Stock Market Sell off

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/this-stock-market-sell-off-is-scarier-than-2008/ar-BB10xvYG?ocid=spartanntp

So a 'little tax' on the transactions won't hurt ,,, and its more reliable …???????

 

A lot of people are getting wiped out right now and adding a tax on top of their losses will only discourage future investors ...

I don't think this is a great idea for funding anything because it's clearly not a reliable revenue source ...

 

Gov. needs to rethink its spending priorties and do a better job with the tax revenue they already have … not 'increase' taxes 

[ARTPOPSTER 4,246]

My question is where is @Economy? 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

Meh....stock exchanges are soooo 20th century 

Buy virtual currencies 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

3 hours ago, Lord Temptation said:

Meh....stock exchanges are soooo 20th century 

Buy virtual currencies 

That's my point...investors have options...

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

3 hours ago, Musicnotthebling said:

My question is where is @Economy? 

Right. I came here thinking it was his thread. 

[Economy 52,931]

Isn't the tax proposed like 0.1% tho? That's so small that it won't really affect legitimate investors

 

It would affect daily traders who speculate for a living more than anything tbh

 

Speculators just add volatility to the market and do nothing useful and they contribute to both bubbles and overselling alike

 

Even if the tax doesn't get in as much revenue as is expected it will discourage speculators that frankly I think are a total plague in the investment world because they distort fundamentals based on actual growth and earnings and instead cause the markets to do stupid wild swings over every bit of news that comes out

 

Again legitimate Investors typically buy and hold a stock for at least a while. They don't do enough transactions a year to be affected by a 0.1% tax

 

 

There's a lot of things I agree or at least partially agree with you @Woolfsmck but this one isn't one of those times sorry

 

I promise I still love you 

 

On 2/29/2020 at 2:56 PM, JusKeepBreathin said:

Right. I came here thinking it was his thread. 

 

On 2/29/2020 at 10:57 AM, Musicnotthebling said:

My question is where is @Economy? 

I'm here

[Economy 52,931]

On 2/29/2020 at 11:26 AM, Lord Temptation said:

Meh....stock exchanges are soooo 20th century 

Buy virtual currencies 

That won't do anything for people long term tho

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

17 minutes ago, Economy said:

Isn't the tax proposed like 0.1% tho? That's so small that it won't really affect legitimate investors

 

It would affect daily traders who speculate for a living more than anything tbh

 

Speculators just add volatility to the market and do nothing useful and they contribute to both bubbles and overselling alike

 

Even if the tax doesn't get in as much revenue as is expected it will discourage speculators that frankly I think are a total plague in the investment world because they distort fundamentals based on actual growth and earnings and instead cause the markets to do stupid wild swings over every bit of news that comes out

 

Again legitimate Investors typically buy and hold a stock for at least a while. They don't do enough transactions a year to be affected by a 0.1% tax

 

 

There's a lot of things I agree or at least partially agree with you @Woolfsmck but this one isn't one of those times sorry

 

I promise I still love you 

 

 

I'm here

I went to Bernie Tax and I could be wrong but that isn't what I saw. 

[Economy 52,931]

56 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

I went to Bernie Tax and I could be wrong but that isn't what I saw. 

That's what ppl here were saying that the tax was 0.1% per transaction

 

What exactly is it then?

 

Edit: https://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465333/sanders-favors-a-speculation-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that

 

So it's 0.1% for bone trades and 0.5% for stocks/equities

 

Of course Bernie supporters would ONLY mention the 0.1% part on the arguments when trying to say it's no big deal and conviniently omit the 0.5% 

 

Half facts aside... 0.5% is still within reason I think.... If ur a legitimate investor and ur not constantly buying and selling out of speculation u still won't do enough transactions per year for this to affect u that much I don't think

 

But im still mostly in favour of raising capital gains tax because that is how the wealthiest compound money and that's how u target the unfair regressive tax in that department

 

Also capital gains tax taxes actual gains. This tax would tax u even if u made no profit and that's what I don't like about it

 

I don't think it's that bad cuz it's too small to truly make that huge a difference and I think the discouraging of speculation is worth it

 

But as far as revenue or fair redistribution... I think capital gains tax hikes is the biggest change the tax system needs

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Isn't the tax proposed like 0.1% tho? That's so small that it won't really affect legitimate investors

 

It would affect daily traders who speculate for a living more than anything tbh

 

Speculators just add volatility to the market and do nothing useful and they contribute to both bubbles and overselling alike

 

Even if the tax doesn't get in as much revenue as is expected it will discourage speculators that frankly I think are a total plague in the investment world because they distort fundamentals based on actual growth and earnings and instead cause the markets to do stupid wild swings over every bit of news that comes out

 

Again legitimate Investors typically buy and hold a stock for at least a while. They don't do enough transactions a year to be affected by a 0.1% tax

 

 

There's a lot of things I agree or at least partially agree with you @Woolfsmck but this one isn't one of those times sorry

 

I promise I still love you 

 

 

I'm here

(Hands on hips … getting a minor tude)

Just kidding ,,  and this isn't 'my' thread … its just a topic that I thought would fly with some of the other ggd peeps … 

anyhow ……..

per transaction .01 isn't a lot for the buy and hold investor ...

however …  some investiment firms use software and trade thousands of micro times per hour … making .oooo1 per trade... but it adds up to a huge profit when you factor in the numerous buy and sells ….

those types of firms will get slammed out of business no doubt … and would cause a segment of the investment community to reallocate their funds to alternate places … hence lowering overall stock performance and reducing taxable transactions … 

There is a cause and effect to any little thing … especially something a dynamic as wall street..

[Economy 52,931]

2 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

(Hands on hips … getting a minor tude)

Just kidding ,,  and this isn't 'my' thread … its just a topic that I thought would fly with some of the other ggd peeps … 

anyhow ……..

per transaction .01 isn't a lot for the buy and hold investor ...

however …  some investiment firms use software and trade thousands of micro times per hour … making .oooo1 per trade... but it adds up to a huge profit when you factor in the numerous buy and sells ….

those types of firms will get slammed out of business no doubt … and would cause a segment of the investment community to reallocate their funds to alternate places … hence lowering overall stock performance and reducing taxable transactions … 

There is a cause and effect to any little thing … especially something a dynamic as wall street..

Wouldn't these firms still be able to charge that small fee? Cuz the tax should be a totally seperate thing. Or am I missing something?

 

And yeah everything has some effects. But u wouldn't be able to pass any policy if every downside always stopped u and that's why u gotta look on a net basis... Losses vs gains

 

That's a concept I find most of the Right and Left alike kinda sick at doing most of the time. They look at the supporting points for their policies while ignoring the downsides. U always gotta look at both

 

In this case I still thing it can be a small net positive... 

 

Revenue wise I prefer to just raise the capital gains tax. But the amount proposed here I think it's still too small to be of a significant consequence

 

If it discourages speculators I think that's more than worth any downsides

 

Legitimate investors whether it's average Joe's, RSP Fund Managers or even Billionaires look for value and companies with good growth potential... Their investment dollars to serve some purpose by proping up businesses that can better use Capital and put it to use 

 

But speculators don't care about fundamentals or long term prospectus for real growth. They buy and sell daily on news like interest rate changes or Trump tweets and now coronavirus

 

Speculators do nothing useful for the economy or the markets they just create unhealthy wild swings

 

Anything that discourages that is fine with me... And even to investors a small tax that won't affect them as much as daily trailers it might be worth that 0.5% for significantly more predictable and stable market I would say

 

I used to be an investor before i got married and had money... I would gladly pay a 0.5% tax to get rid of speculators that kept stirring sh*t up

 

Let's remember what stocks are. U are literally buying a portion of a company!!!! The stock trading multiples should reflect earnings and fundamentals not day traders whims when they read too much into a dam tweet

 

Speculators/day traders make a lot of money and do nothing useful for society what's so ever... They are lost useless labor that don't produce anything productive industrially or service wise but they are not the best allocators of capital either so besides creating market swings and bubbles and crashed what are they useful for?

 

Now I do have a suggestion that Bernie will never see but I think it could be good... And that is for every person to have the right to a few free trades per year and only pay the tax on their 5th transaction for example. This way u further reduce cost on legitimate investors 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

34 minutes ago, Economy said:

That's what ppl here were saying that the tax was 0.1% per transaction

 

What exactly is it then?

 

Edit: https://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465333/sanders-favors-a-speculation-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that

 

So it's 0.1% for bone trades and 0.5% for stocks/equities

 

Of course Bernie supporters would ONLY mention the 0.1% part on the arguments when trying to say it's no big deal and conviniently omit the 0.5% 

 

Half facts aside... 0.5% is still within reason I think.... If ur a legitimate investor and ur not constantly buying and selling out of speculation u still won't do enough transactions per year for this to affect u that much I don't think

 

But im still mostly in favour of raising capital gains tax because that is how the wealthiest compound money and that's how u target the unfair regressive tax in that department

 

Also capital gains tax taxes actual gains. This tax would tax u even if u made no profit and that's what I don't like about it

 

I don't think it's that bad cuz it's too small to truly make that huge a difference and I think the discouraging of speculation is worth it

 

But as far as revenue or fair redistribution... I think capital gains tax hikes is the biggest change the tax system needs

To my credit I was only aware of the .1%. 

I agree with your take on the .5% on stocks and equities and continue my original proclamation that by taxing these transactions it provides greater stability to the market. 

[Economy 52,931]

17 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

To my credit I was only aware of the .1%. 

I agree with your take on the .5% on stocks and equities and continue my original proclamation that by taxing these transactions it provides greater stability to the market. 

That's fine if u didn't know. I didn't really remember which users spread that around and I think it was more than one user tho

 

It wasn't a jab at anyone specific I only mentioned Bernie and his supporters since in this case it was his policy but this goes for anyone that might without details. Im just a very big believer in full truth and by full truth I mean not just not lying. When people withold details of a statistic and cherry pick the specific points that supports their argument or policy whatever it is either to downplay something, sugar coat it, or make it seem worse than it is (if your arguing against something) although u may not be lying technically your still being misleading. It's the same stuff a lot of advertiser's do for their products and trick ppl without technically lying and being held accountable

 

It's very common in politics (regardless of right or left or centre) and I hate it that's why when I discuss my points or try to make an argument I also tend to say things like "although it's true you also have to consider the fact that"...  

 

With politics there's so many ways to spin the numbers without lying and I f*cling hate that. For example when parties argue about economic growth talk about economic growth mention the growth in nominal terms, per capita, growth when inflation adjusted, median income etc and everything that's import. Not just the specifoc that benefit your side while ignoring the others

 

Trump is especially good at doing this sh*t only sometimes he doesn't even cherry pick he outright makes up facts which is even worse

 

Sorry rant over  Politics just aggravates me because of so much dishonesty and when u combine that with close mindedness sometimes I wonder why I bother discussing it so much

 

So back on topic. Yeah, speculators do nothing useful for society and make investment market unstable and distorted so for that reason alone I support a small transaction tax

 

They don't just make the market unstable. They let daily news like Trump's tweets or trivial announcements by Central Banks affect where they allocate Capital and often it's not in the most useful areas

 

 

 

 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

18 minutes ago, Economy said:

Wouldn't these firms still be able to charge that small fee? Cuz the tax should be a totally seperate thing. Or am I missing something?

 

And yeah everything has some effects. But u wouldn't be able to pass any policy if every downside always stopped u and that's why u gotta look on a net basis... Losses vs gains

 

That's a concept I find most of the Right and Left alike kinda sick at doing most of the time. They look at the supporting points for their policies while ignoring the downsides. U always gotta look at both

 

In this case I still thing it can be a small net positive... 

 

Revenue wise I prefer to just raise the capital gains tax. But the amount proposed here I think it's still too small to be of a significant consequence

 

If it discourages speculators I think that's more than worth any downsides

 

Legitimate investors whether it's average Joe's, RSP Fund Managers or even Billionaires look for value and companies with good growth potential... Their investment dollars to serve some purpose by proping up businesses that can better use Capital and put it to use 

 

But speculators don't care about fundamentals or long term prospectus for real growth. They buy and sell daily on news like interest rate changes or Trump tweets and now coronavirus

 

Speculators do nothing useful for the economy or the markets they just create unhealthy wild swings

 

Anything that discourages that is fine with me... And even to investors a small tax that won't affect them as much as daily trailers it might be worth that 0.5% for significantly more predictable and stable market I would say

 

I used to be an investor before i got married and had money... I would gladly pay a 0.5% tax to get rid of speculators that kept stirring sh*t up

 

Let's remember what stocks are. U are literally buying a portion of a company!!!! The stock trading multiples should reflect earnings and fundamentals not day traders whims when they read too much into a dam tweet

 

Speculators/day traders make a lot of money and do nothing useful for society what's so ever... They are lost useless labor that don't produce anything productive industrially or service wise but they are not the best allocators of capital either so besides creating market swings and bubbles and crashed what are they useful for?

 

Now I do have a suggestion that Bernie will never see but I think it could be good... And that is for every person to have the right to a few free trades per year and only pay the tax on their 5th transaction for example. This way u further reduce cost on legitimate investors 

Simple math … 

Software trader x has 100 dollars 

they buy stock y for 100 dollars 

the price goes up .00001 percent .. and wha la ,, soft ware sells for .00001 profit .. 

deduct .01 tax from that trans action and …. profit goes by by … 

multiply this by 1000's per hour on a large scale …. 

….

buy an hold … 

invest Bob buys LG stock for 100 dollars … pays .01 tax

sits on stock … 

price goes up when LG releases new single "Stupid Love"  … 

sells stock for 150 dollars .

pays .01 tax

so lemme see … 

50 net profit from start to finish … 

there is a fee from trading firm …  

the tax amounted to  .025 dollars … 

so no this isn't a big hit for this type of investor ..

 

…..

 

Is it clear as to how this type of tax will affect the market???? 

its not really that simple ...

[HorusRa2 5,005]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

That's fine if u didn't know. I didn't really remember which users spread that around and I think it was more than one user tho

 

It wasn't a jab at anyone specific I only mentioned Bernie and his supporters since in this case it was his policy but this goes for anyone that might without details. Im just a very big believer in full truth and by full truth I mean not just not lying. When people withold details of a statistic and cherry pick the specific points that supports their argument or policy whatever it is either to downplay something, sugar coat it, or make it seem worse than it is (if your arguing against something) although u may not be lying technically your still being misleading. It's the same stuff a lot of advertiser's do for their products and trick ppl without technically lying and being held accountable

 

It's very common in politics (regardless of right or left or centre) and I hate it that's why when I discuss my points or try to make an argument I also tend to say things like "although it's true you also have to consider the fact that"...  

 

With politics there's so many ways to spin the numbers without lying and I f*cling hate that. For example when parties argue about economic growth talk about economic growth mention the growth in nominal terms, per capita, growth when inflation adjusted, median income etc and everything that's import. Not just the specifoc that benefit your side while ignoring the others

 

Trump is especially good at doing this sh*t only sometimes he doesn't even cherry pick he outright makes up facts which is even worse

 

Sorry rant over  Politics just aggravates me because of so much dishonesty and when u combine that with close mindedness sometimes I wonder why I bother discussing it so much

 

So back on topic. Yeah, speculators do nothing useful for society and make investment market unstable and distorted so for that reason alone I support a small transaction tax

 

They don't just make the market unstable. They let daily news like Trump's tweets or trivial announcements by Central Banks affect where they allocate Capital and often it's not in the most useful areas

 

 

 

 

Oh, no worries. I just clarified where I stood on that bc I know I'm one of the people that talked about the financial transactions tax. It honestly could even be that I read the other statistic about stocks/equities and forgot. It's not the policy I talk the most about (medicare for all) and when you read and look into everyone's plans it's easy to get things mixed up. That said, I totally agree with the above bolded.