1% Wall Street Sales Tax

Aug 2013
2,859
2,134
Nowhere
#1
As the title of this thread says, this is to inform everyone on the proposal on a financial transactions tax, which would be set at 1%. Essentially, 1% of all sales and transfers of derivatives, stocks, bonds, default swaps, and the cavalcade of other financial transactions. To protect middle class families, the first $1 million could be written off.

To elaborate on the revenue potential, we're talking about an industry with a yearly turnover in the quadrillions. This means, that we could see yearly revenue gathered from this tax reaching $30-$50 trillion. This would be spread among the federal and state governments, easily closing the vast majority of budget gaps. This would also allow us in the future to perhaps reduce other taxes. Many people I ask tell me that the most annoying and hated tax is property tax. This tax would make it very easy to reduce, and in some cases, eliminate the property tax.

Here's the main organization in support of such a course of action.
1% Wall Street Sales Tax | United Front Against Austerity

This link to the website of Congressman Keith Ellison has an overview of the bill he has introduced in the House to apply such a tax. H.R. 6411 Inclusive Prosperity Act.
The Inclusive Prosperity Act
 
Likes: 1 person
Aug 2013
2,859
2,134
Nowhere
#3
A 1% tax makes no sense that all when the interest rate is... wait for it.... 1%.
It's applied on the point of sale for these various services, a turnover that reaches in the quadrillions. The tax would gather trillions yearly. The interest rate isn't involved.

US sellers of financial securities, including stocks, bonds, options, futures and derivatives, all of which must be traded and reported on open exchanges
.
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,707
Vertiform City
#4
It's applied on the point of sale for these various services, a turnover that reaches in the quadrillions. The tax would gather trillions yearly. The interest rate isn't involved.

.
The interest rate is involved. You've heard of Black-Scholes? Futures? Credit swaps? Why do you think people invest their money? The future fair value of something is calculated on the basis of the interest rate. If you're making 1%, and the tax is 1%, you have a net zero which means there's no incentive for you to invest (and therefore you shouldn't, and you won't).
 
Likes: 1 person
Aug 2013
2,859
2,134
Nowhere
#5
The interest rate is involved. You've heard of Black-Scholes? Futures? Credit swaps? Why do you think people invest their money? The future fair value of something is calculated on the basis of the interest rate. If you're making 1%, and the tax is 1%, you have a net zero which means there's no incentive for you to invest (and therefore you shouldn't, and you won't).
Well, the actual bill introduced isn't that high. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr6411ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr6411ih.pdf

The highest rate would be 0.5% on certain securities trading.
 
Oct 2010
22,674
5,689
In the empty heads of the right wingers I own
#6
As the title of this thread says, this is to inform everyone on the proposal on a financial transactions tax, which would be set at 1%. Essentially, 1% of all sales and transfers of derivatives, stocks, bonds, default swaps, and the cavalcade of other financial transactions. To protect middle class families, the first $1 million could be written off.

To elaborate on the revenue potential, we're talking about an industry with a yearly turnover in the quadrillions. This means, that we could see yearly revenue gathered from this tax reaching $30-$50 trillion. This would be spread among the federal and state governments, easily closing the vast majority of budget gaps. This would also allow us in the future to perhaps reduce other taxes. Many people I ask tell me that the most annoying and hated tax is property tax. This tax would make it very easy to reduce, and in some cases, eliminate the property tax.

Here's the main organization in support of such a course of action.
1% Wall Street Sales Tax | United Front Against Austerity

This link to the website of Congressman Keith Ellison has an overview of the bill he has introduced in the House to apply such a tax. H.R. 6411 Inclusive Prosperity Act.
The Inclusive Prosperity Act
Ellison's transaction tax is 0.5% and lower on bonds and deriviatives. It would bring in $300 billion. I don't know where you get trillions from doing this, even at a full 1% tax.
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,707
Vertiform City
#8
Well, the actual bill introduced isn't that high. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr6411ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr6411ih.pdf

The highest rate would be 0.5% on certain securities trading.
It's a tough call. Everything has more than one consequence.

The method I favor is simply to distribute the load. Break up the big banks, and some of the big corporations.

"Breaking up" doesn't mean they go belly up. Breaking up simply means there are now six corporations where before there was one. Each of the new mini's is a lean mean fighting machine, and if they want to get anything the size of Texas, they have to cooperate, which means, the government can and will find out about it. No one loses anything, in fact the best model for this is the breakup of Ma Bell in the 80's. The investors profited handsomely from that deal, and not only that but we got a whole new set of consumer markets opened up because of it (the cell phone industry, which was non-existent at that time).
 
Oct 2010
22,674
5,689
In the empty heads of the right wingers I own
#9
It's a tough call. Everything has more than one consequence.

The method I favor is simply to distribute the load. Break up the big banks, and some of the big corporations.

"Breaking up" doesn't mean they go belly up. Breaking up simply means there are now six corporations where before there was one. Each of the new mini's is a lean mean fighting machine, and if they want to get anything the size of Texas, they have to cooperate, which means, the government can and will find out about it. No one loses anything, in fact the best model for this is the breakup of Ma Bell in the 80's. The investors profited handsomely from that deal, and not only that but we got a whole new set of consumer markets opened up because of it (the cell phone industry, which was non-existent at that time).
The mobile phone industry was not non-existent. The tech was still expensive and focused on a very small market because it didn't have much infrastructure. I remember my dad was offered a car phone back in the late 1970s for his job (he turned it down because it didn't make sense for him because we lived outside of city limits at the time).
 
Jan 2008
32,903
9,707
Vertiform City
#10
The mobile phone industry was not non-existent. The tech was still expensive and focused on a very small market because it didn't have much infrastructure. I remember my dad was offered a car phone back in the late 1970s for his job (he turned it down because it didn't make sense for him because we lived outside of city limits at the time).
Dum dee dum dum.... the cell phone industry was non-existent because.... wait for it.... Ma Bell had a monopoly on all the land lines! That's why they were broken up in the first place. Once it became sensical for the providers to lease time on existing networks, the industry took off like a rocket.
 

Similar Discussions