Out Of Their Anti Tax Minds

[ProfJohn]

Just look at how Obama's health care program was virtually gutted out by the repubs AND the Blue Dogs to get it on the books. Then, with their damage done, they point to the Health Program's failures as if they had nothing to do with the final product. This is their Standard Operating Procedures for all that they do.

Not a single Republican voted for the Obamacare so how can you claim they 'gutted' it?

Blue dogs ARE Democrats and they are the ones who 'gutted' the bill. But keep in mind that if the Democrats didn't get these blue dogs elected in the first place there would have been Republicans sitting in their place and the bill never would have passed at all.

If anything gutted the bill it is the American people who refuse to elect liberal Democrats.

The repubs know that by keeping the country down in the gutter financially while the Dems have the Senate and the presidiency will work in their favor, and in this regard, they are doing an exceptional job of it.

So you are admitting that when the Democrats had control of both the house and Senate under Bush they crashed the economy knowing that Bush would take the blame?

That would explain why back in 2003 Democrats blocked banking reforms that might have kept Fannie and Freddie from blowing up. They just wanted to kill the economy in order to get rid of Bush, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Obama refers to "spending" in the tax code. When the government doesn't take in money, Obama calls that "spending." That's fucked up. Now, GE should have paid taxes - that was also fucked up. But saying that a tax cut is "spending" is not true - it is less revenue.

That's fine to think that. It has nothing to do with my point though, which was that just because Obama might be referring to a small subsection of tax cuts as spending doesn't invalidate all the other cuts being made.

I mean I personally believe that zero cuts should be made and we should in fact be increasing spending, but if Obama's going to jump on the bad idea of cutting spending right now, at least recognize his bad idea for what it is.

 

[ProfJohn]

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2168138

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2138329


You tell me if you think its a good thing or not.

"These practices will not stop until they become so dangerous to engage in that nobody in their right mind will take the risk of being immediately and permanently bankrupted by the practice."

Sounds like a good idea. Or a per transaction tax. But I would need more information before I would put that into place.

We want to eliminate the bad behavior, but we don't want to eliminate good behavior as well.

 

[Blackjack200]

Let's think about that...

You decide to trade in your Chevy Malibu for a Corvette.
The wife finds out and gets mad.
So you tell her you'll get a Camaro instead.
Your wife still says no.
So you say "I am willing to compromise, why aren't you?"

Even better analogy:

Last year, you and your wife agree to get a Corvette.
You both finance it.
Later that year, your wife goes insane and starts demanding that you do everything her way
Now she says that if you don't do everything her way, she'll refuse to authorize payment on the Corvette.

 

[nobodyknows]

Not a single Republican voted for the Obamacare so how can you claim they 'gutted' it?

Seriously?? Really? That's a sigworthy quote IMHO.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by werepossum
Democrats have long been pushing this idea that any money not taken by government is a gift from government.

D: You believe this?

Read this again:

And nothing can be off limits, including spending in the tax code, particularly the loopholes that benefit very few individuals and corporations.

Now you can't spend money unless it's your's, can you?

If tax deductions are government "spending", then it was never our money to begin with. The government is spending "it's" money by letting us keep what we earned.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Read this again:



Now you can't spend money unless it's your's, can you?

If tax deductions are government "spending", then it was never our money to begin with. The government is spending "it's" money by letting us keep what we earned.

Fern

Exactly. Not to mention that every tax cut, even every failure to raise taxes, is constantly derided as hand-outs to the rich.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Even better analogy:

Last year, you and your wife agree to get a Corvette.
You both finance it.
Later that year, your wife goes insane and starts demanding that you do everything her way
Now she says that if you don't do everything her way, she'll refuse to authorize payment on the Corvette.

Lol, that sounds about right in a typical marriage.

 

[werepossum]

Seriously?? Really? That's a sigworthy quote IMHO.

It's a damned good question. Excepting Vitter's "save the boobies" amendment, not a single Republican had even the tinest bit of input into Obamacare. Since not a single Republican voted for it and the Dems boasted that they didn't need the Pubbies to pass it, clearly the bill was not written with any concessions to the Republicans at all. At most you could make the case that conservative Democrats gutted the bill. You might as well claim that Republicans gutted Sanders' and Kucinich' efforts to nationalize the oil companies as claim they gutted Obamacare.

 

[Darwin333]

"These practices will not stop until they become so dangerous to engage in that nobody in their right mind will take the risk of being immediately and permanently bankrupted by the practice."

Sounds like a good idea. Or a per transaction tax. But I would need more information before I would put that into place.

We want to eliminate the bad behavior, but we don't want to eliminate good behavior as well.

HFT is ALL bad behavior.

I have a much better idea than a per transaction tax. They should implement a canceled transaction tax with a waiver on the first X amount per day (with X being much higher than average when you take HFT out of the equation). The entire HFT game is based on placing bids/orders that you never intend on purchasing/fulfilling and then taking them down before anyone has a chance to bite. If they have to pay even a small fee for doing that it would immediately end the practice while not affecting ANYONE else.

That won't happen because much of what they do is already illegal. If they won't enforce existing laws what makes any of us think they will make and enforce new ones to end already illegal practices?

 

[Darwin333]

Seriously?? Really? That's a sigworthy quote IMHO.

If that is in fact the case then the Reps are far more intelligent than the Dems. They got those dumb bastards to gut a bill that they unanimously (except 1 house member) voted against. Who the fuck in their right mind gives up a bunch of shit in "negotiation" for absolutely nothing in return?

That has got to take some sort of political masterminds or something. It would be akin to getting the Repubs to agree to tax hikes and raising the debt ceiling for nothing in return.

 

[Lithium381]

lucy and the football vs charlie brown...... "let us raise taxes and we'll reduce our spending" you'll land flat on your back every time falling for that one

 

[JSt0rm]

lucy and the football vs charlie brown...... "let us raise taxes and we'll reduce our spending" you'll land flat on your back every time falling for that one

have we raised taxes in the past with the intent of cutting spending? I see neocons say this all the time so I'm just wondering if it has actually happened.

 

[nonlnear]

HFT is ALL bad behavior.

Arbitrage trading is not. However arbitrage trading is probably the least profitable kind of HFT out there.

I have a much better idea than a per transaction tax. They should implement a canceled transaction tax with a waiver on the first X amount per day (with X being much higher than average when you take HFT out of the equation). The entire HFT game is based on placing bids/orders that you never intend on purchasing/fulfilling and then taking them down before anyone has a chance to bite. If they have to pay even a small fee for doing that it would immediately end the practice while not affecting ANYONE else.

This is something I could support wholeheartedly. Another way t tier a cancellation tax would be according to the quality of ones data feed and order placement service, coupled with the volume of cancellations. If you have real time data and a top priority order fulfillment service, you pay more for a large cancellation than Joe Schmo millionaire phoning it in to his broker from the tenth hole.

That won't happen because much of what they do is already illegal. If they won't enforce existing laws what makes any of us think they will make and enforce new ones to end already illegal practices?

And there's the rub.

 

[Jhhnn]

lucy and the football vs charlie brown...... "let us raise taxes and we'll reduce our spending" you'll land flat on your back every time falling for that one

So, uhh, where are we now with the Repubs' "first cut taxes & then we'll make excuses to increase spending", anyway?

Federal income taxes are at their lowest point of the postwar period thanks to their efforts, particularly taxes at the top. and yet regressive payroll taxes, sales taxes excise tax & so forth have risen markedly over the last 30 years of Reaganomics...

Reagan railed against the debt, then more than tripled it. GHWB made it 4.5X what it was in 1980. Debt accumulation slowed & then stopped during the Clinton years, only to take off like the space shuttle after 9/11 & the 2002 elections, when Repubs ran everything for the next 4 years.

If Repubs are so hell bent on cutting spending, why didn't they do it when they had the absolute power to do so, with majorities in both Houses of Congress & GWB in the Whitehouse?

The reason, of course, is that they see economic distress & turmoil as key to regaining the Whitehouse, and they're not the slightest bit ashamed to cause enormous amounts of misery if it means that they might be able to use it to "Beat Obama!"

 

[werepossum]

So, uhh, where are we now with the Repubs' "first cut taxes & then we'll make excuses to increase spending", anyway?

Federal income taxes are at their lowest point of the postwar period thanks to their efforts, particularly taxes at the top. and yet regressive payroll taxes, sales taxes excise tax & so forth have risen markedly over the last 30 years of Reaganomics...

Reagan railed against the debt, then more than tripled it. GHWB made it 4.5X what it was in 1980. Debt accumulation slowed & then stopped during the Clinton years, only to take off like the space shuttle after 9/11 & the 2002 elections, when Repubs ran everything for the next 4 years.

If Repubs are so hell bent on cutting spending, why didn't they do it when they had the absolute power to do so, with majorities in both House of Congress & GWB in the Whitehouse?

The reason, of course, is that they see economic distress & turmoil as key to regaining the Whitehouse, and they're not the slightest bit ashamed to cause enormous amounts of misery if it means that they might be able to use it to "Beat Obama!"

Just out of morbid curiosity, do you have the slightest understanding that payroll taxes are for specific spending rather than just general taxes enacted by Republicans to kill poor people and kick puppies? Payroll taxes have increased markedly because the cost of the programs they fund have increased markedly - a concept so simple, even a progressive should be able to grasp it if he really, really tries.

And it bears repeating once again: CONGRESS sets spending. Not the President, who has the power of first suggestion, the power to veto (subject to Congress' override), and some discretion in allocation within departments and programs. This is why Clinton, who vetoed Congressional spending bills only when he thought them too low, deserves a little credit (he could have been worse), but not the lion's share. It's also why Bush deserves blame for the Republican Congress' excessive spending as well as the Democrat Congress' excessive spending, as he had the power to veto excessive spending.

 

[trenchfoot]

Profjohn's comments in bold:

Not a single Republican voted for the Obamacare so how can you claim they 'gutted' it?

Concessions that were demanded and gotten by the repubs had a lot to do with having the bill neutered by them.

Blue dogs ARE Democrats and they are the ones who 'gutted' the bill. But keep in mind that if the Democrats didn't get these blue dogs elected in the first place there would have been Republicans sitting in their place and the bill never would have passed at all.

*They certainly helped the repubs eviscerate the bill, but to claim the blue dogs did it on their own is ludicrous.

If anything gutted the bill it is the American people who refuse to elect liberal Democrats.

Please don't forget that as you mentioned, the American people voted in a Dem majority at the time because they were holding the repubs responsible for trashing the economy into it's current dismal state. The repub minority constipated the legislative process using every single technical tool at their disposal to blockade anything being pushed by the Dems, including legislation the repubs themselves previously drafted.

So you are admitting that when the Democrats had control of both the house and Senate under Bush they crashed the economy knowing that Bush would take the blame?

I read my post every which way I could and or the life of me, I cannot imagine how you could interpret that from my post. Nice try though.

That would explain why back in 2003 Democrats blocked banking reforms that might have kept Fannie and Freddie from blowing up. They just wanted to kill the economy in order to get rid of Bush, right?

Wow, right over edge with that one man. Get real.

 

[Shallok]

Now you can't spend money unless it's your's, can you?

If tax deductions are government "spending", then it was never our money to begin with. The government is spending "it's" money by letting us keep what we earned.

Fern

When you are talking about deductions created specifically to spur an activity it is essentially spending.

Take the private jet issue. It allows accelerated depreciation. There is no real difference between allowing accelerated depreciation and having the gov't cut a check to equal the amount, except that accelerated depreciation is more cost-effective for the gov't.

If tax for company/individual would be X, any decrease in that tax that is related to efforts to encourage an action is spending. The key thing to remember here is that it is a decrease designed to create a specific action, be it buying a home, or buying a jet, or building "green" appliances. There is no fundamental difference between the gov't enacting a tax break versus cutting a check in these cases.

To view it otherwise is dishonest and only serves to distort the discussion, as well as make it easy to hide spending in the guise of "tax cuts."

Just to be clear, I don't know what Obama was referring to, and it might be that he views all deductions as spending. But specific deductions are most certainly spending and if it is only the method that the gov't uses to disburse the funds that someone has an issue with, well, you are really missing the forest for the trees.

 

[spidey07]

When you are talking about deductions created specifically to spur an activity it is essentially spending.

Take the private jet issue. It allows accelerated depreciation. There is no real difference between allowing accelerated depreciation and having the gov't cut a check to equal the amount, except that accelerated depreciation is more cost-effective for the gov't.

If tax for company/individual would be X, any decrease in that tax that is related to efforts to encourage an action is spending. The key thing to remember here is that it is a decrease designed to create a specific action, be it buying a home, or buying a jet, or building "green" appliances. There is no fundamental difference between the gov't enacting a tax break versus cutting a check in these cases.

To view it otherwise is dishonest and only serves to distort the discussion, as well as make it easy to hide spending in the guise of "tax cuts."

Just to be clear, I don't know what Obama was referring to, and it might be that he views all deductions as spending. But specific deductions are most certainly spending and if it is only the method that the gov't uses to disburse the funds that someone has an issue with, well, you are really missing the forest for the trees.

Ummm, no. There's a huge difference between a deduction and a credit.

Deduction = government not taking your money. ALL deductions are to incent certain behavior, but it is not spending in any way shape or form.
Credit = government cutting you a check

Start with the premise that it's your money to begin with and it all becomes stunningly clear. "letting" me keep my hard earned money is not spending.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just out of morbid curiosity, do you have the slightest understanding that payroll taxes are for specific spending rather than just general taxes enacted by Republicans to kill poor people and kick puppies? Payroll taxes have increased markedly because the cost of the programs they fund have increased markedly - a concept so simple, even a progressive should be able to grasp it if he really, really tries.

Hogwash. SS is the biggest payroll tax by far, and has contributed over $2.5T to the treasury since 1983 in return for govt bonds. Those funds were necessarily spent for whatever purpose the Congress & Executive deemed appropriate.

Yeh, sure, other payroll taxes are often earmarked for certain necessary activities, but they just free up other revenues for whatever purpose the taxing authority deems appropriate. With the exception of SS, payroll taxes generally don't cover the complete cost of the programs they support, but rather supplement other appropriations.

It's the same for any earmarked revenue source. The Colorado Lottery, for example, was originally earmarked for wildlife. When the revenue started rolling in, other appropriations were slashed so that those funds were freed up for whatever...

If the funds from the "Tobacco Settlement" tax, for example, were really used to offset the medical costs of smoking, as stated up front, then smokers would have a really nice supplemental healthcare package, but they don't, obviously.

Reality- it's something Conservatives try to ignore when it's inconvenient to whatever argument they're making at the time...

It's like their current "Cut, cut, cut!" mentality- put more people out of work to "grow the economy"... then Blame Obama! when it has exactly the opposite effect.

 

[Engineer]

It's like their current "Cut, cut, cut!" mentality- put more people out of work to "grow the economy"... then Blame Obama! when it has exactly the opposite effect.

Speaking of cuts, it was reported on CNBC today that with the federal subsidy to the states ending (hundreds of billions of dollars), the states would be forced to cut more government workers. It was estimated by the talking heads that up to 300,000 jobs could be cut on top of the 500,000 (per CNBC) already cut since recession started. That's another 300,000 that will be taking money from the unemployment line and not paying anything back into the system (at least until they get a job).

 

[nonlnear]

How many people with 401ks and/or IRAs understand what they are buying. When you are talking about retirement accounts, many of whom have company sponsored companies and no real choice, you have very few who know what they are doing. That is why the industry churns retirement accounts, they can get away with it. And make quite a bit while they are at it.

I think the whole employer sponsored retirement plan system is a terrible racket myself. Actually I'm against all tax incentives that encourage employer sponsored benefits of any kind.

A penny tax per transaction (not per share) would amount to pennies for most people, a dollar or so for those who are heavily active with their retirement accounts. The group it hits hard are the HFTers who make up to 70-75% of all trades by most estimates. At near a billion trades per week, HFTing would generate good revenues a penny at a time, effectively kililng it off.

I'm not saying that a transaction tax would be the end of the world. I do think you amy be overestimating its ability to stop price manipulation. The real problem is that the SEC is inept and corrupt. If they had effective regulations in place to enforce the laws on the books about bona fide transactions there would be no issue in the first place. Until the institutional culture changes, I doubt a transaction tax would end price manipulation unless it were high enough that it actually did hurt everybody. (And yes, 0.1% hurts the little guy. A lot.)

The big picture is that those who are actually buying and holding, as opposed to speculating, are paying a heavier price.

I don't see evidence of this. It's people who are just getting their feet wet with the thrill of semi-frequent trading who get raked over the coals - and they deserve it for their own stupidity.

HFT encourages speculating and dumping and discourages value investing.

No. Unless you have access to faster transactions than the big HFT hedge funds it does the complete opposite. It only encourages speculating and dumping amongst compulsive gamblers and other idiots.

HFT increases price volatility

Yes.

which in turn encourages more trades.

Only among irrational optimists and the select few who are truly equipped to capitalize reliably on the situation. For sane people who don't have a fat pipe to their broker it does the complete opposite.

Since they are run by algorithms, the more the prices move, the more the computers skim, and the the cycle perpetuates itself.

That's fine by me. As long as they are executing on the offers they post I'm A-OK with ten supercomputers making the market. If only we could reign in the cancellations...

 

[sportage]

This may be a bit off subject, but I think Obama should pull the same kind of stunt the republican governors love to pull. That is, get nasty.
If you are a republican governor of a state, and you cut ANY social services to the poor, union workers, or school funding, then you get no more federal money from me...period.
Republican governors all hate the BIG GOVERNMENT, but they have no problem holding out their hand for the federal dollars $$$.
Obama can simply pull a nasty on these governors (nasty being the new game play),
by refusing these states ANY Obama federal money.
If the current president were republican, and democrat governors were fighting to preserve unions, teachers and services for the poor, do you not think a republican president would try the same kind of stunt? Punish states with democrat governors and their agenda?
Obama should get nasty.
"Hey republican union busting governor... new rule... no more federal road $$$$ for you".

 

[Craig234]

Well, that's the debate isn't it?

I personally agree that we should allow zero tax increases. I think it's the right thing to do, and therefore that the republicans should not waver from that point.

You'd be doing the same if roles were reversed.

So you have no problem if the Democrats hold the economy hostage to blackmail Republicans into approving policies you strongly disagree with, because 'it works'. Good government.

 

[Craig234]

Not a single Republican voted for the Obamacare so how can you claim they 'gutted' it?

Blue dogs ARE Democrats and they are the ones who 'gutted' the bill. But keep in mind that if the Democrats didn't get these blue dogs elected in the first place there would have been Republicans sitting in their place and the bill never would have passed at all.

If anything gutted the bill it is the American people who refuse to elect liberal Democrats.

You talk like the Republicans didn't have votes.

You fail to hold them accountable. The healthcare policy was far weaker because there weren't enough votes to pass a stronger one. That's the fault of *everyone* who failed to support a stronger bill - of both parties - but guess which party had a hell of a lot more people who fall into that group (hint: 100% of Republicans).

If a few Republicans had supported a stronger bill, Obama could have told the bad Democrats who pushed for gutting the bill to get lost. So they're BOTH guilty.

Your claim Republicans have no role in the blame is false.

Edit: let's not forget - thanks tweaker2 - that Democrats HAD the votes to pass a stronger bill by the margin the law requires, a majority. It was the Republicans abusing the filibuster to steal a veto that allowed gutting the bill.