGun21]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fern

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.

-snip-

Anybody thinking this new tax would hit wall Street is wrong.

Except in rare circumstances, this will hit investors - you and me. Wall Street will just pass it on through.

Fern

Exactly. Your 401k, your retirement portfolio. Anytime you move things around this could end up costing you a good amount. This is a terrible idea.

A tenth of a percent. 1/10 of 1 percent. 0.001.

Could you do the math on that for me if I had say... 1 million dollars in my 401k? You see... I'm not great with numbers, and I'd like to know just how much this tax would affect me.
Thanks.

 

[spidey07]

If you moved say 500000 each quarter you're looking at 2000 bucks in taxes. Not chump change.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: YoungGun21

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fern

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.

-snip-

Anybody thinking this new tax would hit wall Street is wrong.

Except in rare circumstances, this will hit investors - you and me. Wall Street will just pass it on through.

Fern

Exactly. Your 401k, your retirement portfolio. Anytime you move things around this could end up costing you a good amount. This is a terrible idea.

A tenth of a percent. 1/10 of 1 percent. 0.001.

Could you do the math on that for me if I had say... 1 million dollars in my 401k? You see... I'm not great with numbers, and I'd like to know just how much this tax would affect me.
Thanks.

For a $1MM trade, a 10 basis point tax would be $1,000. Just move the decimal point three digits leftward for any given trade to calculate the tax.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Could you do the math on that for me if I had say... 1 million dollars in my 401k? You see... I'm not great with numbers, and I'd like to know just how much this tax would affect me.
Thanks.

How many people have 401ks that make well below $250,000?

How many time has Obama stated that he would not raise taxes on those making under $250,000?

Or is he only going to tax stock transactions of those making over $250,000?

I guess I am confused over the entire thing...Obama keeps saying one things and then doing the complete opposite.

 

[YoungGun21]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: YoungGun21

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fern

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.

-snip-

Anybody thinking this new tax would hit wall Street is wrong.

Except in rare circumstances, this will hit investors - you and me. Wall Street will just pass it on through.

Fern

Exactly. Your 401k, your retirement portfolio. Anytime you move things around this could end up costing you a good amount. This is a terrible idea.

A tenth of a percent. 1/10 of 1 percent. 0.001.

Could you do the math on that for me if I had say... 1 million dollars in my 401k? You see... I'm not great with numbers, and I'd like to know just how much this tax would affect me.
Thanks.

For a $1MM trade, a 10 basis point tax would be $1,000. Just move the decimal point three digits leftward for any given trade to calculate the tax.

Thanks! Could you please tell Spidey07 and his friends that moving my $1,000,000 401k that would likely pull in thousands of dollars per year on interest alone would only cost me $1,000 extra.

kthxbye

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Could you do the math on that for me if I had say... 1 million dollars in my 401k? You see... I'm not great with numbers, and I'd like to know just how much this tax would affect me.
Thanks.

How many people have 401ks that make well below $250,000?

How many time has Obama stated that he would not raise taxes on those making under $250,000?

Or is he only going to tax stock transactions of those making over $250,000?

I guess I am confused over the entire thing...Obama keeps saying one things and then doing the complete opposite.

Has this been passed and signed yet? If so, link?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: YoungGun21


Thanks! Could you please tell Spidey07 and his friends that moving my $1,000,000 401k that would likely pull in thousands of dollars per year on interest alone would only cost me $1,000 extra.

kthxbye

If you like paying taxes so much just donate more on your return. You're assuming you're only moving it once a year. I review monthly and move stinkers and total look each quarter. It's the principle, stop taxing people so much.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: YoungGun21


Thanks! Could you please tell Spidey07 and his friends that moving my $1,000,000 401k that would likely pull in thousands of dollars per year on interest alone would only cost me $1,000 extra.

kthxbye

If you like paying taxes so much just donate more on your return. You're assuming you're only moving it once a year. I review monthly and move stinkers and total look each quarter. It's the principle, stop taxing people so much.

You're paying the lowest rate in the last 50 years (if not longer) and have had at least 4 consecutive tax cuts since the last raise (if not more). And with all of the deductions available, I bet your burden is even lower than the 50 year window. What the hell are you complaining about?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
Anybody thinking this new tax would hit wall Street is wrong.

Except in rare circumstances, this will hit investors - you and me. Wall Street will just pass it on through.

Fern

That 'pass it on' argument we see constantly is just wrong, and it's long past time to say so.

The whole economy is fluid, and what I mean by that to use a fluid metaphor - is that it's made up of rivers (most people) and lakes (the rich), with water going in a circle, in part.

You can pick any point and say the same thing about the tax not being paid by the taxed group, and being passed on.

If you tax the consumer, they 'just spend less with business and pass the tax on'. If you tax business, they just 'pass the price on to the consumer'.

Taxes have a cost - whereever you place them, and that has ripple effects.

The exception is more where money is concentrated (the lakes); if you tax the lake, there's less ripple effect on others, it mainly effects the lake.

So, if the government needs to raise taxes $10 billion, it has choices. Tax the poor? Tax the rich? Tax a type of purchase? Tax an activity? Tax a function in the system?

It has lots of choices. But when it pickes certain choices - that affect companies and the rich - the companies and the rich can kick off media campaigns to persuade the public.

They can selectively point out how they'll just 'pass on' the cost to you - as if you then getting the tax instead is someow in your interest. Wrong.

The problem is, the public is largely ignorant, and responds to the propaganda. It's been well trained to hate the government'.

This one-sided situation is partly why the wealth in our society has so greaty shifted into the few most rich's hands the last 25 years.

Now, maybe the tax on stock transactions is terrible - but the rejection of any tax affecting the rich or corporations because they'll just 'pass it to you' is wrong.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you moved say 500000 each quarter you're looking at 2000 bucks in taxes. Not chump change.

But if you leech the market with multi billion dollar movements every day to control the prices of giant sectors of the market to your own advantage...

You'd wind up paying out the ass.

Guess who does that? It's not mutual funds or your IRA.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: YoungGun21


Thanks! Could you please tell Spidey07 and his friends that moving my $1,000,000 401k that would likely pull in thousands of dollars per year on interest alone would only cost me $1,000 extra.

kthxbye

If you like paying taxes so much just donate more on your return. You're assuming you're only moving it once a year. I review monthly and move stinkers and total look each quarter. It's the principle, stop taxing people so much.

You can move money within a 401k/IRA as many times as you like without any tax consequences.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: YoungGun21


Thanks! Could you please tell Spidey07 and his friends that moving my $1,000,000 401k that would likely pull in thousands of dollars per year on interest alone would only cost me $1,000 extra.

kthxbye

If you like paying taxes so much just donate more on your return. You're assuming you're only moving it once a year. I review monthly and move stinkers and total look each quarter. It's the principle, stop taxing people so much.

You can move money within a 401k/IRA as many times as you like without any tax consequences.

This is a per transaction tax on the broker which would be passed onto you.