Funnily enough, this paradox is true.
Wait, are those numbers just based on the number of shares traded? My interpretation is that it would be a 0.05% tax on the value of the shares traded, not a flat $0.0005 per share. Plus, isn’t this past Monday a rather strange choice for a typical trading day’s traffic to multiply for estimating annual trades?
I doubt your assumptions are the ones this Contract used, since their estimate of the amount raised is an order of magnitude higher than yours.
And I work for a Wall Street firm - you bet your sweet Aunt Fanny they’d notice.
Regards,
Shodan
It was based on the number of the shares, not value of those trades, nor cost of trading. I couldn’t find information on the last two so I went with what i had. And yes, I’m NOT expecting that Monday’s trading is indicidive of an average number of daily trades. But I assumed that it was in my calculation because…well…I had to go with something and this is what I had. If I can find better information, I’ll give you better estimates.
I doubt it as well. But if we assume $.0005 per trade, that means it’s $1 every 20,000 shares traded. That’s an obscenely low amount to worry about but it’ll still bring in billions in revenue every year.
Seriously, $1 for every 20,000 shares? Other than a knee jerk “OMG taxes are bad!” crowd, no one can say with a straight face that that amount would hinder activity at the NYSE.
You’re misunderstanding what they wrote. They are saying that tax increases alone can’t balance the budget. That if you raise taxes the money isn’t enough to pay off the deficit. The part you quoted is illustrating that not only is the money saved not enough, that it would actually be less than the actual tax raise, because of the shifting.
They aren’t saying that tax raises provide no revenue, they’re saying that if you raise taxes it provides slightly less revenue than the amount you raised it by.
In essence they’re arguing for the administration’s plan, they want to raise taxes and lower spending.
By the way, the Bush Tax Cuts caused a lot of our deficit.
There is a new American reality. No jobs are permanent. People are getting axed all the time.
There are decades of infrastructure and upgrades than need to be done. Building a modern mass transit system would take a long time. The work can not be outsourced. Bridges take many years to fix and build.
I think the programs should have American equipment , American workers and buy the products they use from American makers.
I understood just fine. I never said tax increases provide no revenue. I said that, paradoxically, the more you tax the rich the less income you’re liable to generate. That is true, as the quote I posted will attest to, since the rich are more sensitive to increases in increases in their tax rate than are the poor and are more likely to change their spending habits or seek new ways to keep more money in their pocket when their taxes go up.
No doubt. They have the luxury and capability to change their habits. But that said, you seemed to be suggesting that increasing taxes on the rich decreases overall revenue.
I was suggesting that increasing taxes on the rich increases revenue, just slightly less than the increase.
In any case, increasing taxes and big cuts are what we should do, since either alone is unlikely to fix the problem.
Can we do the infrastructure jobs with non-union labor to save a few bucks… or would that defeat half the purpose?
While rebuilt highways, bridges, etc will put people to work, the existing infrastructure is not a major bottleneck to job growth and development.
What we need are increased orders for durable goods like machine tools, industrial process machinery, etc. Capital equipment expenditures on products designed and manufactured in the US. Increased orders for these types of products have a direct trickle-down effect throughout industry for components, IT/software, robotics, etc. all at existing manufacturing facilities.
Those are the kind of areas where the stimulus money should have been invested in with the requirement that the goods, products, machines, etc had to be manufactured in the US
There’s three strikes and out in the first sentence.
And there’s nothing of substance in that sentence. Care to elucidate?
Is a 10 point list on a single page the way we Libs want to go? The conservative Contract For America was propsed by the man who became Speaker of the House (not just a couple of pundits), and only 3 or 4 of the 10 points passed that body. As I recall none became law. Not a successful model to follow. Too bad the 'Pubbies didn’t push the line item veto - Bubba was the only Dem who’d have signed it. Then the R team would have had it for the 8 Bush years. But even back then the Rs would rather shoot their goals in the head than let the D team have anything that looks like success.
Well, I’m from Texas. We come in, what, 45th?, in education. And soon, if Perry gets the presidency, you can all join us!! 
I’d heard somewhere recently that Texas was 51st in education, in terms of graduating seniors with High School diplomas.
I recall the Republicans Contract for America, but don’t recall what was in it. I’d bet that most people who were voters at the time could best paraphrase a couple of items. It’s more the symbolic value; form over content.
Here’s how I’d amend the Contract for the American Dream*:
-
INVEST IN AMERICA
(Make it simple, put the infrastructure part in the details). -
CREATE 21ST-CENTURY JOBS.
(Remove ENERGY from line to broaden this) -
SECURE OUR FUTURE - INVEST IN EDUCATION
(Remove the term Public, which GOP has stigmatized) -
OFFER AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE FOR ALL.
I’d also focus here on removing the cost of treating the uninsured / under-insured in Emergency Rooms. -
MAKE WORK PAY.
(If Democrats were smart, they’d show Firefighters, Teachers and Police in ads helping people, then say “These are the LIBERALS and UNION members that the Republicans are afraid of”) -
SECURE SOCIAL SECURITY
(Maybe a clip here of Reagan era seniors eating cat food) -
RETURN TO FAIR TAX RATES.
(Don’t soften it, call a spade a spade. Fair, not “fairer”) -
INVEST AT HOME.
(Removed the war bit) -
**DISCOURAGE **WALL STREET SPECULATION.
Don’t promote this as taxation, promote it as a way to discourage speculation and the wild swings we see in the stock market as a result. -
STRENGTHEN OUR DEMOCRACY.
Out of curiosity, why did you bold “cal” in “medical”, but not the whole word?
Trying to show what I had changed (from Medicare to Medical).
Wonder if rating data is available if you factor out all the illegals with limited English language skills
If they’re not educating the brown people, that still reflects poorly on them. They’re people too, after all.
For comparison, how does California, with a likewise large number of Mexican immigrants, rank?