Done. January 13, 2009 10:34 am If you are looking for additional sources of tax revenues, I propose the following: 1. A tax on op-ed articles, say 10 cents a word. Not only would considerable revenue be raised, but this is a "green" initiative as it would cut down on paper usage and methane (from b/s) production. 2. A tax on bribes, say 50% to both the giver and receiver. Since we cannot control bribes, especially here in Illinois, home of the "pay for play" Democratic Party, the people might as well benefit from the process. 3. A tax on political contributions over $250. With the hundreds of billions spent in 2008 election cycle a 10% tax would raise tens of billions to be invested in infrastructure, economic stimulus, or IRS and SEC enforcement mechanisms. â pete, orland park, illinois http://community.nytimes.com/articl.../opinion/13herbert.html?permid=220#comment220
You mean Hillary Clinton and George Soros are poor? Didn't she make nearly $100,000 "trading" cattle futures contracts with only $1,000 in her account back in 1978? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm Yep. You sure hit the nail on the head. The "POOR" are in charge now!
They are targeting speculators because they are an easy target. I hate this too and doubt it will make it through but I understand why its being discussed. Trade off, they take out the little guy at a loss of significant but not critical liquidity. The gain is significant tax revenue and a PR coup. It happened in the UK and London is pretty much equal to New York as a financial capital (its downfall if it happens won't be the stamp duty).
Would you care if a small fry compared to you started eating into your profits & your edge? How about when it became 10 of them? It's a rhetorical question but I hope you see the point.
This socialist NYT writer is not accepting any more comments, so I emailed him the contents of my post above.
You make an interesting point, but couldn't this comment apply to the taxes imposed on self employed individuals, including but not limited to traders? That's how I feel about the gov, though they are no small fry.
Anybody who thinks 1/4 of a percent hit on a financial transaction is trivial is a fucking clueless moron. Never mind traders, I'm talking mom and pop long term investors here. What a fucking jackass. Fee's on managed accounts aren't even that high. God, I can't even handle this conversation.
How would this effect institutions or trading firms? Would they be exempt? Would this cause all the individual traders to go to prop shops?