• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Saucycarpdog

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,311
amp.cnn.com

After the GameStop fiasco, momentum builds for an $800 billion tax

Uncle Sam is in search for a pot of gold that could ease the pain of trillion-dollar deficits. And some believe Wall Street might just have the answer.
For more than a decade, progressives have tried and failed to impose a financial transaction tax. But there is new momentum for such a levy as the national debt skyrockets during the pandemic and in the wake of the GameStop trading frenzy that shined a bright light market structure concerns.

The White House told CNN Business on Sunday that a financial transaction tax on GameStop-like trading deserves additional study and can be part of a greater evaluation of such a tax for revenue and market stability. The leading proposal amounts to a $1 tax on every $1,000 of transactions.

But there is a deep divide over the wisdom of a financial transaction tax. Progressives see it as a smart way to simultaneously curb predatory trading while funding ambitious programs aimed at easing America's inequality problem.

Opponents, on the other hand, paint a financial transaction tax (FTT) as a nightmare. Wall Street, which would take a hit, is already warning such a levy would backfire on Main Street by raising trading costs and depressing market liquidity.
Lawmakers will surely be tempted to tax transactions because it could raise vast sums of money at a time when Washington is strapped for cash.

A 0.1% tax on stock, bond and derivative transactions could raise $777 billion for the federal government over a decade, according to a 2018 estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

"We have tremendous income inequality in our society and a giant deficit. A financial transaction tax would be an incredibly efficient and progressive way to raise revenue," Aaron Klein, a former Treasury Department official in the Obama administration, told CNN Business.

The top 1% of American households would pay 40% of the total amount of the tax, while the bottom 60% would pay just over 11%, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

That makes sense because the wealthiest 10% of US households owned 87% of all stocks and mutual funds, according to 2020 data from the Federal Reserve.

"The concentration of wealth in the stock market is mindboggling," said Klein, who is now a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

Even though some argue an FTT would be a disaster, the United States already has a tax, albeit a very tiny one. Roughly 2 cents per $1,000 traded goes toward funding the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Due to surging trading volume during the pandemic, the tax rate to fund the SEC is being lowered to just half a cent per $1,000 starting Thursday.
 

JustinBailey

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,596
Yeah because that's the problem with financial markets - not enough of the nonsense is being turned into nonsense tax dollars.

How about regulation of illegal practices and removal of decisions executed by non-humans (computers) from the marketplace?
 

DanteMenethil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,054
The top 1% of American households would pay 40% of the total amount of the tax, while the bottom 60% would pay just over 11%, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Sounds great, but if history is anything to go by the rich will find ways to evade the tax and only the rest of us will pay it
 

Lube Man

Alt-Account
Banned
Jan 18, 2021
1,247
I thought we already pay capital gains tax on Stocks.

Here's an idea, why don't we *gasp* TAX THE RICH?!
 

LukeOP

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,749
Will this apply to pass through entities like hedge funds or are retailer investors the ones getting fucked?
 

Josh5890

I'm Your Favorite Poster's Favorite Poster
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
23,179
I am not surprised at all. I guarantee you this will not be the last legislation of the post-Gamestop saga.
 

captive

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,991
Houston
Sounds great, but if history is anything to go by the rich will find ways to evade the tax and only the rest of us will pay it
id imagine it would be implemented like sales tax, like you literally can't buy a stock without paying the tax. Or at least thats how I would do it if i were implementing this.


either way thats not an endorsement or condemnation of this.
 

Xando

Member
Oct 28, 2017
27,292
FTT most of the time affects retail traders far worse than institutions and i don't know why progressives keep pushing it instead of going for institutions.
 

Dark Cloud

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
61,087
I hope this never passes. We the fucking people get screwed. Not the rich or hedge funds. All those people will find ways around. I don't do that.

Start closing all the damn loopholes and getting the money you're supposed to from the rich.
 

Mulligan

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,505
This is just another bullshit, "flat tax," and not the progressive tax that the US needs.
 

Ecotic

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,408
The financial transaction tax is a terrible idea. If money has to be generated from the stock market, then you tax the income, not the transactions. A FTT would dry up trading volume, leading to larger bid/ask spreads, and more warped prices as a result of fewer participants and trades that lead to better price discovery. I've written up why this is a bad idea extensively here on Era, it's really disappointing to see Democrats get behind the idea. They're supposed to be the party of smart policy.
 

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,425
Don't trust them at all. End result is always more barriers for the average person to get into the market.

The barrier of entry was lowered considerably recently; and then a bunch of rich people got their shit pushed in; now here comes the extra taxes... And not just logically applied to the rich as it should be.

Yeah I don't trust this at all.
 

ivantod

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,492
So I get screwed over as the little guy who wants to trade stocks.
Yes, because only the 1% rich are allowed to manipulate the stock market for personal gain and you are not one of them. Know your place, peon!

Don't trust them at all. End result is always more barriers for the average person to get into the market.
I mean, isn't that the whole point? The rich/hedge funds/etc. want to be the only ones with the power to gain from market manipulation. Hence this proposal, which would make sure for that to be the case.
 

Dark Cloud

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
61,087
The financial transaction tax is a terrible idea. If money has to be generated from the stock market, then you tax the income, not the transactions. A FTT would dry up trading volume, leading to larger bid/ask spreads, and more warped prices as a result of fewer participants and trades that lead to better price discovery. I've written up why this is a bad idea extensively here on Era, it's really disappointing to see Democrats get behind the idea. They're supposed to be the party of smart policy.
Thank you. Someone made a video on this. All you do is kill volume and who the hell wants to trade large spreads? Which means way less participants. Start taxing the damn income.
 

XaviConcept

Art Director for Videogames
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
4,900
777 billion that would be used on some giant military R&D project or someshit, how fortunate
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,771
The financial transaction tax is a terrible idea. If money has to be generated from the stock market, then you tax the income, not the transactions. A FTT would dry up trading volume, leading to larger bid/ask spreads, and more warped prices as a result of fewer participants and trades that lead to better price discovery. I've written up why this is a bad idea extensively here on Era, it's really disappointing to see Democrats get behind the idea. They're supposed to be the party of smart policy.

Agreed. You need to go after gains, not transactions.

This is a fundamentally stupid idea and is just going to end up being a self-inflicted black eye for progressives.
 

Steven

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,172
This is bullshit. But big surprise, as soon as regular joe's start taking advantage of the market, we must stop it at all costs. Fuck all the people making these decisions
 

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,123
Gentrified Brooklyn
Yeah because that's the problem with financial markets - not enough of the nonsense is being turned into nonsense tax dollars.

How about regulation of illegal practices and removal of decisions executed by non-humans (computers) from the marketplace?

YUP.

This just ends up punishing small investors and makes it easier for firms to tack on fees on top of the tax. Even though it's selling your information to do it, 'no fees' transaction that Robinhood has brought around is a good thing since the barrier to buy stock is the lowest it's ever been* The problem is everything else; them letting people play with credit lines they shouldn't be able through with margin, etc. th

The problem with wall street aren't the transactions themselves; its the transparency, the regulation, and the fact that we've gotten to the point of where the idea of it being a fair market is a moot point if you have supercomputers monitoring trends and executing trades at lightspeed ahead of your joe shmoes at home.

*btw it being a good thing isn't true since at the end of the day it's all risk, but at least it opens the barriers a bit more than back in the days when you needed thousands of dollars to open a brokerage account effectively stopping investments like this from a large swath of the population
 

Zemst

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,093
Somewhere, somebody is already writing an article that 0.1% tax is too much.
 

WarMacheen

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,541
If after the GME event, your answer is to create a tax, you should have no part in regulating anything.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,671
Target capital gains (and other types of) taxes to specifically fuck over the rich. If the rich can somehow escape this, it's not good enough. Specifically make the M.O. of the tax redistribution from rich to everyone else and tweak it until it makes that happen.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,985
I thought we already pay capital gains tax on Stocks.

Here's an idea, why don't we *gasp* TAX THE RICH?!

This post is a pretty good example of the overton window shifting to the right on taxes. Capital gains taxes are lower than every other income tax, the result of Bush-era tax cuts reducing capital gains taxes and then those being kept low for 15+ years, and now even among people who want to "Tax the rich" the idea of raising capital gains taxes to what they were Pre-Bush-era tax code, is criticized. Like, the idea of raising capital gains has left you breathless.

Increasing capital gains taxes is, actually, a great way to tax the rich. The rich frequently avoid income taxes by shifting their wealth into financial products that are taxed at much lower rates than income would be. If you make $500,000 over 365 days of taxable earned income, you're taxed at about 37% (the highest tax bracket as a result of Trump's tax cuts). If you make $500,000 over 365 days of investments, it's the same $500,000 of income over the same period of time, but it's only taxed at 20%, the max for long-term capital gains.

(the exact numbers for income/capital gains aren't even numbers like $500,000, but for the sake of argument it's close enough, off by a few thousand in either way)
 
Last edited:

Zhengi

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
1,899
Wow, some of you are ridiculous. That's $1 for every $1,000 in transactions, which equates to 0.1% or about .001 cents for every dollar. If the market is going to dry up due to that, then those hedge funds and rich people deserve to lose their money. Retail investors aren't even going to be paying the bulk of this.

The top 1% of American households would pay 40% of the total amount of the tax, while the bottom 60% would pay just over 11%, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

That makes sense because the wealthiest 10% of US households owned 87% of all stocks and mutual funds, according to 2020 data from the Federal Reserve.

Some of you people need to get a grip.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2, 2017
2,240
Yeah because that's the problem with financial markets - not enough of the nonsense is being turned into nonsense tax dollars.

How about regulation of illegal practices and removal of decisions executed by non-humans (computers) from the marketplace?

FTT functionally achieves the end of robotrading because that operates on a model of making transactions that individually generate what is basically a miniscule profit but performing so many of those transactions such that the money adds up. It's basically a legal version of the Superman 3/Office Space scam. If you apply a 0.1% tax to each of those transactions, the tax greatly exceeds the profit generated by those transactions, which means that robotrading goes from a profit center to a massive loss and would basically stop as soon as the tax goes into place.

The problem with wall street aren't the transactions themselves; its the transparency, the regulation, and the fact that we've gotten to the point of where the idea of it being a fair market is a moot point if you have supercomputers monitoring trends and executing trades at lightspeed ahead of your joe shmoes at home.

No, the problem with Wall Street is that it exists, period. Trying to democratize it is a fool's errand because it's a casino designed for the enrichment of people who already have money.

I think we should be aiming higher, but FTT starts to drain money from the system where it can (theoretically) be used for actual productive uses, so I'm not exactly down on the idea.
 
Last edited:

Ripcord

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,777
Even though some argue an FTT would be a disaster, the United States already has a tax, albeit a very tiny one. Roughly 2 cents per $1,000 traded goes toward funding the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Due to surging trading volume during the pandemic, the tax rate to fund the SEC is being lowered to just half a cent per $1,000 starting Thursday.

Lmao.
 

Baccus

Banned
Dec 4, 2018
5,307
Yes let's focus on putting entry barriers to a recently democratized market instead of solving its systemic abuses.
 

Zhengi

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
1,899
Yes let's focus on putting entry barriers to a recently democratized market instead of solving its systemic abuses.

Yeah, democratized markets that the poorest people can't even enter cause of the entry barrier of not having money. Maybe we should solve inequality first with these tax ideas rather than letting the markets run loose for the richest in the country.
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
Yeah, democratized markets that the poorest people can't even enter cause of the entry barrier of not having money. Maybe we should solve inequality first with these tax ideas rather than letting the markets run loose for the richest in the country.

Maybe we should we ban everything poor people don't have access too, then we can all be poor.
 

Xando

Member
Oct 28, 2017
27,292
Yeah, democratized markets that the poorest people can't even enter cause of the entry barrier of not having money. Maybe we should solve inequality first with these tax ideas rather than letting the markets run loose for the richest in the country.
So instead of taking money from the rich everyone should become poor?
 

Ether_Snake

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
11,306
The problem with wall street aren't the transactions themselves; its the transparency, the regulation, and the fact that we've gotten to the point of where the idea of it being a fair market is a moot point if you have supercomputers monitoring trends and executing trades at lightspeed ahead of your joe shmoes at home.

Why is that a problem? You should be investing in diversified portfolios, and investing for the long term. How does fast trading and algorithms use in evaluation market conditions matter? What's next, a return to carrier pigeons?
 

turtle553

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,221
They should just eliminate penny spreads and set a minimum that ensures people have to hold onto stocks for more than a few milliseconds before reselling.
 

prophetvx

Member
Nov 28, 2017
5,329
Is there a tax on stock gains in the US?
Yes, unless it's held in a tax free account (which have limits).

Stupid proposition, businesses who can claim losses much easier will avoid much of this and retail investors won't. Genius. The underlying mechanisms that led to the problem like excessive shorting and HFT are A-OK.
 

Armadilo

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,877
Bad move, trying to take more money from the poor person trying to play the game, they get taxed when they make money with the stocks already.
 

prophetvx

Member
Nov 28, 2017
5,329
Why is that a problem? You should be investing in diversified portfolios, and investing for the long term. How does fast trading and algorithms use in evaluation market conditions matter? What's next, a return to carrier pigeons?
HFT accelerates volatility and retail investors are left holding the bag. It's stupid to say people should be investing in diversified portfolios when what you're really saying is that individuals shouldn't have control over how they diversify their portfolios, instead they should be paying others to do it for them by buying ETFs.

If you look at the market today, many people even with balanced portfolios that are self-managed may have faced a loss in 5-10% of their liquidity much of it due to automated sell-offs or shorting, algorithmic trading makes it extremely difficult to rebalance because you have computers amplifying those swings.
 

DevilMayGuy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,577
Texas
Pretty sure this would simply result in trade volume and frequency taking a nose dive, which would fuck the market while simultaneously not providing anywhere close to the tax revenue that they want from the tax. Sounds like a good idea if you want to tank the market and get the next big recession going on your terms tho
Every time I see this shit they project the revenue as if trade volume doesn't change as a direct result of that tax
 

iksenpets

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,486
Dallas, TX
Really don't get the backlash to this. Even a midsized investor with $20K to play with only pays $20 in tax. This isn't a barrier to entry at all. It just punishes the people who rapidly buy and sell back and forth trying to capitalize on quick swings — the people playing things like a casino — rather than buying things they actually intend to hold because they actually believe in the value of them. And of course it's not a replacement for taxes on high incomes or high wealth accumulations. We need new taxes to address inequality, but not every new tax or every useful tax is going to address inequality. This is about addressing market volatility. It's not going to solve inequality, but it's also not going to push amateur investors off of Robinhood or whatever either.