More New Taxes

[Magox]

This is just the beginning

 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/69295-de...-150b-stock-tax

 

 

I've pointed out the unintended consequences on many of their initiatives, and I can tell you right now, this will have yet another negative impact on the economy. These loons just don't get it.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/69295-de...-150b-stock-tax

 

A House bill still being drafted aims to raise $150 billion each year to pay for new jobs.

 

Under a bill being drafted by Democratic Reps. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) and Ed Perlmutter (Colo.), the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, derivatives and futures would face a 0.25 percent tax.

 

The bill, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill, is titled the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009.”

 

Wonderful! Let Wall Street Pay. Ya, I guess all of us who have stock portfolios are part of Wall street. Yet again, it's another wealth redistribution tactic, this time with populist anger behind, which means it will probably gain alot of traction.

 

Do these guys understand how mutual funds work? This will decimate that industry.

 

The other unintended consequence that these loons don't understand is that this will only deter investors in investing in the U.S. We are already losing market share to the emerging markets, this will only speed that process, which of course means less capital to be invested in US companies, which of course means less investment for corporations, which of course means less growth, which means less jobs, which means larger deficits, which means a weaker dollar, which means higher inflation and etc. etc. etc.

 

In a time where we should be incentivizing foreign and domestic investment in our capital markets, this will serve as the exact opposite.

 

and guess who supports this idea?

 

A group of consumer watchdog organizations and labor unions sent DeFazio a letter this week supporting the tax bill.

 

 

Disgusting

[Chef Jim]

Regarding taxes, I would love to see all those people thinking that the government needs to do more for us and if it costs more that ok to do what I do every spring. Pay their taxes all at one by writing the government a check(s). When it's taken out of your paycheck every two weeks you don't notice it, it's almost painless. But to have to write a check to the feds, state and pay both halves of the social security and medicare tax it really shows how much you actually have to pay. Many of them would think twice.

[IDBillzFan]

A House bill still being drafted aims to raise $150 billion each year to pay for new jobs.

New government jobs?

 

Excellent. We need more government jobs.

[DC Tom]

I've got a better idea: let's tax congresscritters for the length of bills: a penny a word on all of them, ten cents per word, levied against those who vote "yes".

 

Also: tax them a dollar a word for press releases, two dollars a word for public statements, and all taxes are doubled if you're the Speaker of the House.

 

Forget "Making Wall Street work for Main Street". Let's have Congress work for everyone for a change.

[Acantha]

Regarding taxes, I would love to see all those people thinking that the government needs to do more for us and if it costs more that ok to do what I do every spring. Pay their taxes all at one by writing the government a check(s). When it's taken out of your paycheck every two weeks you don't notice it, it's almost painless. But to have to write a check to the feds, state and pay both halves of the social security and medicare tax it really shows how much you actually have to pay. Many of them would think twice.

This year's Tax Freedom Day was April 13th.*

 

*Some say the numbers are skewed (too high) due to the way they calcuate income, but since they don't address inflation, I'd say they are probably on the low side.

[Magox]

More new taxes

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...T.OK8&pos=9

 

Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- House Democrats will propose more than doubling taxes on money managers at private-equity and venture capital firms to pay for the renewal of 45 tax breaks that will expire soon, a Democratic aide said.

 

Matthew Beck, a spokesman for the House Ways and Means Committee, said lawmakers will seek to raise the 15 percent tax rate on “carried interest,” a term for the share of a fund’s profits that is paid as compensation to fund executives.

 

Beck said the House may vote as early as next week on the $30 billion measure, which renews tax breaks including a research credit promoted by companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and a deduction for state sales taxes that mostly benefits residents of states with no income tax like Florida and Texas.

 

The action would force general partners of funds to pay ordinary income tax rates instead of capital gains rates on their share of profits. The top ordinary rate is now 35 percent and is scheduled to increase to 39.6 percent in 2011; the capital gains rate is 15 percent and is scheduled to increase to 20 percent in 2011.

 

President Barack Obama proposed the tax increase on fund executives in his first budget earlier this year.

 

 

The above underlined part is yet another form of wealth distribution. The below is a tax on not just the upper but the middle class as well.

 

This is Just the beginning folks.

[bills_fan]

This is Just the beginning folks.

 

They have been talking about a transaction tax for decades, its not going to happen.

 

As for the "carried inetrest" provision, it was never intended to cover 2 and 20. So, I really don't see a big problem there.

[Nanker]

I think the solution they're going for is a guaranteed salary of $50k per year to everyone in the US. If your employer pays you more than that - they can only give you the $50k and pay the remainder to the government who then in turn gives it to people who earn less than $50k per year. Of course by the time they're done people earning $50k per year will be exempt from paying taxes.

[IDBillzFan]

I think the solution they're going for is a guaranteed salary of $50k per year to everyone in the US. If your employer pays you more than that - they can only give you the $50k and pay the remainder to the government who then in turn gives it to people who earn less than $50k per year.

When everyone is poor, no one is poor. It'll be Obama's 2012 campaign slogan.

[Dante]

Socialism has to be funded. People are so dumb when they voted for these creeps. It's a "Careful what you wish for" scenario if I've ever seen one.

[keepthefaith]

This is just the beginning

 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/69295-de...-150b-stock-tax

 

 

I've pointed out the unintended consequences on many of their initiatives, and I can tell you right now, this will have yet another negative impact on the economy. These loons just don't get it.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/69295-de...-150b-stock-tax

 

A House bill still being drafted aims to raise $150 billion each year to pay for new jobs.

 

Under a bill being drafted by Democratic Reps. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) and Ed Perlmutter (Colo.), the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, derivatives and futures would face a 0.25 percent tax.

 

The bill, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill, is titled the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009.”

 

Wonderful! Let Wall Street Pay. Ya, I guess all of us who have stock portfolios are part of Wall street. Yet again, it's another wealth redistribution tactic, this time with populist anger behind, which means it will probably gain alot of traction.

 

Do these guys understand how mutual funds work? This will decimate that industry.

 

The other unintended consequence that these loons don't understand is that this will only deter investors in investing in the U.S. We are already losing market share to the emerging markets, this will only speed that process, which of course means less capital to be invested in US companies, which of course means less investment for corporations, which of course means less growth, which means less jobs, which means larger deficits, which means a weaker dollar, which means higher inflation and etc. etc. etc.

 

In a time where we should be incentivizing foreign and domestic investment in our capital markets, this will serve as the exact opposite.

 

and guess who supports this idea?

 

A group of consumer watchdog organizations and labor unions sent DeFazio a letter this week supporting the tax bill.

 

 

Disgusting

 

 

This is disgusting. Fukking Dems only know one way to solve anything. Spend, tax, tax, spend. It is the solution to any issue or challenge. November 2010 can't get here fast nough and we must get to the polls in big numbers. Those lacking common sense stay home.

[/dev/null]

The bill, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill, is titled the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009.”[/b]

 

Wonderful! Let Wall Street Pay. Ya, I guess all of us who have stock portfolios are part of Wall street. Yet again, it's another wealth redistribution tactic, this time with populist anger behind, which means it will probably gain alot of traction.

 

And after Main Street has been "restored" by Wall Street, what are the odds of the taxes being repealed?

[Magox]

And after Main Street has been "restored" by Wall Street, what are the odds of the taxes being repealed?

exactly! We are so far in debt, by the time we pay off our debt, IF we ever pay off our debt, this country will be taxed as much on a percentage basis as that compared to most socialist countries, with the vast majority of those taxes coming from the upper 10% income earners.

[Nanker]

When everyone is poor, no one is poor. It'll be Obama's 2012 campaign slogan.

A Katkoota in every pot! And a Hyundai in every garage.

What this country needs is a good 50-cent-an-hour illegal immigrant.

[IDBillzFan]

A Katkoota in every pot! And a Hyundai in every garage.

What this country needs is a good 50-cent-an-hour illegal immigrant.

Katkoota akbar!!!

[GG]

They have been talking about a transaction tax for decades, its not going to happen.

 

As for the "carried inetrest" provision, it was never intended to cover 2 and 20. So, I really don't see a big problem there.

 

Yup, this is what the proposal is, disguised.

 

On the one hand, I like the idea of the financial industry shouldering a higher cost to maintain stability, I'm not sure a transaction tax is the right way to do it. The tax idea goes back decades as a way to dissuade normal (uneducated) investors from gambling in the markets, adding to volatility, and losing more than the professionals. But the problem with the execution of this tax is that if it's small, it won't influence behavior, if it's bid it will stifle transactions and move most trading overseas.

 

So if the goal is to hold Wall St accountable for fixing its own messes, then capital requirements and FDIC insurance premiums need to be raised.

 

The proposed 0.25% transaction tax is ridiculous because its proceeds would not go stabilizing the industry but would be handed out.

[Magox]

Yup, this is what the proposal is, disguised.

 

On the one hand, I like the idea of the financial industry shouldering a higher cost to maintain stability, I'm not sure a transaction tax is the right way to do it. The tax idea goes back decades as a way to dissuade normal (uneducated) investors from gambling in the markets, adding to volatility, and losing more than the professionals. But the problem with the execution of this tax is that if it's small, it won't influence behavior, if it's bid it will stifle transactions and move most trading overseas.

 

So if the goal is to hold Wall St accountable for fixing its own messes, then capital requirements and FDIC insurance premiums need to be raised.

 

The proposed 0.25% transaction tax is ridiculous because its proceeds would not go stabilizing the industry but would be handed out.

There is alot of populist anger out there right now, and I'm afraid just about any idea that punishes "Wall Street" will gain traction.

 

In regards to the .25% tax, it is a horrible idea, the only way this idea has a chance in not doing tremendous harm to our economy is if all emerging markets participated in the same way. This would have to be a global consensus and I'm not too sure that everyone would participate.

 

Either way, they are calculating that they could raise $150 Billion a year off of this idea, and I don't care how any one slices or dices this thing, that is $150 Billion that would leave the private sector and go directly into the governments hands. If anyone thinks that this wouldn't affect growth prospects than I don't know what to tell ya.

 

An idea that I could support is taxing banker bonuses. I understand that there has to be some sort of solution that appeases the masses because the fact of the matter is that the general public is mad as hell, and alot of that anger is towards these bankers. This could probably generate tens of billions of dollars a year and it would also please the public to a certain extent. However, I'm afraid that somehow the Bankers would somehow generate more bonus money to make up for the taxes, because as I've said many times before, if you take away a revenue stream from a business, they will do everything they possibly can to make it up somewhere else, and this would be no different.

 

In regards to the FDIC insurance premiums having to rise, that is already in the works.

[GG]

An idea that I could support is taxing banker bonuses. I understand that there has to be some sort of solution that appeases the masses because the fact of the matter is that the general public is mad as hell, and alot of that anger is towards these bankers. This could probably generate tens of billions of dollars a year and it would also please the public to a certain extent. However, I'm afraid that somehow the Bankers would somehow generate more bonus money to make up for the taxes, because as I've said many times before, if you take away a revenue stream from a business, they will do everything they possibly can to make it up somewhere else, and this would be no different.

 

Would never work, because it couldn't stand up to legal scrutiny of singling out one industry for the bonus tax. Plus, a big chunk of the bonus is in deferred payments, restricted stock, stock options, etc that bankers don't see on day one. The eye popping numbers are the accounting entry for the compensation expensed in the year, not necessarily what the bankers received.

 

You don't need to invent new things to penalize the industry. Capitalize it properly and be vigilant with the regulatory standards.

[Magox]

Would never work, because it couldn't stand up to legal scrutiny of singling out one industry for the bonus tax. Plus, a big chunk of the bonus is in deferred payments, restricted stock, stock options, etc that bankers don't see on day one. The eye popping numbers are the accounting entry for the compensation expensed in the year, not necessarily what the bankers received.

 

You don't need to invent new things to penalize the industry. Capitalize it properly and be vigilant with the regulatory standards.

You may be right, but the argument of "singling out one industry" doesn't really matter, it should but it doesn't. This administration has singled out a few industries, so I don't see that in being a deterrent for this to possibly happening. In regards to the deferred payments, yes that does pose a logistical problem, however those stock options would have to be exercised at some point, so I don't see that as being a game changer.

 

In regards to penalizing the industry within the framework that has already been established, that probably makes the most sense, but we have to understand GG, that we are living in a world where people are upset, and they want some sort of redemption.

 

Let me just say this, I am not a fan of creating new taxes, but the reality is that our deficit is OUT OF CONTROL, and SOMETHING has to be done about it. I am afraid that we have already started to fall off that slippery slope and that it may be too late, having said that, maybe we havn't and it is time to address this problem.

 

The only thing that I could see in this political climate to address this problem is to tax the industry that is perceived to have helped cause this mess.

[GG]

You may be right, but the argument of "singling out one industry" doesn't really matter, it should but it doesn't. This administration has singled out a few industries, so I don't see that in being a deterrent for this to possibly happening. In regards to the deferred payments, yes that does pose a logistical problem, however those stock options would have to be exercised at some point, so I don't see that as being a game changer.

 

Good luck writing regulations that say that exercising stock options of financial institutions should be treated differently than other industries. Even if by some chance you enact this legislation, the rocket scientists on Wall Street would have figured out a workaround within 15 minutes.

 

In regards to penalizing the industry within the framework that has already been established, that probably makes the most sense, but we have to understand GG, that we are living in a world where people are upset, and they want some sort of redemption.

 

And that's the biggest problem with the mindset. People think that getting redemption fixes things, and that's why the Spitzers, Cuomos and Bloomenthals get high grades from the ignorati. Until you take a step back and recognize that not only di they not fix things, but made it worse for the next crisis.

 

Too much attention has been placed on the public lynchings instead of focusing on stabilizing the system and minimizing the probability of this happening again.

 

Let me just say this, I am not a fan of creating new taxes, but the reality is that our deficit is OUT OF CONTROL, and SOMETHING has to be done about it. I am afraid that we have already started to fall off that slippery slope and that it may be too late, having said that, maybe we havn't and it is time to address this problem.

 

The only thing that I could see in this political climate to address this problem is to tax the industry that is perceived to have helped cause this mess.

 

The runaway fiscal mess is getting created because you're removing more people from the tax rolls and think that you can plug the deficit by taxing the remainder at higher rates. So again, you'll end up enacting legislation that will make people feel good without solving anything.

 

Kind of like thinking that Trent Edwards would be the answer because he was better than JP Losman.