• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Robin Hood Tax Introduced In Congress

a robin hood tax is pretty stupid.... if you are trying to help the middle class, anyways.

those whom understand how corporation are not taxpayers( taxes flow through them to end users) realize who.. in the end, will be paying this tax.
the most notable end user who will be on the hook for this tax is .. pension holders.

you will not punish wall street by this sort of tax... it's easy as hell for them to pass along the burden to the person who has no choice but to pay it.
I would not doubt, for a second, that wall street would actually profit from this sort of tax.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
A tax on financial transactions is so destructive even our government hasn't imposed it yet.

And Robin Hood did not steel from the rich to give to the poor. He reclaimed what was forcefully taken from them by the royalty via taxes.
Click to expand...

I don't know if a financial transaction tax is destructive but I do believe that many people seem forget that Robin Hood was taking what was already taken and giving it back to the rightful owners.
 
MaggieD said:
I see and understand. But we probably need to do both. One isn't going to be enough to solve the mess we're in.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the per transaction tax on the stock market because it is easy to collect and, just as importantly, it could level out the volatility caused by computer trading when the computers could potentially already know what individual investors are planning to do because of the day delay on a lot of individuals buy-sell orders. As up and down as the market is due to those automated trades, it scares individuals off the market IMO. I would probably rather see sales taxes on goods collected at the wholesale level instead of the retail level though--that could help out those places that have no sales tax system in place by saving a great many retailers there the need to collect (say collect the tax when the goods are sold to Walmart as opposed to when Walmart sells the goods to the buyers).
 
jamesrage said:
I don't know if a financial transaction tax is destructive but I do believe that many people seem forget that Robin Hood was taking what was already taken and giving it back to the rightful owners.
Click to expand...

Think of how important stock markets are. If you want less of something, you tax it. What this accomplishes is hurting business and discouraging investment in the U.S.
 
Not to mention small investors are going to want to make stock moves the least if they incur more penalties on top of broker fees. So its going to hurt the small guy more than the larger ones. Just changing capital gains would accomplish this much easier and my feeling is this is just another tax for politicians to tap for revenue and move it up or down as a political football. Its a bad idea.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
"Reduce some of the volatility in our markets"

There is no evidence of that.
Click to expand...

This is true; at this point it's strictly theoretical.

All it would do is make the market dramatically smaller, but that doesn't reduce the risks that are taken.
Click to expand...

It should reduce the incentive for day-trading, and makes it less likely that people will react en masse with panic or exuberance to small changes in the market, by making those behaviors more costly.

If anything creates a financial crisis, this tax would be it.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
Thrilla said:
a robin hood tax is pretty stupid.... if you are trying to help the middle class, anyways.

those whom understand how corporation are not taxpayers( taxes flow through them to end users) realize who.. in the end, will be paying this tax.
Click to expand...

But the end-users, in this case, are day-traders and other major investors who aren't really adding anything to the economy but are just engaging in rent-seeking behavior. If the costs get passed on to them, I'm OK with that.

the most notable end user who will be on the hook for this tax is .. pension holders.
Click to expand...

Not really. I don't know about you, but I only look at my pension a couple times a year. If you're actively day-trading your pension fund, then you probably already have much bigger things to worry about than a financial transaction tax.
 
Kandahar said:
It should reduce the incentive for day-trading, and makes it less likely that people will react en masse with panic or exuberance to small changes in the market, by making those behaviors more costly.
Click to expand...
If the market is signaling something, you have to respond. This makes it more expensive. And a market trigger can either be correct or incorrect, it isn't as if this only prevent bad signals.

How so?
Click to expand...
By destroying the stock market.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
[/FONT][/COLOR]http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9009

Seems like common sense to me. Im not gonna expect it to get very far in this country however.
Click to expand...


Common sense would be to not name it the Robin hood tax.The term Robin Hood in many people's eyes has the connotation of someone who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. So essentially this bill could be seen as code for lets steals steal from the rich bill.Which will make the bill DOA. There might be a few rich democrats and rino republicans who will give it a meaningless vote to appease some fringe elements out there, but that is about it.
 
Kandahar said:
But the end-users, in this case, are day-traders and other major investors who aren't really adding anything to the economy but are just engaging in rent-seeking behavior. If the costs get passed on to them, I'm OK with that.



Not really. I don't know about you, but I only look at my pension a couple times a year. If you're actively day-trading your pension fund, then you probably already have much bigger things to worry about than a financial transaction tax.
Click to expand...

your pension funds get traded all the time... they don't just sit there an accrue interest.

the end user is whomever is going to pay the additional service fees that will be used to offset the tax... and not be able to pass them off to another.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
If the market is signaling something, you have to respond. This makes it more expensive.
Click to expand...

As it should. If the tax is 0.5%, that means there would need to be at least a 0.5% differential between the price of the stock and the perceived value of the stock before it would be worthwhile to trade it. In other words, it reduces the incentive for people to buy stock today and then sell it tomorrow if it appreciates a tiny bit tomorrow. The advantage of this is that it makes it less likely that everyone will run for the exits (or create a bubble) all at the same time.

And a market trigger can either be correct or incorrect, it isn't as if this only prevent bad signals.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a "market trigger" or a "good signal." The best predictor (and only accurate predictor) of the price of a stock tomorrow, is the price of that stock today. It is very rare for someone to consistently beat the market, and so "signals" have very limited usefulness. They tend to just cause panic.
 
Thrilla said:
your pension funds get traded all the time... they don't just sit there an accrue interest.

the end user is whomever is going to pay the additional service fees that will be used to offset the tax... and not be able to pass them off to another.
Click to expand...

Which will require fund managers not to churn fees and actually analyze their portfolio more closely IMO if they want to keep people in their fund and keep getting their big fee to do it. Lord forbid a fund manager have to have an investment strategy more than a day or a week long.
 
Thrilla said:
your pension funds get traded all the time... they don't just sit there an accrue interest.
Click to expand...

They are invested in specific index funds where they essentially just appreciate/depreciate and don't get traded, except when the portfolio is rebalanced. That's why the fees are so low on index funds and unmanaged mutual funds. I'm not sure what happens behind the scenes at the firms managing those funds, but there is no reason that they would NEED to be traded all the time. As far as the end user is concerned, the funds are just sitting there.

the end user is whomever is going to pay the additional service fees that will be used to offset the tax... and not be able to pass them off to another.
Click to expand...

So from the perspective of an average person with a pension, how do I benefit from guys in suits constantly trading my money, instead of just leaving it alone in the fund that I picked?
 
jamesrage said:
Common sense would be to not name it the Robin hood tax.The term Robin Hood in many people's eyes has the connotation of someone who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. So essentially this bill could be seen as code for lets steals steal from the rich bill.Which will make the bill DOA. There might be a few rich democrats and rino republicans who will give it a meaningless vote to appease some fringe elements out there, but that is about it.
Click to expand...

So basically your beef is that its named "Robin Hood Tax"? Thats some lame beef.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
[/FONT][/COLOR]http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9009

Seems like common sense to me. Im not gonna expect it to get very far in this country however.
Click to expand...

Why are they calling it a "robin hood tax"? I mean, let's just call it what it is: A federal sales tax. I'm not opposed to it, but to make anything off it, and put it towards our national debt, we'll need to cut some fat off the bureaus and the more frivolous federal spendings.

Dissolve the BATFE and DEA, merge ICE into the FBI, cut the salaries of congressmen, the president, and supreme court justices down to five figures annually, and give them the same benefits packages offered to regular government employees, remove DoD contractors from positions already filled by the uniformed services, and that's just the beginning. That's the part that really isn't going to go far.
 
There is already a tax on equity trades, it's a fraction of a percent and it more than fully funds the SEC.
We don't need to add more on top of that, when capital gains are already taxed.

Basically, the government gets to profit, regardless of whether or not you do.
We could probably say good bye to many drips, because of this tax.
 
Last edited:
I was living in Michigan when they increased the sales tax from 4% to 6%. Everyone was complaining about having to pay more. Once it was established, everyone realized the only time it really hurt was when you made big purchases (like an automobile). A 1% tax in this case does not make a huge difference in everyday life, until you buy something that costs a lot of money. IMO, if you have the cash to throw around for a large purchase, you probably can afford to pay the extra 1%.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So basically your beef is that its named "Robin Hood Tax"? Thats some lame beef.
Click to expand...

I do think James has a point to consider. Calling it a Robin Hood tax could doom it right out of the gate in them minds of many on the conservative side of the aisle. Why risk that just for some name?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So basically your beef is that its named "Robin Hood Tax"? Thats some lame beef.
Click to expand...


I do not trade, nor do I have any idea what impact that tax will have.So I could care less if it passes or not. I am just saying that if those congressman really wanted that bill to pass then they wouldn't use a name that basically implies theft that targets a specific group of people.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Charity is not an all the way around sufficient way to give people help that need it.
Click to expand...

So confiscating people's money to do what YOU want is in order? Bull****, you don't have the right to take my money and use it to give to other people. Then send more of your own money.
 
They're calling it the Robin Hood tax? You know the guy that could have helped the poor fight the king for their freedom, but instead just robbed the rich and gave to the poor and made himself the person everyone was dependent on? That guy?

Nothing like saying I'm out to punish rich people by calling it the Robin Hood Tax. What a bunch of idiots.

Oh wait..they already admitted the tax isn't about revenue, just punishment. I love how they admit that and follow it up saying some crap about how it will pay for Social Programs. You already showed your cards assholes so keep the drivel for someone that is blind.

Saying that you want to take money from the "hands of the most privileged" and then to say it's for Social programs doesn't work. It's obviously about the former, not the later.

Lastly, why should I give a **** about your social programs? Robin Hood would approve of such things without doubt, but I sure as hell don't.
 
Last edited:
American said:
So confiscating people's money to do what YOU want is in order?
Click to expand...
What i want? Im not the government now am i?

Bull****, you don't have the right to take my money and use it to give to other people. Then send more of your own money.
Click to expand...
Your right me personally i dont have the right, but guess who does have that right. The government of the USA.
 
jamesrage said:
I don't know if a financial transaction tax is destructive but I do believe that many people seem forget that Robin Hood was taking what was already taken and giving it back to the rightful owners.
Click to expand...

In truth the people he would of been helping would of owned nothing as they were nothing but lowly peasants at the service of the king. Their gold would of truthfully never left the control of the king and their homes in which they lived were gifts from the king himself as well. In short, the fairytale is making a mistake on who owns what. They were just serfs and nothing more really.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
What i want? Im not the government now am i?


Your right me personally i dont have the right, but guess who does have that right. The government of the USA.
Click to expand...

The government has rights? I was unaware of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom