Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

hill2016

(1,772 posts)

7. yeah

Reply to rogerashton (Reply #6)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 09:34 PM

Aug 2015

but if the number is lower, let's say people are only "willing" to pay 50% of their profits (excluding capital gains) to this financial transaction tax, then the amount that can be raised from this tax goes down even more.

My point really is that the numbers that Sanders claims can be raised is far too much.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders' financial transaction tax proposal - do the numbers make sense? [View all] hill2016 Aug 2015 OP

What is the daily volume (in dollars) on the various stock exchanges? 1939 Aug 2015 #1

as I mentioned hill2016 Aug 2015 #2

So you would factor out JackInGreen Aug 2015 #18

I've included hill2016 Aug 2015 #19

I'm sorry JackInGreen Aug 2015 #20

like I said in my OP hill2016 Aug 2015 #21

I didn't call you any names JackInGreen Aug 2015 #23

difference hill2016 Aug 2015 #25

No time for love doctor Jones JackInGreen Aug 2015 #26

ok hill2016 Aug 2015 #27

Financial transaction taxes tend to raise less money than forecast, PoliticAverse Aug 2015 #3

Where did this come from? rogerashton Aug 2015 #4

you're confusing two things. hill2016 Aug 2015 #5

So you just made it up. rogerashton Aug 2015 #6

yeah hill2016 Aug 2015 #7

A wealth tax at the federal level would likely require a constitutional amendment. n/t PoliticAverse Aug 2015 #8

why would it? hill2016 Aug 2015 #11

The Constitution limits Congress' taxing power. PoliticAverse Aug 2015 #12

You may be correct but.... Armstead Aug 2015 #9

yeah but hill2016 Aug 2015 #10

Well, at least you didn't make that line up: rogerashton Aug 2015 #13

Difference I see is that the Deemocrats gave up even trying 30 years ago Armstead Aug 2015 #14

You're stereotyping Armstead Aug 2015 #16

in your view hill2016 Aug 2015 #22

I think if you look at his overall programs and message.... Armstead Aug 2015 #32

Great analysis. Bernie is going to have to.... SonderWoman Aug 2015 #15

thank you hill2016 Aug 2015 #24

just wondering hill2016 Aug 2015 #17

Well, you convinced me.... daleanime Aug 2015 #28

The tax would need to increase the cost of doing business for some investors Motown_Johnny Aug 2015 #29

sorry hill2016 Aug 2015 #30

which is why I said half, and then rounded down Motown_Johnny Aug 2015 #31

$70 billion is the estimate of needed funds to provide free college in all public univ. virtualobserver Aug 2015 #33

Any tax that would slow the rate of high frequency trading sounds good DJ13 Aug 2015 #34

Please see this memo from Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts-Amherst think Aug 2015 #35

The FTT was tried and failed in Sweden booksandpencils Aug 2015 #36