1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today

Discussion in 'Taxes and Accounting' started by seasideheights, Jan 13, 2009.

  1. H.R. 676, “The United States National Health Insurance Act,”
    Or “Expanded & Improved Medicare For All”
    Introduced by Rep. John Conyers, Jr.& Dennis Kucinich

    Proposed Funding For USNHI Program

    Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
    Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
    Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
    ¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
    Close corporate tax loopholes
    Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners

    http://www.brightfuse.com/Groups/hr676-universal-health-care-



    An active group with events pushing this idea can be found here.
    http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
     
    #421     Jan 28, 2009
  2. Time to respond to this one folks, we have to continue every day
     
    #422     Jan 28, 2009
  3. wjk

    wjk

    http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676faq

    http://www.johnconyers.com/healthcare

    These links might be of use. I think this bill has been floating around for a few years. I wonder if adding the transaction tax is something recent or if it has always been in the bill.

    Looking back, it was there last year, only then it was 1/3 of a point. I guess the concern is: will they pass the bill now, and in it's present form? There are a lot of dems in congress these days.

    The second link has lot's of info, including supporters.
     
    #423     Jan 28, 2009
  4. An idea to use when replying to the pro-tax crowd is that the billions of dollars collected is money that would have gone into a US Company's stock but is now being diverted to the US Government. It's pulling billions of dollars away from US Corporations at a time when they're laying off employees & are having a difficult enough time raising capital.

    Also, the idea that many people including retirees have online brokerage accounts and they too will get penalized, not just the hyperactive daytraders like us.
     
    #424     Jan 28, 2009

  5. By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.

    Look at how much we pay now.


    The state of the economy during the Great Depression led to passage of the Social Security Act in 1935. This law provided payments known as "unemployment compensation" to workers who lost their jobs. Other sections of the Act gave public aid to the aged, the needy, the handicapped, and to certain minors. These programs were financed by a 2 percent tax, one half of which was subtracted directly from an employee's paycheck and one half collected from employers on the employee's behalf. The tax was levied on the first $3,000 of the employee's salary or wage..................

    Look at how much we pay now.


    1/4 percent trans tax. Why not make it an even 10 percent since it's so harmless.

    Pigs at the trough.
     
    #425     Jan 28, 2009
  6. Almost every single legislation since the daytrader boom of the late 1990s was because the Wall Street elites did not like the new competition from the little guy. The one I thought was most clever was decimalization, which had more than one purpose.


    Can't do that, need to keep up the illussion of fair opportunity and all that jazz.


    Once again, you are deluding yourself if you think tax revenue is the reason. Plenty of better ways to generate tax revenue. The well paid useful idiots who are promoting this tax may actually think there is some revenue, but those truly behind it know that it is a net loss in taxes.
    If the Federal government truly wanted to generate tax revenue from daytraders, they would take over SEC and SEC fees, maybe raise them a little.

    If the 1 dollar stocks were so good for profits, you all would have been trading them already. With daytraders flocking to the same thing you propose, it will only get worse.
    I'm said it for a while, move on, the writing is not just on the wall, it's in your face.
     
    #426     Jan 28, 2009
  7. So now they want a transaction tax to fund Universal Healthcare and pay for the bailout (LOL). Are these dems nuts or what? I don't think a Universal Healthcare bill will pass (now) but what the hell? Are they going to tact on the tranny tax to every bill that comes along now?

    Let's just hope the powers that be stop this thing dead in it's tracks (if it comes to that). I still think we're safe...


    -Guru
     
    #427     Jan 28, 2009
  8. bears21

    bears21

    i have said it once and i will say it again, if you are trading for yourself from home with no affilation with a b/d pure retail there may be cause for concern. my advice get affiliated with a b/d who is a member of either the nyse, cboe, cbot, phlx, any exchange. those are where the exemptions will come from. trading at home for ibkr as a retail guy aint gonna cut it if this is passed. i do not know for sure but i think some firms dont require you to have a registration although it obviously wouldnt hurt either. by the way echotrade has recently been in contact with the uk and their setup with the london stock exchange, i believe you can trade through real tick, still a very gray area but opportunites are mounting over there. oh and stamp tax is a non issue because by trading through this group you are trading through a member firm who is a member of the lse.
     
    #428     Jan 28, 2009
  9. wjk

    wjk

    No, I am not deluding myself. I agreed with you about your theory. But those who are behind this also know that the left is the political spectrum to use to achieve this. Reason: because they(congress) think they will raise revenue by it. HR676 is the perfect example. They don't look far enough into the equation to see if it will actually work or not. They probably don't even care. Most of them don't read half the shit they vote on.

    The only thing I don't agree with you on is the number in congress that actually believe such a tax will raise revenue. I think many more than a few would fall into the well paid category you mentioned. And for that reason, I also agree with you about the writing on the wall.
     
    #429     Jan 28, 2009
  10. The wellpaid useful idiots simply assume and follow the groupthink. Taxes on speculators = good is generally what they believe because that is what the public quickly believes.
    The way I see it, the tax has two purposes:
    1) Appeasement to the masses
    2) Attack on the litle guy trader

    If you see how much Goldman, Merrill, JPM, etc lobby and contribute aka pay of the government, you will know that they are definitely behind this as it will benefit them. There is no way this transaction tax would even get any media attention, let alone make headways in Congress if Wall Street did not like it.


    That is generally how it works. The real questions is how many are useful idiots versus corrupt & pretending.
    I'm also talking about the journalists who are pushing this. Most of them just follow & believe the line of thinking promoted onto them.
     
    #430     Jan 28, 2009