2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRobert Reich: Why Is Everyone Ignoring One of Sanders' Most Important Proposals?
http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reich-why-everyone-ignoring-one-sanders-most-important-proposalsBernie's idea to tax financial speculation is right on the money, and not even radical. What gives?
Why is there so little discussion about one of Bernie Sanderss most important proposals to tax financial speculation?
Buying and selling stocks and bonds in order to beat others who are buying and selling stocks and bonds is a giant zero-sum game that wastes countless resources, uses up the talents of some of the nations best and brightest, and subjects financial market to unnecessary risk.
High-speed traders who employ advanced technologies in order to get information a millisecond before other traders get it dont make financial markets more efficient. They make them more vulnerable to debacles like the Flash Crash of May 2010.
Wall Street Insiders who trade on confidential information unavailable to small investors dont improve the productivity of financial markets. They just rig the game for themselves.
Bankers who trade in ever more complex derivatives making bets on bets dont add real value. They only make the system more vulnerable to big losses, as occurred in the financial crisis of 2008.
(snip)
So why is it only Bernie Sanders whos calling for a financial transactions tax?
(snip)
So why is it only Bernie Sanders whos calling for a financial transactions tax? Why arent politicians of all stripes supporting it? And why isnt it a major issue in the 2016 election?
Because a financial transactions tax directly threatens a major source of Wall Streets revenue. And, if you hadnt noticed, the Street uses a portion of its vast revenues to gain political clout.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)All the other candidates are Wall Street lap dogs and corporate whores.
It ain't gonna happen.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)....they let it fall by the wayside for good reason.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1779210
Baobab
(4,667 posts)I will have to go back through my notes which are on my other computer. But I think he has proposed a small financial transactions tax.
Taxes are among the only kinds of regulation permitted by trade deals on banks so it would make sense.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I'm saying it's up to Bernie to press an agenda item, and he and Jane have had lots of opportunities to do so.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)And it is my impression that a financial transactions tax has been part of his platform all along.
I don't understand what you are getting at here.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...and has made several high profile appearances on MSM outlets. She has promoted Bernie and his agenda...just refuses to talk about this particular item raised in the OP. We should be wondering why the Sanders' are not promoting their own agenda items instead of the OP blaming others for the lack of information and promotion of their tax schemes.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)in honest discussion.
I gave that person a link to the Vermont SOS website explaining how people don't register to a party there and they still kept trying to smear Bernie as "not a Democrat". At least they finally took that off their sig line.
.
JudyM
(29,294 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)elleng
(131,227 posts)if it feels uncomfortable for you, don't think about it. Just the right way to make public policy, I guess.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)elleng
(131,227 posts)Big change is big.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and just remember, support the rich because one day you too may be rich
Meteor Man
(385 posts)for average investors. The usual suggested transaction tax is 1% or .7%. It would primarily affect high volume traders who game the system with computer generated program trading.
Not a significant tax for average investors.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I personally made two trades last.
Under a bill Mr. Sanders introduced last May, investors would be required to pay an excise tax on any transfer of a stock, bond, partnership interest or derivative. Stock trades would incur a 0.5% tax rate, or $5 for every $1000 of stocks traded. Bond trading gets a 0.10% tax rate. Derivatives a 0.005% tax rate.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-would-bernie-sanders-wall-st-tax-look-like-2016-02-14
If you are doing high frequency trading that is not "investment." Those are the people that would really be affected.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and use computers to make trades in nanoseconds. Fast and furious mega-trading. That's who's going to get the tax burden from this.
.
CTyankee
(63,914 posts)supporters want to ignore it and paint Bernie as an insufferable purist. It's actually kinda funny...
elleng
(131,227 posts)but people's refusal to bother to think and do the right thing is really bugging me.
CTyankee
(63,914 posts)Some people just can't get over it.
elleng
(131,227 posts)but there appears to be actual hatred around here for Senator Sanders.
CTyankee
(63,914 posts)My own husband and two of my dearest friends are voting for Hillary and nobody's mad at anyone else. Husband wants HRC because he says it's time for a woman to be president and I can't fault him for saying that. My two friends are good buddies from way back and we respect differences. So it does NOT have to be acrimonious.
elleng
(131,227 posts)spoke with my landlord/neighbor Sunday, first time to discuss politics, and we're pretty close, value-wise, I think, our differences were no big deal.
His family is from NH, and his wife went up there to help for the primary for hrc. They're very 'environmental.' So after our chat, we agreed I'd 'friend' him on fb so he can see my pics; it's his property, after all! And yesterday he brought me asparagus from their garden.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's much easier to hate Sanders than to actually think about what he -- and the movement he represents -- is actually saying and the implications.
elleng
(131,227 posts)you may be right, but 'hate' is not easy for me. (I HATE cheney; can't think of any other contemporary I actually hate.)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's tossed around so commonly. Should be saved for special cases...like Cheney.
I especially dislike it in the political context, as a word to substitute for "critical of"
cui bono
(19,926 posts)single-payer health care, voter suppression and election fraud. And they want Bernie supporters to take a loyalty oath???
.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and what does that tell you about them........?
DLC Third Way, DINOS, disenfranchised republicans in control of our party.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I think it's in part because he's tying it to financing his super expensive pet projects and economist agree, it doesn't all add up. Hence, he's really not wanting to bring much attention to it except for perhaps a general passing mention, but no details...and it's all for a good reason, it does't pass his false optics messaging.
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)"Economists agree it doesn't add up"?? When you say "economists," do you mean ALL "economists"? What about the 170 economists who say that Bernie's policies, including the transactions tax (which BTW most other major industrialized countries have and which the US used to have) would be excellent to stimulate and improve the economy? That group of economists includes many of the most eminent and respected economists in the country.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html
http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/
http://www.ooyuz.com/geturl?aid=9959466
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/paul_krugman_says_the_170_policy_experts_who_support_sanders_wall_street_re
This final source includes the list of the 170 economists and their pedigrees. Included are Robert Reich of UC Berkeley, James Galbraith of Texas University, and William Black of the University of Missouri-Kansas City
elleng
(131,227 posts)You've provided the resources I didn't have available.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)All others are pretenders.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Status quo is less scary
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)transactions by anyone in market, like union retirement plans, 401Ks held by lots of workers making less than $50,000, etc. It's not a lot of money, and is relatively painless -- but let's characterize it for what it is. I do not think Clinton is opposed to that idea.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)dollars to donuts she is opposed.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)people, this being one of them. I doubt she'd say, yes I will add this tax at this point. I bet she would say that she will have a comprehensive plan to increase taxes, this being one possibility. When she comes up with that plan, she'll consider what stands a chance of passing the Congress we are dealt. For instance, we could just as well impose a wealth tax, increase capital gains taxes, increase taxes on expensive homes, and many more.
The fact is, recently she stated that she did not think the government should give money to wealth parents for their kids' college education. To me, that is a backdoor tax that saves our tax money for other important things.
To many here it was just another way to slam Clinton that made no sense -- "she wants to make wealthy people pay their kids' college." So, what the crud is wrong with that if it helps poorer kids' get needed tuition money.
DebDoo
(319 posts)He has mentioned it. A lot. But unfortunately no can get past the idea that he wants to give out "free stuff".
elleng
(131,227 posts)latch onto a false 'meme,' stay in their comfort zones, and nothing EVER improves.
DebDoo
(319 posts)elleng
(131,227 posts)that's the zone.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)stocks are very rigged
but aside form that day trading is killing us. capital gains should be taxed higher than regular income. Another of my biggies.
And from when I was at Mellon - upper management that manipulates stock price by the timing of their news releases to the date they could cash in stock options.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,466 posts)Thanks for the thread, Ferd Berfel.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)but then, it's not insane to you if it works for you.
if a broken system is not broken for you, well then of course it's not broken.
what's lacking here are empathy and solidarity with the poor.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)Its already in clinton's proposals.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)is abig supporter of a transaction tax. It would have a minimal effect on working Americans.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I'm OK with the idea but most people just don't know enough about the investment industry to assess the likely impact of the tax. It's easier to talk about changing healthcare or education costs because those are the sorts of expenses many people have experience dealing with.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)"Its hardly a radical idea.
Between 1914 and 1966, the United States itself taxed financial transactions. During the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes urged wider use of such a tax to reduce excessive speculation by financial traders. After the Wall Street crash of October 1987, even the first President George Bush endorsed the idea."
^
rurallib
(62,465 posts)do I need to spell it out?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Bad for business.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)astrophuss42
(290 posts)When this ball of wax finally melts.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Which is long turned to mincemeat as you read this.