PDA

View Full Version : Merkel, Sarkozy, the Pope, Bill Gates go in a bar



Soflasnapper
11-04-2011, 01:37 PM
Merkel, Sarkozy, the Pope, Bill Gates go in a bar, where they meet the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Ok, not really, but they've all recently come out for the imposition of a global financial transaction tax.

We used to have such a tax here, for about 50 years. It's something small per transaction, maybe 0.25%, but given the hundreds of millions of transactions just in our own markets domestically each day (see the volume figures), it's estimated it could raise $350 billion a year in new federal revenues.

And it may also trim the incentives for the high speed trading involving thousands of transactions a second, where the big boys trade back and forth among themselves ekeing out tiny arbitrage amounts each time.

Gayle in MD
11-04-2011, 02:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Merkel, Sarkozy, the Pope, Bill Gates go in a bar, where they meet the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Ok, not really, but they've all recently come out for the imposition of a global financial transaction tax.

We used to have such a tax here, for about 50 years. It's something small per transaction, maybe 0.25%, but given the hundreds of millions of transactions just in our own markets domestically each day (see the volume figures), it's estimated it could raise $350 billion a year in new federal revenues.

And it may also trim the incentives for the high speed trading involving thousands of transactions a second, where the big boys trade back and forth among themselves ekeing out tiny arbitrage amounts each time.

</div></div>
0.25%? OMG!!!
Grover will go into cardiac arrest! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

cushioncrawler
11-04-2011, 03:07 PM
I thort that a tax of 1% of 1% of eech transaction (ie 0.01%) would raize enuff for everybody everywhere (ie in the west).
Possibly only on big-bizness.
mac.

eg8r
11-04-2011, 03:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Grover will do into cardiac arrest!</div></div>If your sentences only made sense.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-04-2011, 03:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Grover will go into cardiac arrest!</div></div>If your sentences only made sense.

eg8r </div></div>

Oh, if only you could figure them out when one typo of one wrong letter, is made.....

Sorry Ed. I'll try to do better in the future. I forgot about how hard these unexpected obstacles are for you.

G.

eg8r
11-04-2011, 10:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, if only you could figure them out when one typo of one wrong letter, is made.....
</div></div>Since you don't like the fact that I am simply copying what you do to others on the board you somehow associate that with the fact that I did not catch your type. You never get it.

eg8r

Qtec
11-05-2011, 04:30 AM
This guy makes another good point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a previous blog I discussed how derivatives play two roles - as a form of insurance against specific types of risk; <u>and as a means to gamble</u>. I also discussed how derivatives which are used for insurance purposes should be regulated. Furthermore, I recommended that <u>derivatives which are used for gambling should be subject to a transactions tax to make trading in such derivatives less attractive; and be taxed in such a way to increase the after-tax costs and risks for gamblers.</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Derivatives used for gambling serve no useful economic function!</span> </div></div>

Gambling should always be taxed. I don't see why Wall St should be exempt.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-05-2011, 08:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, if only you could figure them out when one typo of one wrong letter, is made.....
</div></div>Since you don't like the fact that I am simply copying what you do to others on the board you somehow associate that with the fact that I did not catch your type. You never get it.

eg8r </div></div>

Except for the fact that I do it seldom, and do it to show the post police, like you, how silly it is sor any of us here to bother with it, at all.

I hope you feel better soon. I really mean that.

G.

Soflasnapper
11-05-2011, 09:46 AM
Gambling should always be taxed. I don't see why Wall St should be exempt.

True dat! Who could object? Oh, right, the gamblers who own the government, that's who.

We need both regulation and taxation of these activities, and even formerly opposed parties like Alan Greenspan have admitted their error in opposing such moves led to the blowing up of the world's economy via these financial instruments of mass destruction.

The counterattack is a parallel narrative that it was the overly generous welfare state benefits that turned all countries into debt slaves.

However, while that may have been a problem in the medium term, the instant cause was that the banks defrauded all investors with POS investments, to earn the high fees of the original securitization, and the highly leveraged payoff of their protective bets against these instruments that were designed to fail.

The counter-narrative says it was the unworthy subprime borrowers, who had gained control of the government to force banks to make bad loans. Which is impossible on its face (think about it!), so of course, untrue. Of the top 25 subprime originators, only 1 was even subject to the CRA.

Gayle in MD
11-05-2011, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gambling should always be taxed. I don't see why Wall St should be exempt.

True dat! Who could object? Oh, right, the gamblers who own the government, that's who.

We need both regulation and taxation of these activities, and even formerly opposed parties like Alan Greenspan have admitted their error in opposing such moves led to the blowing up of the world's economy via these financial instruments of mass destruction.

The counterattack is a parallel narrative that it was the overly generous welfare state benefits that turned all countries into debt slaves.

However, while that may have been a problem in the medium term, the instant cause was that the banks defrauded all investors with POS investments, to earn the high fees of the original securitization, and the highly leveraged payoff of their protective bets against these instruments that were designed to fail.

The counter-narrative says it was the unworthy subprime borrowers, who had gained control of the government to force banks to make bad loans. Which is impossible on its face (think about it!), so of course, untrue. Of the top 25 subprime originators, only 1 was even subject to the CRA. </div></div>

Good post.

And, I don't suppose Bush's Ownership society had anything to do with it.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

They were out to get the one guy who was trying to do his job, and they got him, Spitzer.


G.

LWW
11-05-2011, 11:13 AM
Yet a couple of year's ago the leftist hate du jour was check cashing places charging to cash checks?

The recent hate du jour is the left lamenting the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>EEEVILLL</span> capitalist pig dog bankers were charging the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>EEEVILLL</span> capitalist pig dog stores a much smaller than 0.25% per transaction fee for processing debit cards ... yet when it is the left's beloved state that wants to rob people of their wealth they bask in the state's assumed omnipotence.

Soflasnapper
11-05-2011, 12:36 PM
Yet a couple of year's ago the leftist hate du jour was check cashing places charging to cash checks?


Yes, charging the poorest of people about an 800% annualized interest rate seemed excessive to many. Immoral and depraved, even, to some.

The recent hate du jour is the left lamenting the EEEVILLL capitalist pig dog bankers were charging the EEEVILLL capitalist pig dog stores a much smaller than 0.25% per transaction fee for processing debit cards ... yet when it is the left's beloved state that wants to rob people of their wealth they bask in the state's assumed omnipotence.

My company takes credit cards and debit cards for payment of our proffered goods and services. Formerly, we had gotten the VISA/MC charge down to about 1.8%, by bargaining with various banks providing the service, and given our volume and average charge size. Debit cards USED as debit cards, including the entry of the PIN, cost a flat rate of 49 cents. Jacking this up to even the $5 dollar range would be a 1,000% hike, and as it would apply to ANY dollar amount charged, it would be AT LEAST a 5% per transaction fee for any charge up to $100. Hence the push back.