Subject: Pelosi Says You Won't Mind A 1% Transaction Tax

financial transactions tax (HR4191)


[Copyrighted material removed. -- Tony]

This whole idea is totally insane. It seems to me that if you lose 10% on investment you're probably going to have to pay a 1% tax just for losing the money.

This is the insanity of today's Democratic Party. I would love to hear from the Liberals in this forum. Does this make sense to you? Do you support this type of legislation? Don't you think that the Democrats are going much too far? I like to hear from you. You liberals. You Democrats. You progressives.

Yoda

I don't think I can stand any more stimulation.

If that passes I intend to go in the barrel making business with nice straps on it for wearing, will have secret places in it to hide your cash and a secret place for a radio to listen to Fox news which will be banned in the future by the Regime. Am working on a "green" way to heat it so I wont leave a giant "footprint".and displease them.

Working on a way to make it **** friendly, as for a price gonna have to be under the table, way under, or they will grab that too.

and more so than any human, breathing, thinking person in Washington, DC.
A classic example of politics in action. One need not be competent to be a "leader" in politics and as evidence by tenure, get re-elected.

She is a disgrace to the thinking class!!

btk

I used to think Glenn Beck's claims were too extreme. Now I am not so sure. JJ

In November we'll find out if the electorate is more concerned with the incredible tax and spend schemes like this abominable proposal and the ones already implemented, or the "scandals", made up, overblown or misrepresented, that the Democrat Media Machine will unleash to tarnish the reputations of Republicans with very little time to properly rebut.

And I say the electorate won't mind when she is no longer Speaker of the House and irrelevant.

I peek in here while on vacation and it's still the same "make up stuff to make bad things seem worse" thing going on.

I read the article - it's on FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT trades. Swaps, futures, etc. Not "every time you make a deposit" or buy something at a store.

I agree that this is NOT a good idea because it WILL affect 401K accounts which have already taken a beating. But you don't have to make stuff up to make it seem worse.

The article *specifically stated* what kinds of transaction would be subject to the new tax that the G(FillInTheBLank) are proposing. I understand the sentiment behind it but I disagree with the methodology proposed.

Originally Posted by djplong

I peek in here while on vacation and it's still the same "make up stuff to make bad things seem worse" thing going on.

I read the article - it's on FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT trades. Swaps, futures, etc. Not "every time you make a deposit" or buy something at a store.

I agree that this is NOT a good idea because it WILL affect 401K accounts which have already taken a beating. But you don't have to make stuff up to make it seem worse.

The article *specifically stated* what kinds of transaction would be subject to the new tax that the G(FillInTheBLank) are proposing. I understand the sentiment behind it but I disagree with the methodology proposed.

Of course, you're right that the tax is aimed at stock purchases and transfers and not, as yet under this proposal, on normal banking transactions. I should have clarified it myself earlier, but the scheme still affects most people in today's market. Almost all of us have 401Ks, like you mentioned, and some sort of stock portfolio and will have to figure the cost of this new proposed tax into every action we take with these accounts.
But you have to admit, some taxes we pay today were expansions of modest tax proposals we at one time thought were not too much of a burden. A transaction tax, once implemented, will give a sort of "precedence" mentality to enacting the taxes that the original poster jumped the gun on. It's the old "slippery slope" effect.

Originally Posted by djplong

I peek in here while on vacation and it's still the same "make up stuff to make bad things seem worse" thing going on.

I read the article - it's on FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT trades. Swaps, futures, etc. Not "every time you make a deposit" or buy something at a store.

I agree that this is NOT a good idea because it WILL affect 401K accounts which have already taken a beating. But you don't have to make stuff up to make it seem worse.

The article *specifically stated* what kinds of transaction would be subject to the new tax that the G(FillInTheBLank) are proposing. I understand the sentiment behind it but I disagree with the methodology proposed.

Well stated DJP! There are enough hare brain schemes (including this one) without to Europe and look forward to your observations.

I'm back. And, yeah, I'll try to digest my observations of what was an incredible honeymoon. My expectations were vastly exceeded. But it was really interesting to talk to the B&B owners at the places we stayed. These were literally Mom & Pop businesses in the UK, France and Ireland.

Originally Posted by macro

Subject: Pelosi Says You Won't Mind A 1% Transaction Tax

financial transactions tax (HR4191)


[Copyrighted material removed. -- Tony]

Please Liberals answer this:
Pelosi says today that the best way to create jobs is to give food stamps who need them, then why not give them to everyone in America and create 8 times as many jobs?
What a great idea!!

Originally Posted by JimJoe

Please Liberals answer this:
Pelosi says today that the best way to create jobs is to give food stamps who need them, then why not give them to everyone in America and create 8 times as many jobs?
What a great idea!!

Right now liberals are smacking themselves in the forehead and proclaiming you a genius.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Of course, you're right that the tax is aimed at stock purchases and transfers and not, as yet under this proposal, on normal banking transactions. I should have clarified it myself earlier, but the scheme still affects most people in today's market. Almost all of us have 401Ks, like you mentioned, and some sort of stock portfolio and will have to figure the cost of this new proposed tax into every action we take with these accounts.
But you have to admit, some taxes we pay today were expansions of modest tax proposals we at one time thought were not too much of a burden. A transaction tax, once implemented, will give a sort of "precedence" mentality to enacting the taxes that the original poster jumped the gun on. It's the old "slippery slope" effect.

How far behind can it be though? It's been on the news that already banks are upping some fees and implementing additional ones. I've already had the "privilege" of experiencing some of those myself.