This is a warning for trolling. The third warning in less than two weeks. You are banned.
[/moderating]
(Double post)
It’s not about whether they have an “unfair advantage” but whether they actually add value to the economy or simply predate on its margins. (And I say this despite being no fan of Bernie.)
*His latest proposal would tax stock trades at 0.5 percent (50 basis points) and bond trades at 0.1 percent (10 basis points). Derivatives transactions would be taxed at 0.005 percent (5 basis points). That would be significantly higher than the .002 percent transaction fee the Securities & Exchange Commission currently imposes on trades.
Sanders also would create an income tax credit intended to fully offset the average burden of the tax for individuals with incomes of less than $50,000 ($75,000 for married couples). *
wouldn’t that be paid by your clients?
I don’t have clients.
Maybe this is a tangent, and maybe I’m showing my ignorance here, but if 1/2 of one percent of the value of your trades $5,591,110, shouldn’t you be making more than $6M on the $1 billion you’re trading each year?
A little late to this, but I’ve never know “Yid” to be anything other than a slur. I grew up in a mostly Jewish part of town (although I’m not Jewish) and several of my friends were the children of Holocaust survivors. I’m kinda sensitive to it.
I think we are agreeing?
I don’t see why. We are talking about high frequency trading that operates on very thin margins—and in fact there is no guarantee such a trader is going to make any profit whatsoever in a year.
I don’t see anyway he’s going to get that through anyway. There’s no way Durbin or Schumer would let it see the light of day.
Plus a FTT is a dumb idea anyway, the computers can be moved anywhere, the Chicago Teachers Union has had an FTT fantasy for years that’s gone nowhere.
I suppose. But it seems to me that a business model that can’t absorb a 0.5% tax is pretty tenuous to begin with
For a buy-and-hold investor who turns over his stocks once per year on average, the 0.5% tax works out to 0.5% per annum. (Or 1.0% if, as I guess, the tax is imposed on both buyer and seller.)
If you’re an active trader whose average turnover is 100 times per annum, that works out to 50% of your assets! (or 100% if both buyer and seller are taxed.)
I support a small tax on financial transactions, but much smaller than Sanders’ 0.5%. And I might phase it in gradually.
@ Tron — Please do not take this personally! (I’ve a certain regret for not seeking a career in the financial sector myself.) But the financial sector simply does not provide a value to society commensurate with the profit it generates. Yes, HFT (and other sophisticated methods) increase liquidity and improve price discovery, but their value is nowhere near the many tens of billions spent on equipment, salaries, bonuses and profits.
I want a carbon tax to discourage energy usage at conflict with the public interest. I want a healthcare system that costs many insurance workers their jobs — their activities contribute very little to the public interest. And yes, I want a financial transaction tax that discourages high-cost activities that do not serve the public interest.
And yes, HFT etc. do cost the public. When you sold your Coca Cola stock last week for $54.11 you would have gotten $54.12 in the days before HFT.
And don’t say “It’s only a penny; he won’t miss it!” If you feel that way, have every American send me a penny!
I don’t want you to get a penny from every American. I am fine with every American contributing that penny to the government - that would mean over three and a quarter million which would likely be able to fund something useful. And I want the wealthy to pay considerably more than that penny.
For those who support the tax this really is a large part of the point. Yes, Trom and others will be driven out of that business. To the advocates of the tax that is a good thing, a feature not a bug. They believe that HFT does more than cost that penny; they believe that it increases risks for excessive market volatility with no significant useful purpose served. Are they right? I dunno.
It is seriously your opinion that when “the government” has money, it is used to “fund something useful”? That is seriously not my observation.
It’s definitely better than keeping it in the hands of Corporations who hoard it and the 1% who hoard it.
I certainly have a few suggestions as to better ways to spend the tax dollars than we do, but the thing is those suggestions are at least possible through government due to voting. Ain’t no votes going to get the Walton Brothers to spend Walmart money on health care for their employees.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
This. All of it. Cosigned.
You weren’t asking me, but it is definitely my opinion. I live in Minnesota, a state with high taxes and robust government services. I moved back here from Missouri where both are low. Here, my two younger children, who both have autism, get excellent services in school and out of school, all of which is paid for by the government. The roads here are always in good condition thanks to so much money being invested in repairs. And all four of my children have had full single-payer healthcare coverage since before birth, thanks to Medicaid.
If you can figure out a way to create an efficient market consisting only of end users without market makers/speculators you’ll receive a Nobel Prize in economics. People want the ability to transact without waiting days/weeks/months/years for a counterparty to show up. Dealers are useful and have always existed.
Regarding the current US equity market, it’s much better for the public than it’s ever been. The previous system with $0.125 minimum spreads and the NYSE floor-based specialist system was far, far more expensive to mom and pop investors than the current HFT market making regime.