Bernie lost me with the Robin Hood Tax

[Joe the Revelator]

Last edited Wed May 20, 2015, 02:47 AM - Edit history (1)

I gave money to Bernie the day he announced.

I am decidedly middle class.

I cannot afford to have my 401k taxed.Or my kid's 529 taxed. Or my tiny investment fund on Betterment that needs to rebalance EFT's in order to make sure I don't lose everything taxed

This was a bad, panderingish, move on Sander's part, or I'm a rube who didn't understand what his stances would have been. Why didn't the proposal go after capital gains instead of the only viable savings/retirement vehicles the middle class and under have available to them?

I'm a man w/o a candidate, and I don't really see anyone inspiring on the horizon.

***UPDATE: Good talk guys. I've got to get to bed. If you reply, I'll respond to you in the morning or during the day. Work is coming early tomorrow.

[safeinOhio]

1. I thought I heard him say

"high volume trading".
If that's you, can I borrow five bucks?

[Joe the Revelator]

2. High volume trading would include....

funds that are traded within 401ks, 529, and eft accounts because they are traded in volume. It would not effect Johnny Day Trader buying a share of google.

[AgingAmerican]

108. The top .01%

Is who he is talking about. Not your 401k.

[Joe the Revelator]

133. Then why doesn't he offer the offset?

[AgingAmerican]

150. I am in the same boat you are

And I am for it. Everything isn't about me.

[Joe the Revelator]

177. Not much is about me. I lost my healthcare benifits already, and did it with a smile...

...but i draw the line at my retirement and savings.

[CreekDog]

202. oh now wait a minute, are you blaming the ACA for that?

Sounds like your OP is questionable and this latest post has it going further south.

[Joe the Revelator]

204. I blame my company for that, but you could see it coming a mile away. I could added my voice

to those who wanted to do away with it, but I took it and smiled even though it hurt my family.

and What is questionable with the OP? At least I'm not just jumping on a AOBH train or protecting the Queen at all costs of logic. I'm saying I was with Bernie, he went a step to far in my opinion (you can't claim to be a champion of the middle class, and then send a new tax to the middle class right out of the stall). I should be entitled to withdraw support moving forward without all the innuendo.

[CreekDog]

221. Wait, how did the Affordable Care Act cause your company to drop its insurance?

you're on thin ice already, might not wanna dig, but I am curious...

[AgingAmerican]

223. Yeah, it's becoming kinda clear now

nt

[Joe the Revelator]

226. What is becoming clear?

[AgingAmerican]

251. Your agenda

IMHO

[Joe the Revelator]

252. This is what gives me a headache with DU...anyone who doesn't tow a candidates line and points out

piss poor legislation is all of a sudden a shill or a republican. That really does absolutely nothing to prove your point.

My stance is very clear and agendaless. New taxes should not be levied on the middle class, when the upper echelon class has so many more advantages. By backing Bernie, the man who couldn't be bought, I thought i was backing a candidate who would protect the middle class. Instead it looks like he wants to go the Ron Paul route and cater to college kids on the backs of not just the wealthy, but everyone else.

Again, if wanting to protect the middle class makes me a shitty democrat in your eyes, I apologize, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

[TM99]

254. Bullshit!

New legislation is put forth that mirrors previous ones. Facts suggest it will not be devastating to the middle class just as all other FTT proposals have not been. It still remains to be seen what final details will emerge even if it moves forward, which in the Republican controlled Senate is unlikely.

But now, all of sudden Sanders has lost you over this? One single piece of legislation when he has a history of full support for the middle class. For example, he voted against the flawed bankruptcy bill that Clinton and other Democrats applauded. But this one, this one piece makes you a one issue voter?

I don't agree with every thing Sanders has done or does (personally he is a little too DC pro-Israel for my taste!) but in the aggregate, he is far and above the best candidate for a truly progressive economic and foreign policy platform. I don't dislike Clinton because of one Iraq War vote. I dislike her again in the aggregate for a history of neo-liberal and neo-con positions.

Even if, and right now you and I disagree, even if there is a levied tax on retirement funds, it is minimal for what is being offered. All other civilized countries in this day and age offer free university education. And this tax is no where near the VAT levels in Europe.

Because of how outrageous this seems on the surface, yes, the perception is that you have an agenda and/or were never a supporter of Sanders as a candidate to begin with.

[Joe the Revelator]

255. What final details???? Until you accept that this is a NEW bill, that does not offer a carve out,

then the rest of your points are meaningless. I'll respond further in morning. Its quarter of three here and I have work in four hours.

[1StrongBlackMan]

290. Wait ... what? ...

a call to wait for the final details before opposing something? What a novel ... and, highly selectively applied, concept?

[TM99]

292. I see what you did there!

Unlike the TPP, Sanders bill is not secret. It does not have fast track provisions. As a single Senator, he does not have executive veto power. Finally what has been leaked from the TPP is total shit. There may be only one problematic area in this bill, and right now the OP is blowing it the fuck out of proportion.

But hey nice try! *golf clap for you!*

[AgingAmerican]

260. It has to do with right wing economic policies

Irregardless of which candidate is who.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

349. It's regardless.

Although most dictionaries are now begrudgingly allowing irregardless as an idiom, it's a shame.

positive: Regarding
negative: Regardless or "without regard for"
positive: Irregardless or "without without regard for" - double negative - so it actually means regarding!

Sorry, but this is one of my little language peeves. Sorry to bother you!

[AgingAmerican]

350. Good catch...

My mom was an english teacher, we weren't allowed to use double negatives at home. Usually I catch them.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

352. That was the nicest response to a grammar policeman I've ever seen! Good job!

[cui bono]

388. That you possibly got your last name wrong?

[Joe the Revelator]

225. Who's thin ice am I on?

My company has gone from having a PPO, to no longer offering a PPO, to no longer offering HRA,to upping the amount we pay in, to tripling our deductibles, to, the rumor is, setting us loose on the exchange, which like it or not, I took the job for the benefits. Paying 800 dollars a month for a 5k deductible will suck.

[CreekDog]

228. many companies dropped their insurance before the ACA was ever passed

you're just blaming what your company did on the ACA. charming.

[Joe the Revelator]

232. No, in fact, if you READ what i posted above, before just jumping in, I clearly blamed my company

However they tie rising costs due to the ACA to their changes year after year, changes which started after the ACA. I support the ACA (which again, if you had read the thread you're jumping into, you would have known that).

And again, who's ice am i thin on? Yours?

[CreekDog]

259. No, the rate of increases slowed because of ACA

you're not doing a very good job of this.

[delrem]

262. I call bullshit.

I don't believe you lost your healthcare benefits, and "did it with a smile", but are now drawing a line at your "retirement and savings".

I say BULLSHIT.

The only criticism of the ACA I've ever seen at DU is that a faction says that it doesn't go far enough, and a faction of that faction says that the Dem party didn't fight hard enough for a better deal. I've seen NO posts, until yours, complaining that the ACA caused them to lose health care benefits.

Likewise, I don't believe that your "retirement and savings" are at all in jeopardy from the kind of tax Bernie Sanders proposes, so as to fund universal education through college/university (so the USA can catch up with the rest of the world!).

Jeeez.

[still_one]

304. Actually, in some cases the premiums might be unaffordable to some. That is why the

ACA allows someone to opt out of the ACA if the premium for the Bronze plan exceeds 8% of their salary

[delrem]

341. And that explains why he "lost his healthcare benefits" because of the ACA?

But he's drawing the line, now, because Bernie is threatening his retirement?

Interesting reasoning there, still_one.

[still_one]

347. It is puzzling, since I saw another thread which indicated this only affects hedge funds and

speculators, which I don't have a problem with and it might stop this high frequency trading garbage

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

297. Yup yup, me too. Hillary lost me at "hello".

[yeoman6987]

161. I would not worry to much about it

He is proposing. Congress will get a say and if this ever happens which I doubt highly, the way it is paid for will be changed a million times before it say the light of day.

[Joe the Revelator]

179. The point is, I got on board thinking that he would be protecting the middle class...

....his first major proposal goes into middle class retirement accounts and pension funds. Either I misunderstood Sen. Sanders, or he is pandering to college age kids with this bill, which like you said, won't see the light of day. Either way, I can no longer be a faithful supporter.

[AgingAmerican]

263. BullshiT

Your premise is irrational. Going after the middle class? That is absurd on its face.

[Joe the Revelator]

303. Would this tax affect the middle class?

[AgingAmerican]

309. Yes, positively

Not taxing the rich has almost ruined the economy and destroyed the middle class. Opening up college for everyone would help everyone. College educated people start businesses and generate a LOT of economic activity.

The level of a persons bigotry is inversely proportional to their parents college education level.

This program would solve many, many problems in the long term and would especially help minorities.

There is no downside.

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

[Joe the Revelator]

312. You didn't answer the question

You changed the argument into why free education is good. I agree with you. A tax on the middle class is not the way to pay for it.

[passiveporcupine]

351. This would be a progressive tax

that would proportionally impact the wealthy a lot more than the middle class.

"The Robin Hood tax would also slow the growth of automated high frequency trading, which makes the stock market more dangerous,"

"A small tax would make risky HFT unprofitable, and help reduce the excess speculation on commodities like food and gas that drives up prices, which will protect the economy from computer-generated collapses and market manipulation."

-from Bloomberg

And which would make your 401K more stable. Stable growth is good.

"Apparently it’s now a trend to day-trade your retirement account, at least according to a news story published in The Los Angeles Times on Monday.

So I’m here to say, in fact, no one should be day trading his or her retirement account. No one."

-Forbes

Now if you want to read why you shouldn't be day trading your 401K, read this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensweet/2012/07/10/6-reasons-why-day-trading-your-401k-is-dangerous/

[AgingAmerican]

390. It would have a positive effect on taxpayers

I don't buy into the 'tax cut' nonsense.

[Chan790]

335. Yes and...

it primarily benefits the middle class. In the aggregate, you're ahead on the day. You lose some discretionary late-in-life income (perhaps a total of $100 over your lifetime and probably 1/5 of that) while shifting large portions of the cost of post-secondary education onto the government. This is a tax on the ultra-wealthy...they make the overwhelming disproportionate majority of qualifying transactions.

It's like if I raise your taxes $10/year and give you $120/month in increased earning potential.

Fuck...raise my taxes $20/year and throw in $120/month in food too.

$30/month and subsidized housing?

I'd rather have high taxes with high social benefits rather than oppose any new tax on the middle class (especially one that will hit the 1% 10x-1000x over) and maintain the shit-pit of the status quo for the middle class.

[cui bono]

389. I smell another 'Bernie supporter' if you know what I mean...

The "I support Bernie but why is he ________________? I can't get behind that!" type of person.

This seems like the third or fourth person I've seen proclaiming to support him and then attempting to trash him. Seems to be an agreed upon tactic by some.

[AgingAmerican]

391. That is because

They cannot refute him.

It's more like, "I like Bernie, but he isn't Hillary". That is what they are really saying.

[Gregorian]

3. 0.5%- Usuary!

Pretty tame considering the benefits.

[Joe the Revelator]

6. For accounts that are suppose to be tax free?

No thanks.

[Human101948]

279. Your 401K is not "tax free"...it is tax deferred

Which means you will pay taxes on it as income when you withdraw the money.

You should be much more concerned if you are in a fund that takes management fees. You will lose much more through Wall Street's sneaky fees by a factor of hundreds over the long term.

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/2013/hidden-401k-fees-plan-retirement-account-study/

And I am surprised that someone on DU sounds like a greedy billionaire worried about a tiny, tiny percentage on TRADING and SPECULATING which will not affect the average American in any significant way. It will hit the hedge funds and in-an-out high frequency traders. If you leave your money in real investments for years and years you will not even notice.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

296. It's pennies on the thousands of dollars.

[newthinking]

393. You "lose" much more money in your 401K to the games the big financial corps play

The stock market is constantly being screwed with.

If you really want to get worried about a tax on your 401k there is a lot more to worry about than this. People like Bernie will go after more effective and fair reform in these arena's that will benefit you far more.

They have so screwed our economy that they have had to massively QE the backend for years now. That is having a far greater effect on your pension (I have one too) and yet you are concerned about this????

[Bonobo]

4. For your information:

"It would impose a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0.5 percent on stock trades, a 0.1 percent fee on bonds, and a 0.005 percent fee on derivatives."

[Joe the Revelator]

11. We can quibble on what amount of tax is too much...

my position that ANY new tax on supposedly tax free or tax deferred accounts is a non-starter.

[Bonobo]

17. So a small attempt to correct gross economic injustice is a non-starter?

If that's how you feel, then Sanders is definitely the wrong candidate for you and I suspect he never HAD you.

[daleanime]

32. +1

[Joe the Revelator]

40. As i said, he did have me, but again, I may not have understood him as well as I thought he did.

I was a day 1 (or two?) contributor.(A huge $50). Even in small sums, I am a careful as to which politicians I give money to.

[Bonobo]

45. Do you still believe that your 401K would be taxed? nt

[Joe the Revelator]

73. Yes, according to the bill, it will be

There is no off set.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

[Bonobo]

78. Your 401K is a money market then, I suppose.

Not all 401Ks need to be.

[geek tragedy]

196. Unless a retirement fund is a pile of money under a mattress, it will get taxed

under this bill.

[Bonobo]

198. Including long-term savings accounts and bonds? nt

[geek tragedy]

199. Savings account is effectively money under the mattress.

Bonds get taxed by this bill, unless they're tax exempt munis.

[Bonobo]

201. Oh so you didn't actually mean what you said.

I took you at your word.

I was certain you mean it literally since you wrote it in response to my statement that 401Ks need not be linked to money market accounts -as if to refute it.

[AgingAmerican]

264. lol

Not surprised you would jump on this pro wall street bandwagon.

[geek tragedy]

287. Exempt retirement funds and health savings accounts and this is a good bill. nt

[leveymg]

301. I agree. And, 529 College Savings accounts, of course. n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

356. Wrong.

Please see my post at the bottom.

[hatrack]

84. So, what do you pay in management fees, expenses or (God forbid) loads?

I'd bet it's more than 0.5%

[Joe the Revelator]

102. I pay .3 percent. The average is probably 1.0.

https://www.betterment.com/pricing/

[nashville_brook]

101. yeah, this complain is a non-starter.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Why would anyone ever trade a stock

when they could trade a derivative that is directly tied to the stock instead, reducing their tax one hundred fold?

[Human101948]

281. Because unlike a stock, derivatives have no intrinsic value...

They are based on the stock going up or down in price. Once the contract such as a stock option expires, it can be profitable or it can be worthless but there is nothing to sell once it expires.

[PowerToThePeople]

343. Good I say

Let those current market manipulators play in their own imaginary playground of derivatives. Get them out of the real market where stock price has direct repercussions to the citizens of this nation.

[deutsey]

71. That's my understanding

Seems reasonable to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

269. I think the .005% on derivatives is weirdly low, too.

I mean, I'm sure there are creative financial instruments which serve some useful and transparent purpose in the investment and capital world, however, the bastards were cooked up specifically, AFAIUI, to be opaque enough to hide crappy mortgages that could then be ground up, packaged, and sold like sausages filled with mystery meat, directly leading to at least part of the financial clusterfuck we experienced in '08-'09.

A basic stock for a basic stock trade is relatively straightforward, by comparison. I'd support being harsher on derivatives.

[1939]

284. I would make it a 5.0% fee on derivatives NT

[NYC_SKP]

5. "Sanders' bill sets a 50-cent tax on every $100 of stock trades on stock sales"

First, that's not that high.
Second, do you really buy and sell a lot of stock?

Nothing about 401Ks or 529s.

On Tuesday, the Vermont senator will hold a press conference in the nation's capital at which he will introduce a plan to use a so-called Robin Hood tax on stock transactions to fund tuition at four-year public colleges and universities.

Sanders' bill sets a 50-cent tax on every "$100 of stock trades on stock sales, and lesser amounts on transactions involving bonds, derivatives, and other financial instruments," the group Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street said Monday in a press release.

"The Robin Hood tax would also slow the growth of automated high frequency trading, which makes the stock market more dangerous," the press release stated. "A small tax would make risky HFT unprofitable, and help reduce the excess speculation on commodities like food and gas that drives up prices, which will protect the economy from computer-generated collapses and market manipulation."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-18/bernie-sanders-wants-to-tax-stock-trades-to-pay-for-free-college

[Joe the Revelator]

8. That means that everytime a 401k or a 529 or an eft account was rebalanced you lose 50 cents on

every hundred that is moved. Over a 30 year investment career that adds up, not to mention you get taxed again when you want to retire. (which was part of the deal when people started paying into 401ks)

[safeinOhio]

13. You'll get it all back and more

on your kids college education.

[Agschmid]

18. Some of us aren't going to have kids.

But I get the bigger issue.

[Nye Bevan]

19. What if your kids don't want to go to college? (nt)

[morningfog]

42. You'll get a return investment on your neighbor's kid'a education.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

283. You'll get new tech, advances in living longer, living better, etc, from the kids who go to school.

If we'd never started having universities, we'd all still be dwelling in thatch huts we shared with lice and fleas and using outhouses.

[geek tragedy]

36. What about those without kids under 22? nt

[Ilsa]

67. You get an educated population more concerned with

Quality work and services verses worrying about repaying outrageous student loans. I know I'd rather my doctor think about what I need versus whether she'll make enough to repay her student loans.

[geek tragedy]

146. I oppose taking money away from janitors' retirement accounts and giving it

to doctors and lawyers.

Doctors are not hurting for money.

[F4lconF16]

208. Nice that you still believe

Most janitors or any other low income workers have 401k's.

[Joe the Revelator]

233. They have city pensions. which would be affected as well.

[Ilsa]

272. So throw the baby out with the bath water.

The amended legislation could exempt lower dollar 401(k)s. Exempt certain pension accounts. Even if the pension account is taxed, it is likely that the janitor still benefits from more people able to get a college education vs the US having a trillion dollars in student loan debt. It's been my experience that janitors get laid off pretty quickly when the economic shit hits the fan.

[geek tragedy]

286. Change it and then I'd support the bill.

Not sure I buy your trickle-down argument re: college debt and janitors.

[Ilsa]

316. It's not trickle-down when we have downturns like 2008.

And there is enough student loan debt to create huge economic problems if graduates can't find work and pay their debts.

I have friends cleaning their own offices and doing trash duty because the janitors have been let go.

[muriel_volestrangler]

345. There's a tax credit for an individual with a modified adjusted gross income under $50k

or a couple under $75k.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file (Section 503 "OFFSETTING CREDIT FOR FINANCIAL TRANS-
9 ACTION TAX&quot

[passiveporcupine]

353. thanks for posting this n/t

[geek tragedy]

384. that exempts lower income retirees from paying the tax if they directly sell stocks in their

possession.

No such carve out exists for retirement plans such as CalPERS or NYCTRS. They'd have to pay the tax, which means less money available to their beneficiaries.

[muriel_volestrangler]

386. It's a small tax for an ongoing fund

A pension fund that has a long-term outlook and fairly unchanging needs for its members (money regularly coming in from those working and paying out to retirees) will have a low turnover ratio. It seems quite reasonable to think they'd keep a stock for at least 5 years on average, in which case the tax would be 0.1% or less per year of the fund value.

[geek tragedy]

387. Except that all/most proceeds to retirees

would come from sales of stocks and bonds. So it's effectively a 1% tax on benefits-.5% upon purchase of assets and .5% upon sale. Assuming no rebalancing or active management, which is almost never the case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

392. It's only paid once per transaction, by the broker

If you want to count it for an individual (or fund) for both purchase and sale, then they each effectively pay 0.25%.

In practice, pension funds will have money coming in from working members, and from dividends, and will be paying that out to retirees, and the amount of new purchases will just be from the amount the capital of the fund is added to, rather than all the benefits. It's the active management that would be the main factor, I think, and I'd expect pension funds to have a long-term outlook - they ought to, anyway. I think it should work out under 0.1% per year for a well-run fund.

In the UK, this duty ('stamp duty reserve tax') already applies, at that 0.5% rate, to all purchases of stocks (it's clear in the UK that the tax is on the purchase, and I think it would need to be clear in the US whether it's on purchase, sale or split, for that under $50k tax credit to be implemented). Funds cope, and so do individual investors.

[L0oniX]

383. ...cause janitors are the 1%.

[valerief]

70. You get an educated society who have the good sense to vote

for a socialist democracy.

[NYC_SKP]

222. I believe that you're mistaken.

Ordinary, long-term investors would not be affected by the measure, which would place a small financial transactions tax (three cents per $100 in value) on non-consumer financial trades in stocks, bonds and other debts after an initial public offering. For example, there would be no tax on a loan to a company, but if the financial institution traded the debt, the trade would be subject to the tax. The fee would also cover all derivative contracts, options, puts, forward contracts, swaps and other complex instruments at their actual cost.

By setting the tax rate so low, the measure would not impact the market’s traditional role supporting economic activity. It would, however, reduce certain speculative activities like high-speed computer arbitrage trading. A speculation fee could help to shift Wall Street away from short-term trading. Given the very high volume of financial trading, it will raise considerable funds, badly needed to protect Medicare, Medicaid, and other important federal investments and for reducing deficits.

Earlier this year, a group of 11 European governments agreed to implement a financial transaction tax. The action allows for a tax of 10 basis points on stocks and one basis point on derivatives on financial transactions by the following countries: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Greece, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Estonia.

[Joe the Revelator]

224. Whats the source on that? I believe that is talking about the Haskin FTT bill....

which had carve outs for retirement vehicles. The bill that Sanders introduced today does not.

h

[NYC_SKP]

231. http://www.sanders.senate.gov

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/robin-hood-tax-to-reduce-wall-street-greed

The above was from 2013, so I stand corrected.

The excerpt below is from this week:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/make-college-tuition-free

Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.
This legislation is offset by imposing
a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of
0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005%
fee on derivatives.
It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year
which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country,
it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this count

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

[Joe the Revelator]

234. Right. The offset here is the cost of the college tuition. There is no offset for retirement funds,

529's and the like.

[LittleBlue]

82. That is absolutely outrageous from Sanders

I do taxes for small day traders who aren't rich. It's more of a hobby. Some of them cashed out from their retirement (stupidly) when their employer offered them a lump sum. One has cash from a divorce settlement. Some have about $100k cash or less. They day trade to make an extra few bucks. Some lose money so often they're in danger of being ruled a hobby rather than a business. None have the billions it takes to influence the price of a commodity.

I've calculated one who would owe $210,000, twice as much cash as he actually possesses, even during years where he lost money. These aren't rich people, they are just hoping that their bank accounts don't run out before they die.

Sanders is going to lose me if he goes after the middle class and retirees. Transaction taxes suck for this reason. He needs a minimum income threshold or I'm done. Go after the institutions, not old day traders who do it instead of going to the casino slot machines. Robin Hood robbed the rich, not pensioners.

[Joe the Revelator]

104. +1

[padfun]

138. Hey...

Those of us who do lots of casino slot machines pay one hell of a lot of our measley wins to taxes. And if it's a tournament win, the IRS taxes it as non gambling, which means you cant write off gambling losses on it.

just saying... because we gamblers pay a lot more in taxes than stock speculators and 401k investments.

[LittleBlue]

156. Not when you lose. Never heard of these tournament rules or anyone who did a slot tournament

but 99.999999% of slots players are normal slots players, where losses offset wins and owe nothing. Most people lose money.

Imagine a scenario where a woman has a net worth of $250,000, which includes her home minus mortgage. She lost about $4,000 last year. Under this plan, she would owe around $65,000 from that year. Where she lost money. She'd have to sell her home. That isn't fictitious, she's my client.

Ridiculous

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

282. Then she better quit gambling. Because the house is adding a cost to buy in to each hand.

And it sounds like she's folding over and over, paying that fee without actually ever winning anything. I used to daytrade, back when my boss at work did as well, and left one of those real time stock-tracking programs open all the time and let us call our brokers from the office during work hours. And the only thing that suggests to me is that she needs to make sure she doesn't sell quite as fast, but actually ride the stock up enough to cover the transaction tax and then some.

The effect of the transaction tax is to kill off the worst of the trade for pennies on the share trades. To reduce volatility by making people hold stocks a bit longer, and give actual human beings more power again and less to people with their own trade servers located at the exchange with programs running the trading.

She's a gambler, not an investor. And sometimes gamblers lose their houses.

[Chan790]

336. She needs to stop day-trading.

Sorry...I have no sympathy for hobbyist and/or pensioner day-traders. They're part of the problem...if this bill drives them out of day-trading, that's a good thing.

[Joe the Revelator]

167. What you're looking for is a capital gains tax...

not a tax on rebalancing 401ks

[kenfrequed]

205. Wait a minute.

This kind of a tax would actually create an incentive for more stable and long term investments. The idea of continual, daily reinvestment is sort of a numbers game that brokerage houses use anyways to up the benefits to their larger individual investors at the cost of all the pensions and 401K people.

We really shouldn't be encouraging tons of purely hyper speculative investment as it is bad for the economy and tends to create bubbles that destroy the investments of the little guys anyhow. This cloud of speculation, credit default swaps, derivatives, and investment houses that seek to pad their well heeled clients at the expense of everyone else needs to be straightened out.


http://www.cepr.net/documents/ftt-facts-myths.pdf

[Joe the Revelator]

235. Funds that trade in EFT need to be rebalanced quite often, which requires a trade.

So everytime that happens in your 401k or small ETF fun or whatever, you are going to get taxed on it.

[kenfrequed]

291. it is a tax on trades

If your broker is calling it "rebalancing" I would question what they are really doing for you and whether they are serving your interests or one of their wealthier clients.

[kenfrequed]

299. Additionally,

Rebalancing is something that would cost you a lot more in brookerage fees anyhow and should really only be done at most once a quarter. If your investment house is rebalancing you daily than they are screwing you out of a lot of money in traders fees.

[LittleBlue]

257. Then why not an income threshold? Middle class people aren't institutions or other market-makers

They aren't powerful enough to manipulate anything


What I find utterly bizarre is that this same forum will decry sales tax as regressive, but will not recognize a flat tax on trading as regressive.

Are flat taxes regressive? The answer is yes. Then why do you support it?

[kenfrequed]

293. Regressive?

Do you know a lot of the working poor as having heavy portfolios with speculative brokerage houses? This is a fee on excessive speculation trading that does more harm than good and actually doesn't add anything to the economy.

[still_one]

305. Even writing covered calls could be considered day trading to supplement income

[dannward]

313. Your friend generates 42 million in trades a year?

At 0.5% (50 cents per $100 in trades; 1/200th of the transaction value), your friend would owe $210k in taxes only if he traded $42,000,000 of transactions a year - around $200k in trades every weekday.

Seems like a very high volume of transactions for no profit. There's no way I'd move twice my liquid assets around in the market every single day - my stomach could never handle that much stress.

[Hoyt]

7. I'm not opposed to the tax for education. It's been proposed before.

[Joe the Revelator]

9. I am not opposed to a tax either, just who the tax is going to affect.

This was a great opportunity to increase capital gains taxes. Not putting hands into retirement funds.

[Hoyt]

22. It's a small amount. Truthfully, if you have kids who might go to college you'll come out ahead.

Even if you don't , everyone of us benefit from a well educated society. Long-term, your investments will likely increase by more than the half of one percent due solely to better education and kids not saddled with debt.

There's no downside and we all should jump at the opportunity.

[questionseverything]

134. minimum income seems reasonable

or maybe we should double personal exemptions as a starting point on helping the middle class

[DJ13]

10. If a Third Way Dem gets into office and you end up making less

.... should your job be offshored, what would that do to further adding funds to your investments?

The added taxes are a small price to pay if you desire to maintain your current standard of living.

[Joe the Revelator]

14. Other things can be taxed....mainly capital gains.

[Scootaloo]

76. Let me guess - you don';t have any capital gains to be taxed?

All you're doing is making a NIMBY argument.

[Joe the Revelator]

86. No, who feels a % tax more?

Guy A who's 500 dollar trade gets taxed 3 dollars or a someone who gained 250k on an investment?

What seems more fair? A tax deferred account, actually being tax deferred, or a tax on actual income?

[Scootaloo]

140. I see no reason to not tax both.

But then I'm also that guy who doesn't think churches ought to be tax-exempt.

If "only" making $497 on a trade really turns your ass around, well then... bye

[Joe the Revelator]

172. If having 3 dollars taken out of a tax deferred retirement account....

everytime the fund rebalances isn't a new tax on the middle class then maybe you could try the purity test bs. Protecting ALL of the middle class is as good a reason to be a democrat as any.

[Agschmid]

12. Read this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026697578

You'll feel better.

[TM99]

15. Whoa, hold on there buddy!

You just got had by the damned Mainstream Media.

The so-called 'Robin Hood Tax' will NOT apply to your 401k or your kid's 529.

Please do more research. Read this article for example --

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/pages/financial-transaction-tax

The Basics of a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT)

Equivalent to sales taxes Americans pay for most goods and services; no similar tax exists on Wall Street transactions.

Would not apply to normal consumer activity including use of ATMs, debit card purchases, 401k pension plans, or obtaining a home loan. Minimal impact on ordinary investors.

Targets major banks, investment firms. Financial giants Citigroup, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley alone account for almost 25% of the total overall global market volume share of currency trades.

Should discourage some excessive Wall Street speculation, the main cause of the 2008 economic crash, whose perpetrators were rewarded with bailouts and bonuses. Speculative activity has grown 400% in the past decade; only 2% of currency trades today build the real economy in goods and services.

An international campaign. More than 15 nations, and the seven fastest growing markets, have an FTT. The European Commission has proposed an FTT that would raise 78 billion euros a year.

Highly successful. The London Stock Exchange, with a .5% tax on each stock trade, has been very successful in raising revenues, while not inhibiting financial activity, remaining the largest in Europe.

Tough to evade. In Great Britain, those who fail to pay the FTT do not get title to securities.

Not a new idea. The U.S. had an FTT from 1914 to 1966. After the 1987 U.S. Wall Street crash, major U.S. politicians, including Senate Majority leader Bob Dole and the first President Bush, endorsed reinstating an FTT.

Further -

Traders could also be legally barred from passing along the costs to consumers. The main target is big banks and investment firms, such as Citigroup, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. They alone account for almost 25 percent of total global market volume on currency trades.

This is not a bad or pandering move on Sander's part. This type of FTT exists in numerous countries. The UK is specifically referenced in this particular article. It does not target middle class consumers and you will not be penalized in the least!

He is beginning with this (only a $.50 tax on every $100.00 of trade) and I am quite confident given his platform and legislative history that he will put forth the tax on capital gains as well. This does NOT impact the savings/retirement vehicles of the middle class.

Please reconsider your hasty conclusion.

[Joe the Revelator]

27. Thats true for the Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Act but..

http://www.cepr.net/documents/ftt-facts-myths.pdf


My understanding is that it is NOT true for the Sanders plan introduced today. The off set for 401ks and 529's would not be included.

[TM99]

39. No.

Sanders introduced other variations on this bill in both 2011 and 2012.

The benefits are towards education this time but the specifics have not changed.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Financial_transaction_tax

There is nothing new about the FTT.

Where are you getting your counter information?

[Joe the Revelator]

52. From the bill....it includes no off set

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

[TM99]

57. I just covered this in another post.

That is the bill summary.

He is referencing the Robin Hood Tax or FTT. All versions are designed to NOT penalize the working investor.

[Joe the Revelator]

69. Which post 58 refuted.

[TM99]

74. And post 68 by me

further refutes.

For fuck's sake. This is NOTHING new. The Robin Hood Tax and FTT are well known.

This will not penalize you.

[questionseverything]

145. woohooo

but lets do capital gains soon too!!

[Joe the Revelator]

171. See post 132.

[geek tragedy]

29. How would this not apply to purchases and sales of stock by public employee pension funds? nt

[TM99]

43. Some information on this --

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Financial_transaction_tax

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/pages/financial-transaction-tax

On the whole unions, both public & private, have been on board with variations of the FTT for some time now.

This will not penalize the working class.

[geek tragedy]

49. This doesn't have the 401k carve-out that DeFazio/Harkin had.

It's also a lot more than the amount of DeFazio-Harkin.

[TM99]

54. Yes, all variations of the Robin Hood Tax

are specifically designed to not penalize the 401k's of working class investors.

Here is the summary -

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

He specifically mentions the Robin Hodd Tax - the FTT. I linked you to the facts.

This will not impact 401k's.

Can you provide factual information from links to the contrary?

[geek tragedy]

58. Yes: the actual text of the bill.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

See pages 23-24.

[TM99]

68. Now read the rest of the bill.

Exceptions are covered on pages 26 through 29.

The normal working investor will not be penalized. Those vehicles, like 401k's, 529's, union pension plans, will be exempt.

As I said, this is the standard FTT (Robin Hood Tax) that he and others have put forth for some time.

[geek tragedy]

77. What section exempts ERISA funds?

It says exchange, broker, or purchaser if there is no broker or exchange.

[TM99]

96. What are you talking about?

ERISA is not a fund, it is a federal law.

Among other things, it specifically defines contribution plans including SIMPLEs, 401ks, ESOPs, SEPs, Profit Sharing, etc. which all involve purchasers, brokers, and an exchange.

[geek tragedy]

116. Yes, I know ERISA is a law.

Point being, where does Sanders' legislation exempt employee retirement funds from having to pay this tax?

[TM99]

119. I already linked to the exemptions.

[geek tragedy]

126. No, you linked to websites. You haven't identified the language in the legislation that exempts

employee retirement funds.

As a further aside, query whether the money raised would be better spent on infrastructure or health care.

[TM99]

129. Read the previous bills.

Read the new bill.

Read the information on the FTT.

I am done.

[geek tragedy]

131. I read the new bill. Obviously you haven't. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

132. This. Is. A. New. Bill.

The original FTT bill blatantly had tax off sets for retirement accounts.


This one does not.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

[geek tragedy]

55. They've been on board so long as it doesn't apply to worker pensions and retirement

funds.
This bill does not exempt them.

It taxes all stock transactions. All of them.

[Joe the Revelator]

87. You're making this argument much more eloquently than i am

Thank you for that.

[A HERETIC I AM]

357. But not purchases or sales of Mutual Funds.

For the answer as to why, see my post at the bottom of the thread.

[geek tragedy]

359. But mutual funds do purchase and sell securities.

Thus this tax reduces the value of the mutual funds themselves.

[A HERETIC I AM]

363. Yes they do, but as a holder of MF shares, YOU DO NOT.

The OP is concerned he will be taxed when he rebalances his 401(k).

He has nothing to worry about.

I read the pertinent portion of the bill to see i specified "trades"

As I said in the post I directed you to at the bottom of this thread, Mutual Fund shares do not trade.

Any fees realized by the Fund company will likley be added to the expense ratio of the fund, but I would be surprised if MF's are not exempted, either by language I have yet to read, subsequent additions or lawsuit.

[geek tragedy]

366. the bill would have to be amended.

Part of the problem, of course, is that if you take away the taxes on retirement plans, mutual funds, etc then you reduce the amount of tax revenue generated.

So there is a little bit of a sleight of hand going on here--sure you can raise a whole boatload of cash from such a tax, but the more it's treated as a source of revenue, the less it focuses on Wall Street as it then starts hitting retirees.

[bunnies]

20. Congratulations on being part of the 1%!!!

FYI - You are not in the middle class. Youre in the billionaire class!

Meanwhile:

Progressive Groups Rally Behind Sanders' Plan to Tax 1% and Fund Higher Ed

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/19/progressive-groups-rally-behind-sanders-plan-tax-1-and-fund-higher-ed

but dont let that get in the way of your cool story!

[geek tragedy]

23. This would be a tax on every public employee retirement fund.

It's not a great idea. High frequency trading should be targeted, but retired workers shouldn't bear the brunt of the expense.

[KT2000]

35. retired workers would not

bear the expense. Look up-thread - there are descriptions of what is targeted

[geek tragedy]

44. This would tax every share of stock purchased or sold by an employee retirement fund

So, it would be a tax on their retirement accounts and pensions.

It would be an indirect tax on retirees who work for state and local governments,and anyone else with a 401k.

[bunnies]

46. Wall St is a gamble.

I wouldnt invest my retirement in it. And if your at the point where you have earned a "large transaction fee", Im pretty sure youll be ok.

[Joe the Revelator]

30. Huh? nt

[bunnies]

31. Click on the link. Its not hard. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

75. It is since it makes no sense

This isn't a tax just on the 1%. Its a tax on anyone who has a 401k or a public pension.

[bunnies]

89. Please provide a link to the basis of your argument.

Your broker might have to pay a tax on his massive transfers and youre upset? This is EXACTLY how republicans get those to vote against their best interests.

[geek tragedy]

21. This is a conversation starter--it would never become law--unions would kill it

before that happened.

I'm not dropping Bernie over one bad piece of legislation that will never become law.

[Cheese Sandwich]

187. The unions would kill it? You may be mistaking who runs Washington.

The big financial institutions by far would be the most powerful concentrated opposition to this.

Labor I think will mostly go along with it.


NNU has been the biggest booster for it of all... http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017266587

[geek tragedy]

191. We'll see how CalPERS and NYCTRS react.

It needs a carve out to prevent pension funds from getting taxed. Also, if you're going to tax pension funds the money should benefit working people now. Spending every dime of this on college kids misses the mark.

[Cheese Sandwich]

213. The money raised by the new tax would be more than the cost of college tuitition.

All the tuition comes less than $100 billion / year.

The financial transaction tax could raise significantly more than that, maybe $300 billion / year.

$300 is the estimate Rep. Keith Ellison used for revenue when he introduced the same tax in the House.

That money could be spent on something else, or used to reduce the deficit.

And that's what Senator Sanders indicated in his press conference today, that the extra money could be used to meet other needs.

But having said all that, I strongly disagree with your claim that college tuition is not a working class issue. It is an issue of great concern to working class families.

For one thing you are dismissing "college kids" as not being "working people". For another thing you forget people have families they care about so if mom and dad are working people, it is of no benefit to them if their kids need to take out a $50,000 loan. Student debt hits working families hard. A lot of the debt is taken on by parents as well.

This is in response to your statement:

if you're going to tax pension funds the money should benefit working people now. Spending every dime of this on college kids misses the mark.

edit: It's also misleading to describe this as a tax on pension funds. This is not a tax on funds. This is a tax on transactions. When piano players buy mayonnaise they pay sales tax. We don't call that a tax on piano players, or a mayonnaise tax. The tax is on the transaction. Maybe retirement funds should be exempt. That's a valid point.

[kcr]

24. Capital gains?? But I'm middle class, too!

(Hey, why not. Everyone thinks they're middle class, right? *wink*) I can't afford to have that taxed either, wahh! Best to just stick to more regressive tax schemes and vote for less progressive candidates. That makes sense. That will be sure to help out the *cough middle class *cough*

[Joe the Revelator]

34. Is the jibe here that I'm not part of the middle class because I have a small 401k and my kid has..

an equally small 529 account (right now with a whopping $100 in it, granted he was only born in feburary).

The ability to save does not kick one out of the '99%'. We eat a lot of ramen.

[kcr]

38. No...

The jibe here is you think the most progressive candidate out there has policies that hurts the middle class.

[Joe the Revelator]

120. Does this tax affect the retirement accounts of the middle class?

If yes, then he does. Which is why I said initially that this is a stupid bill for him to introduce.

[kcr]

178. For one thing, yes, I'm pretty sure you have your facts wrong.

For another, I have a hard time believing someone who would use a term like "Robin Hood Tax" was ever all that much of a Bernie supporter to begin with. You realize Robin Hood stole from the rich, right?

[Joe the Revelator]

180. You realize that Bernie Sanders himself refers to it as 'The Robin Hood Tax' right?

See the last paragraph here: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

And again, this is the full bill. Tell me where I'm wrote about an offset to retirement funds and pensions:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

[kcr]

181. Wow. Is Bernie trashing himself and claiming it will punish the middle class?

Huh. That would be pretty stupid if he's doing that.

[Joe the Revelator]

183. No, the bill does that for him.

[kcr]

185. According to you n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

186. According to anyone who thinks taxing the middle classes retirement funds is a dumb idea....

...that WILL lose him support.

[kcr]

189. If a politician had to worry about every half baked ridiculous opinion

No one could get elected. I think Bernie is safe to let this one pass. Seriously. Anyone who would worry about this tiny tax isn't worth worrying about.

[Joe the Revelator]

190. I don't know if that's true.

But you are entitled to your opinion. Anecdotally, he lost my support, so he's -1.

[kcr]

194. Aw. He lost your support.

Actually, I think that's the goal. The hope is to move leftward. Collateral damage as far as I'm concerned. As I say, anyone worried about this tiny tax...

[Joe the Revelator]

215. You do understand that this is not how you win elections....lose the middle class and who is going

to be voting blue on election day?

Also, on a personal level, I'm finding his supporters, at least by this tread, to be full of not much substance in their support. He's standing on a much more precarious house of cards than I thought.

[kcr]

220. Take such advice from an ex loyal Bernie supporter such as yourself?

Nah, I think I'll take my chances. But, thanks anyway. I'm normally not so strident, but I adjust the pepper in my posts according to need. There's something off about you.

[Joe the Revelator]

229. I'm breaking ranks and you don't like it. Nothing off with that...

...other than it would appear that you don't like those who disagree with you. Check my post history, I have been around a LOOOONG time. I was a staunch Obama supporter during the 08 primary, a Howard Dean supporter in 04 (with an admitted crush on Wes Clark) so I'm not some Hillary shill trying to rattle people up. Bernie was my man going into today, but he is no longer. I really shouldn't have to explain an opinion to you

[kcr]

238. No, you don't have to explain an opinion, but when you do and your facts don't add up

you get called out on it. I'm sure it appears as though I don't like it. I think that's just projection on your part because it's no fun to be told you're wrong.

[Joe the Revelator]

242. Here's the problem. My facts DO add up. Read the damn bill.

I'll link it for you again. This is off Bernie's own site. This is the bill, warts and all. There is no exception for retirement funds or savings as there was in the original FTT. You're friend below who thought he/she was scoring points was doing nothing but quoting from the '12, '13 bills that Bernie supported at the time, but that are completely different then this bill he has proposed. Please. Read the bill for yourself. I'd love to be proved wrong.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

[kcr]

247. I read the damn bill

Tell me why we ignore all the college students in debt? If the quick trade throw your retirement in there and gamble you can be rich too! Woo hoo! scheme works so well that oh boy! That just shouldn't be discouraged in any way whatsoever tax that!? Never! Then how is it that it hasn't worked out for very many?

[Joe the Revelator]

249. THAT wasn't your argument. Your argument was that my fact RE: 401k's being taxed was wrong. It's not

You can change your argument now, but what you're throwing out is a red herring.

And, my friend, i don't think you understand how a 401k works. You're throwing things into a pot of funds that are traded in volume. In order to NOT have it be such a gamble you have to move stocks into bonds at a regular clip in order to keep the ratio correct and the risk level small. Under this bill, doing that will be taxed every time, multiple times a year. Its bad legislation.

[A HERETIC I AM]

355. You're wrong.

Please see my post at the bottom of the thread.

[Bonobo]

41. Where did you hear that a 401K would be taxed, Joe? nt

[Joe the Revelator]

72. From the bill. It includes no offset for 401ks, public pensions or 529s

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

[Bonobo]

83. Go for a stable value fund or have your money in a savings account then. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

88. Or, don't be a guy who taxes retirement funds.

[Bonobo]

92. Your retirement funds are already taxed. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

94. With a deferred tax, I could rephrase and say....

don't be the guy who adds new taxes to retirement funds.

[Bonobo]

103. Why not? The money that comes from your investment involves no effort.

The additional tax is for the same reason and justification as the current tax on it. Namely to support the country you live in and its citizenry.

What is the basis for your arbitrary "the tax stops here" argument?

Tax rates have always fluctuated based on the current societal conditions.

[Joe the Revelator]

109. The same reason I wouldn't support any other tax that goes after the middle class.

Billy Fat Cat may not need his retirement funds, but I do.

[Bonobo]

121. Yup, you are making it clear that your needs are more important than others, I guess.

You DO know that is a position that everyone pretty much says when they want to defend their lack of will to help out the brutally suffering underclass, right?

[Joe the Revelator]

137. Brother, I'm helping out.

I draw the line at retirement accounts. That is changing the rules mid game.

[Bonobo]

141. You acknowledge that tax rates change frequently through history, right?

[Joe the Revelator]

154. Sure. So are we now saying that as a democrat, I am suppose to support tax increases....

on the lower earners, when we have all agreed that the problem is with the highest earners?

[Bonobo]

160. Not at all.

I would encourage you to support tax increases on those who are disproportianately reaping in $$ from investments though.

The truly poor cannot invest in a system that earns them money for doing nothing.

They deserve to be lifted up for their hard work and given equal opportunities.

The truth is that money accrued from investments should be taxed at a higher rate than they currently are.

The truth is that America is terribly unequal.

The truth is that the Robin Hood tax would be a tax increase which is very, very Progressive and affects mostly the very wealthy.

[Joe the Revelator]

165. 'The truth is that money accrued from investments should be taxed at a higher rate than they current

EXACTLY! Capital Gains should be fair gain. The cost of rebalancing a 401k should not.

[TM99]

128. Read the exemptions.

This is a bill in full on legalese. You will notice there is no mention of Day Trading specifically yet it is covered by what will be taxed. The exemptions do not specifically mention 401k's, 529's, or public pensions by name but they are covered.

This bill was released just hours ago. When it is parsed and analyzed by the financial journalists this will be made apparent.

[Joe the Revelator]

136. What language covers them?

Because I don't see it.

[elleng]

25. Have not read details,

if they are yet available, but don't think this tax is intended to attach to the vehicles/transactions you are concerned about, but rather bigger ones of bigger fish.

[Joe the Revelator]

37. They are...it would be small, but still, there are better ways to go about this.

re:re:re: capital gains tax.

[WillyT]

26. Robin Hood Taxed The RICH... To Give To the Poor... You Telling Me You're RICH ???

This is exactly what puts the election up for grabs...

People who don't know a damned thing about the politics of their "position".

[Joe the Revelator]

61. No, I'm telling you this is a bad move on Sanders part.

Because it DOESN"T tax the rich, it taxes the middle class.

[WillyT]

65. How ???

[Joe the Revelator]

79. Because instead of going after the so called 'fat cats', he's going against anyone who is in the

market.

[WillyT]

85. Link ???

[Joe the Revelator]

93. Read the bill?

If effects EVERYONE who happens to have money in the market. Any trade. No offset for 401ks, pensions, 529s ect. Even if you don't trade, you would pay when your account would need to be rebalanced. Its not just the 1% who are in the market.

[WillyT]

98. I'd LOVE To See It... Link ???

[Joe the Revelator]

110. Link to the full text of the bill

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

[TM99]

117. The link is up thread.

I addressed all these bogus complaints in various supporting fact links.

The willful denial is making me begin to question the sincerity of the concerns expressed.

[Joe the Revelator]

118. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill...point out where there is a retirement fund offset

[TM99]

123. For fuck's sake.

I have provided ample facts to back up my assertions.

I have discussed the FTT (Robin Hood Tax). I have linked to the myths, including this one, which have been debunked time and time again. I have referenced the exemptions.

You have not backed up yours one whit!

The bill was released today. All of these specifics will be on all of the news sites in the coming days just as they were in 2011 and 2012 when Sanders introduced similar legislation.

[Joe the Revelator]

130. You have discussed, at great length, the orginal FTT.

You have not, by any means, discussed the bill, that has been provided to you, that is already out there. You don't need the 'news sites' to digest it for you. Here it is:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

Show me where there is an offset for retirement accounts.

[bunnies]

100. You wont get a link and I wont either.

Bernie isnt even polling high is theyre going to these lengths already. lol.

[Joe the Revelator]

114. Who are "they"? Stop seeing boogymen in the shadows. Look at my damn post history...

before you start implying I'm a shill.

[Joe the Revelator]

115. Also here is the link to the full text of the bill

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

Please point out the off-set I missed.

[MaggieD]

91. He knows it won't pass

You called it in the OP. It's pandering. Not a realistic solution.

[WillyT]

124. It Once Was... The Only Way The Rich Could Shelter Their Asserts Was By Tax Shelters...

Sometimes known as Bonds... you know...

Public Education, Public Housing, Science/Medicine, Highways/Bridges/Freeways/Etc...

They also used to be called "Tax Shelters".

IOW... if you don't wan't to pay that tax rate... we have a way to fix that for ya ...

[MaggieD]

135. The truly rich won't pay taxes

... No matter how you raise them. The problem is the loopholes. Not the tax rate.

[Joe the Revelator]

139. This.

:thumbsup

[WillyT]

144. Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt... Are You Kiddding Me ???

[Joe the Revelator]

163. Off topic...that shrugging smilie is evilly passive aggressive.

I like that.

[deutsey]

64. "Taxes" has become such a dirty word since that fucker Reagan

and the rich have duped so many of us into thinking that we're in the same boat (or yacht) as them, it's going to be a while before we can get a more rational view to prevail.

The so-called "death tax" is a prime example. Has nothing to do with most of us and everything to do with the ultra-wealthy, but we've been duped into opposing it as if we have some vested interest in it.

I sometimes think we'll have to sink into a third-world, feudal society before the majority of people will start to realize that they're not in The Club that George Carlin told us about.

[lancer78]

113. Thats for sure

and with the right planning, the death tax is completely avoidable. It is ironic that perhaps the most easily avoidable tax is named after the least avoidable thing in life.

[Logical]

28. Lol, something tells me you have more money than you're letting on. Nt

[Electric Monk]

50. Or, more likely, as Steinbeck put it, he's one of the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” ― John Steinbeck

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-socialism-never-took-root-in-america-because-the-poor-see

[Joe the Revelator]

81. Completely off topic, but that is a great line

[Joe the Revelator]

63. I wish.

Seriously, its as I've said. If i had millions, i wouldn't be overly concerned about a small tax. Which is why I'm all for an increased capital gains tax.

[niyad]

33. robin hood tax?

[Half-Century Man]

47. 401k's are designed to maximise profits for the traders, not provide security.

Each 401k has to pay the trader for each trade rather than the single (but larger) trade fee paid by an group policy (Pension). Money markets have evolved to occupy the gap of pensions left.
This is why Reagan and his band of merry republicans were so happy to endorse them; they steal from the poor and give to the rich.

If you are forced to rely on a 401k, you are already boned. I was, we all are.

[Joe the Revelator]

53. If true, why get boned more? Boning the already boned isn't very fair to begin with. nt

[Scootaloo]

147. You have a very interesting standard for "getting boned."

[Joe the Revelator]

158. Read the post I was replying to for context.

[Travis_0004]

379. My 401k is up over 15% in the last 12 months

I would not call that getting boned.

[LeftyMom]

48. ¡Pobrecito!

"And under" (you can't even mention the poor because the obviousness of your bullshit would be apparent) don't have the option to save or invest. Fight your own damn battles, you don't give a damn about the poor.

[Joe the Revelator]

59. Everybody has the option to invest. Its not a magical unicorn...

Take a site like betterment.com, you can invest a 1 a week if you'd like.

Putting 3% of my paycheck into a 401k is not magically going to by me a mansion. It MAY allow me to ONE day stop working full time. Maybe. The point is, I've been paying into it.
.


If you're saying that anyone who has the ability to save a couple of dollars here and there is 'rich', then i really don't know what to tell you.

[LeftyMom]

62. The poor don't have anything to spare. That's what "poor" means, genius.

Usually smug bullshit like yours comes out of the mouths of Republicans.

[Joe the Revelator]

66. I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Or what rich means. If having a few extra dollars at the end of the month makes one 'rich' then by god I guess I'm rich.

If that makes someone middle class, then I think we'd be using accurate terminology. Genius.

And by all means, keep up the purity test bullshit.

[giftedgirl77]

142. Don't take it to hard, it's becoming painfully clear

half of them have no idea what their talking about & they other half is going to hate you & assume that you're an evil 1% for discussing investment concerns.

I'm a single mother of 2 teenage boys & live completely off of my VA disability & Social Security & am middle class. But yes, I have savings & investments & do understand what you are saying.

[Joe the Revelator]

162. Thank you. :)

I'm at best middle management, my wife is a public school teacher, and we just had our first kid. Times are very tight at the moment with childcare and just life in general, but I still try to put something away for when we are old and grey, even if it means hot dogs and kraft dinner for supper a couple of times a week. I am fortunate than some, but not to the point where I feel like my retirement account should be fair game, when there are other options.

[AZ Progressive]

51. Robin Hood tax? Frank Luntz would love that word n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

60. Sanders has embraced it

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

[abelenkpe]

56. You don't understand

It doesn't apply to 401ks or your kids 529.

[MaggieD]

80. Same here on the panderish move

[Bonobo]

90. Yeah, stop "pandering" to the 99%!!!

LOL.

[MaggieD]

95. So all of us with a 401k or college fund....

... Are part of the 1% now?

[TM99]

105. This DOES NOT impact your 401k or college fund.

The exemptions are clearly presented in the linked-to bill.

This is not a new bill even though it is now being used for college tuition. Sanders brought forth similar bills in 2011 and 2012.

It is the standard FTT (Robin Hood Tax). All of the myths, including this one, have been debunked for some time.

But the disingenuous will perpetrate them to tear down a serious challenger in the Democratic Primary.

[Joe the Revelator]

122. I do not see the exemption for retirement funds that you keep alluding to.

You may have other information than me, but i searched the entire document for the words 'retirement' '401k' 'off set' ect and there is no such language.

[Bonobo]

107. I didn't say that.

But the "Robin Hood" tax would benefit the 99%.

If you don't want the additional tax, put your investment money in a savings account. That's how it was done before Wall St. roped all the rest of us suckers into their greedy mitts.

[Joe the Revelator]

125. The robin hood tax would benefit someone with absolutely no savings, but it would most certainly...

effect the middle class. Most of the middle class is tied up in the stock market via retirement funds. Maybe we're all rubes, but for a lot of us its the only option we have to maybe one day retire.

[Travis_0004]

337. So I can earn 1% in my savings account

No thanks.

[Joe the Revelator]

97. The idea that a tax on ANYONE who has ANY money in the stock market constitutes the 1%...

....is a blatantly untrue argument.

[Bonobo]

111. Your sentence makes no sense.

Maybe you could rephrase.

"A tax constitutes the 1%" makes no sense.

[Joe the Revelator]

143. Sorry, I'm trying to respond to everyone

I'll go back and try to figure out what i was trying to say there.

[Bonobo]

151. I know what you meant I guess and my honest answer should be

that yes, I DO understand that many normal middle class people are invested in the stock market through no particular fault of their own. The 401K money-market rush pulled them all into a game where they are being used as fodder at their own risk.

BUT, compared to the marginal and desperate lives that so many tens of millions of Americans are living in, I cannot in good faith complain about a tiny tax on investments.

[Joe the Revelator]

157. There are other routes to take.

That would bring the red graph that you posted above higher, and leave the blue line alone.

Again, i said it below, but I thought Sanders' campaign was about equaling the playing field with the fats cats, not the middle class. I guess that is where I was a rube. No blood/no foul, I just don't think I'm his target anymore.


I do disagree that wanted to protect every dollar in a retirement account, at this point, is not as selfish as you and some others make it out to be.

[MaggieD]

99. Everyone with a 401k or college fund....

.... Is part of the 1% now? This is why I have a hard time taking his supporters seriously.

[Bonobo]

112. Nice, but I didn't say that. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

148. But you certainly implied it...

This tax effects the middle class. I was supporting Bernie because I, apparently misguidedly, thought that he would punish the top earners, not a guy trying to retire in a couple of decades.

[Bonobo]

153. Please see my new above comment. nt

[Scootaloo]

152. Bernie never "had' you though. What are you even talking about?

[Joe the Revelator]

168. What are you talking about?

He is the only candidate I have supported this cycle.

[uponit7771]

192. +1, it would've been better to put the tax on cap gains vs trades because of the number of trades...

... the middle class makes through 401ks

[LittleBlue]

106. This would destroy many businesses

People don't realize how fine are the margins on volume trading. Half a percent would put many out of business.

Without factoring in income, this is utter madness.The point is for us to create economic activity and tax it to benefit the poor, not destroy income-generating activities and put people out of work.

[muriel_volestrangler]

270. 'businesses' that depend on trading with fine margins are useless

They are just betting on the short-term movement of the stock market. This 'utter madness' of a 0.5% transaction tax has existed in the UK forever (well, at 0.5% since 1986; at higher rates before that).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_duty_in_the_United_Kingdom

"The point is for us to create economic activity" - exactly. Stock trading is not economic activity; it's 'commentary' on economic activity. Stock trading is a zero sum game.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

285. That's actually the point. 'Volume trading' is just a way to screw the little people

and funnel money to the wealthy. This relevels the market towards actual human beings making individual trades, not computers running programs to do 'volume trading' in fractions of a second.

[onecaliberal]

127. If you make the amount of money this tax would affect,

In the words of Bernie, you probably shouldn't be voting for him anyway. The republicans are your cup of tea.

[Joe the Revelator]

149. It affects every trade and affects retirement accounts.

That is not protecting the middle class any way you slice it.

[onecaliberal]

164. No it doesn't. There are links here that explain.

I'm sorry if you do to possess the comprehension to understand. If you think a republican is going to protect your investment then I have a bridge, two mansions and a Lamborghini to sell you. Seriously you jest? Stop and listen to yourself.
Trash thread...

[Joe the Revelator]

166. It does not my friend. By all means though, if your reading comprehension is better than mine..

point out the exemptions. This is not the old FTT bill. New bill. No offsets. Read it for yourself and tell me where I was too dumb to understand the big words:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

[bluestateguy]

155. I was not aware that was in the proposal

Obama, though, proposed taxing 529's, which he abandoned.

[Joe the Revelator]

169. The original FTT has exceptions (by way of tax off sets) for 529s, 401ks, public pensions

This bill does not:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

[Warpy]

159. Any per transaction tax is likely to be quite tiny

Last edited Wed May 20, 2015, 02:07 AM - Edit history (1)

but will be magnified on HFT, which is skewing the market badly and skimming money off every trade made. It would be far better to have that money go to things that benefit us all instead of benefiting a few hedge fund boys.

This tax will not affect the middle class, particularly. It won't even affect the upper middle class. Billionaires who rely on skimming money out of the system via computer trading will feel it, while the money will flood into the treasury.

[Joe the Revelator]

170. It will most certainly affect the middle class and anyone else who has a retirement fund that is on

the market.

[geek tragedy]

174. Pension funds engage in high volume trading.

Dirty little secret.

That's why the pension funds fought this in Europe.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-04/pension-funds-clash-with-semeta-on-transaction-tax-harm

Households across Europe will see retirement-planning costs rise if the EU imposes the transaction tax, according to APG, the largest Dutch pension fund. Brussels-based industry group PensionsEurope said the proposed tax, which aims to raise revenue for national governments, would have a heavy effect on taxpayers already reeling from bailout costs.

“Even small differences in return on long-term savings make huge differences in final pension outcomes,” Matti Leppala, PensionsEurope’s executive director, said in an e-mailed response to questions. “Taxes like FTT would hurt the returns and would have to be paid by current and future retirees.”

The proposed levy would tax trades on stocks, bonds and derivatives with any connection to the nations that sign up to participate. Pension funds aren’t exempt from the effort, which has the backing of 11 nations.

[ozone_man]

175. Do you mean HFT?

High Frequency Trading is where it would hurt most. It would be the best medicine to cure that ill, while raising funds for college education.

[Warpy]

236. Yeah, it's late and I had a hard day

Will edit, thanks.

[Maedhros]

173. If you are wealthy enough to be impacted by this tax, you can afford it.

If you're that worried, there's another party over there to the right that will better accommodate your interests.

[Joe the Revelator]

176. This purity test bullshit is so stupid. If wanting to protect every dollar of a retirment account...

makes me wealthy in your eyes, then I don't think you know who the 99% really is. There are so many lower and middle class people who's retirement is tied to the market and WILL be affected by this proposal.

[SheilaT]

182. As someone who has semi-significant money in investments

(almost enough to put me in the top 5%), I think this is an excellent idea. The amount of tax is tiny. But there are so very many transactions out there that it will raise a lot of money.

A few years ago my financial adviser moved from one of the big name brokerage houses to a small, independent firm. At the other place, my taxes were a nightmare because my accounts did LOTS of trading, and all those losses and gains needed to be reported. It took my accountant far too many hours just to put in all those trades so he could do my taxes.

Now, it's a lot simpler, because my accounts don't trade as much. I happen to be making more money, which is nice, but I especially love it that my taxes aren't a nightmare.

I do not by any means consider myself rich. But I do recognize that I have a lot more than many people, and if taxing me a bit more means someone else's kids get to go to college without incurring a lot of debt, I say Go for It!

I am like everyone else. I like to see more of my money, wherever it comes from, stay in my pocket. But I also understand that when I or my kids attended public school, those schools were as good as they were because lots of people who didn't have kids helped pay for them. And now that I don't have kids in public school? I'm happy to pay for those kids. They are my future. Heck, when I'm in a nursing home totally ga-ga with dementia, they'll be taking care of me. I get it.

So tax away at my financial transactions. I sincerely doubt I'll see more than a very trivial impact on my bottom line.

[Joe the Revelator]

184. I respect your stance, I just don't agree with it. I am for no new taxes on the middle class

And the act of rebalancing a 401k has no tax significance currently, but it will under this bill.

[Bonobo]

193. "Read my lips. No new taxes!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes

[SheilaT]

245. The amount is genuinely trivial.

And for those of us who have our accounts within a 401K or some other investment vehicle, we won't even notice it, any more than we notice the charges for managing our funds.

We who have these investments, even though a lot of us are not really wealthy, can afford this tax. And it will hit the higher income folks in the investment class a lot more than it hits us.

Plus, don't you think funding public higher education is worth it? No? Why not?

[Joe the Revelator]

248. Again, I disagree

Getting hit every time a 401k or an eft fund gets rebalanced adds up over a 30 year investing career, especially when talking about the paltry sums in my accounts. The entire point is to try to put all your dollars to work. The government should be hands off on retirement funds. That's why every other FTT bill had the carve out language addressing just that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

271. Hold your stocks an average of 5 years, and you'll be paying 0.1% of the 401k value a year

That's not that much. Compare it to the level of income tax, or FICA.

[uponit7771]

188. Not if you're in some EFT's with good decay

[mike_c]

195. (sniff) Ah, the rank odor of personal greed....

If I recall correctly, that was one of the fundamental motivations for public policy designed to shift retirement pensions from defined benefit plans to 40lks and similar investment savings plans-- make every working class rube believe that they're riding the same gravy train as the one percenters and harness the power of avarice in the name of capitalism.

[kcr]

197. And it sad to see some still buying it and pitifully clinging to the scraps.

But here comes the wave that's going to knock them out of the way. The millennials, who will appreciate bills like this. They are now currently bigger than the boomers. Bernie won't win, but this is the way of the future. They might as well get used to it and stop with the Reaganite way of thinking.

[Joe the Revelator]

206. And this is why he is pandering, a very unattractive look on him...

Throw the middle class out with the bath water and try to capture of that ol' Ron Paul magic with the college kids.

The middle class are the ones who are already DEALING the the diabolical student loans, or if they are lucky enough, scratched through and paid them off. Do i think anyone else should have to do that? FUCK no, but I don't want your windwall coming out of my already meager savings.

[kcr]

209. It is you who wishes to be pandered to.

It is you who clings to middle and right wing ideals because they make you feel secure. Why should that be pandered to? You don't want to stop clinging to the little lifeboat that's barely afloat and jump aboard the progressive ship. You feel like the ideals that convince people to do so are pandering. Oh well. The reality is get on board or sink. Your 401 Kayyyyy won't save you. You've been sold a shoddy bill of goods and the truly rich laughed on their way to the bank. Sorry.

[BainsBane]

211. You going to pay for his retirement?

You seem pretty dismissive of his ability to house and feed himself in his old age. What you think of 401ks is not the issue. It's all he has. I can't even begin to imagine the kind of mentality that calls someone's very survival "right-wing."

[kcr]

212. You seem to have trouble reading what people post.

Yes, I am dismissive of bullshit.

[BainsBane]

218. You go right on insulting everyone who has to worry about how to put food on the table

by all means. The great and noble struggle of the 10 percent vs. the 1 percent must take precedence over the poor and elderly.

I don't think the OP needs to worry. With supporters like you insulting everyone who voices any concern, Sanders candidacy is sunk. I'm trying to imagine you folks going into poor neighborhoods and speaking to people as you do here. "Okay, so you want housing and food. Suck it up you greedy pigs. We have priorities. and you're not it. This is about Sanders attracting millennials. Our candidate comes before your miserable little lives."

[kcr]

219. Or I can keep doing what I'm actually doing. Dismiss bullshit.

Are there people who worry about putting food on the table who believe bullshit? Probably, but I can't help that. I'm sorry.

[Joe the Revelator]

237. You keep doing what you're doing which is jumping on a high horse and putting your hands...

....over your ears to things you don't like hearing.

[kcr]

241. Yeah. So, money from investments shouldn't be taxed to fund education.

That's not kosher on a progressive board. Really, how dare I? Got it!

[Joe the Revelator]

243. Money from retirement accounts should not be taxed per trade.

Every other FTT bill has recognized that fact, because, and stick with me here, it would be a tax on middle class folks trying to stop working one day.

[Joe the Revelator]

214. I knew what i was in for with a 401k when i started paying in for it.

Sanders' new tax proposal was not part of the deal. Changing the rules mid-game is not cool. Letting the middle class continue to rot away was supposed to be what Sanders was against (again, as I understood it). I don't need to be pandered to, i just need to left a lone with my mediocrity.

[kcr]

217. It is every bit part of the deal. How is funding college not part of the deal?

There's no tax on 401ks to begin with, which has been pointed out to you over and over. Your bellowing over this isn't even factual to begin with.

[Joe the Revelator]

227. There IS a tax on 401ks. You can join the circle jerk about a 2 year old bill that has NOTHING to do

with this bill, OR you can actually READ the bill on Sanders senate sight, see that it does not have the carve outs that some folks are clinging to in order to try to make this write. Here, I'll give you a copy of the bill as well, released today:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file

Find the language in THAT bill that says it has a carve out or an offset for retirement funds, 529's, and public pensions.

[kcr]

230. Further upthread you were advocating taxing capital gains instead

Tell me, how does that not affect 401ks also? Are there no middle class people or retirees that wouldn't affect? I don't have to find the language in the bill to tell you that you basically have no idea what you're talking about.

[Joe the Revelator]

240. Because capital gains are already taxed on 401k.Plus, any sane politician would make a minimum

that a real captial gains tax would affect, instead of grouping every shlub with a 401k into his basket.

[kcr]

244. There are "sane" politicians. You can vote for them if you want.

But they're the reason college students are in debt up to their eye balls and the very retirees you lament are struggling. But go ahead and keep banging your head against the wall and tell me why I'm wrong. That makes sense.

[Joe the Revelator]

246. No, the other problem I have is that there are NO inspiring candidates this time around.

I hitched myself to Sanders because i thought he would take a Warrenesque view of saving the middle class. I was wrong. I admit that.

[kcr]

250. Sanders isn't going to be the candidate in the general.

I'm supporting him now because the discussion he provides right now is so vital. Hillary will be the candidate and when she is I'll vote for her. But shitting on these efforts of his? Man, I do not get it. 401-ks are just about one of the biggest scams perpetrated on Americans. There's no saving that, but there is saving our future. Propping up quick turn over trading that only benefits the rich and trashes our economy at the expense of college kids and keeping them in debt? Shame.

[Joe the Revelator]

253. The people who are trying to raise families, and make it through until retirement should not be give

given up on. My god. I'm 33 years old. I just had my first kid. If I'm a lost cause already, then its going to be a long, lonely existence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

200. You got it

[geek tragedy]

203. That's a rather despicable accusation to make against every American with a retirement

account.

If we want a repeat of 1972 or 1984, by all means defame and degrade everyone who saves for retirement.

Bernie certainly doesn't say hateful crap like that.

[BainsBane]

210. I've said it before and I'll say it again

Some of Sanders supporters are his greatest liability. If they take that kind of attitude with them off line in canvassing poor and working class neighborhoods, they will sink his candidacy for sure.

[mike_c]

307. no, it's a reasonable observation about every American who doesn't want to help...

...do their part to create a more equitable society. I have a retirement account. I'm happy to pay a little more in taxes if that money can help create a better world for me to retire in.

[geek tragedy]

308. I don't have a retirement account. But I don't want those accounts taxed

If it's the middle class and retirees bearing the burden, it's not a tax on Wall Street.

It's especially obnoxious when it goes after the retirement savings of those who have paid for their own college as well as their kids.

Transferring wealth from retired teachers to future dentists and lawyers is not sound policy.

[mike_c]

310. the middle class and retirees are not going to "carry the burden...."

Big investors, the sort that call themselves the "investor class" and who manipulate the financial markets to concentrate wealth will carry the burden, as they should. The burden will fall on Wall Street, not you and I.

No one should be relying upon 401k accounts for retirement. That's a scam perpetrated by that same investor class that wants to generate more wealth for themselves with other people's retirement savings. I mentioned that I have a retirement acct. Actually, I have two-- a 401k account that I've had for twenty years, and a defined benefit pension from CalPERS. The 401k lost half it's value in the last financial crisis and won't provide more than a year or two of retirement. The defined benefit pension, on the other hand, is a paycheck for the rest of my and my spouse's life, full health coverage, and so on.

Retirement savings plans are a joke for most Americans. They make folks like the OP think they're part of the investor class that makes most of it's money from other people's labor.

[geek tragedy]

311. And what are people whose employers don't offer

defined benefit plans supposed to do, eat cat food?

Retirement funds are a very large part of the equities market.

I see zero problem with this if they don't tax retirement fund trades. Tax Wall Street, not retirees.

[BainsBane]

207. There is a lot of economic self interest involved in discussions of politics

at least as much on the pro-Sanders side. Additionally, your point has nothing to do with the concern the OP raised. It is simply another insult. You all keep insulting Democrats, and there will be no one left to support your candidate.


I don't think the OP has to worry, since obviously the plan cannot pass congress. Additionally, it doesn't come close to funding all public higher education in the US. I don't believe $300 billion covers even one fifth of what it would cost.

[RufusTFirefly]

216. Boo hoo! And you, of all people, one of Bernie's most loyal supporters!

I can't imagine how he's ever going to make it without your unflinching, steadfast support.

Buh-bye!

[Joe the Revelator]

239. Circle the wagons man. You're right, I'm but one man, and I have but one vote.

But its all that I have. You can dismiss that all day for all i care. The middle class should not have been on the table.

[KingCharlemagne]

280. Methinks he was part of the Billionaires for Bernie faction here at DU - nt

[aspirant]

256. You've said

you have lost you're health insurance, eat hot dogs and TV dinners twice a week and your son's account has $100 in it.

Maybe the people here can give you some financial guidance;
!) How much is in your 401k
2) How much will it cost to insure your family again?
3) How much do you make annually?

Before criticizing and telling DU that Bernie let you down, did you call his office to get more specific info on your concerns. This bill just came out and if Bernie was truly in your heart, why wouldn't you voice your concerns to the campaign and wait for all the facts.

[okasha]

338. "if Bernie was truly in your heart"

That blows it.

You're not a supporter, you're a worshipper. Please post the time and date of Our Lord Bernie's scheduled stroll across the Potomac. We benighted non-believers want to see it.

[hrmjustin]

342. "If Bernie was truly in your heart"

Is Bernie a divinity now?

[madokie]

258. Bullshit

I seriously doubt you gave him money and if you did it was so you can say you did not because you were for him. Bernie has had the same message from day one in politics and if you didn't know that you are not paying attention. Take this kind of rightwing bull over where it might be appreciated, it isn't here or shouldn't be that is.

[delrem]

261. I find it hard to believe that you were ever a Bernie Sanders supporter.

Your many many posts castigating and belittling OWS tell me different.

Your complaint is a stretch (just as your complaints about OWS were one hell of a stretch).
The tax Sanders proposes wouldn't impact your, or anyone's, retirement benefits.

[zazen]

265. if this tax occurred within a Scandinavian safety net w/o decimated middle class, yes

First, I can't believe how everyone's piling on the OP. He has a point, and this is the first time I've seen Sanders supporters (of whom I count myself) act as irrationally en masse as some in the HRC crowd. Talk about having my bubble burst.

Second, I think there's a big difference between a Robin Hood tax in a vacuum (or Scandinavia) and one being applied to all investments without acknowledgement that we have a shitty safety net and that everyone but the 1 percent is holding on by bloody fingernails to any kind of security.

New taxes over the next 10 years need to claw back the disproportionate gains of the .01% and be applied according to that ratio, and not punish those in the lower quintiles trying to establish any kind of security.

[My Good Babushka]

266. Consider

A well educated workforce that is not living in debt-penury will quickly put upward pressure on wages and salaries, so you'll be making more, and the tax will be a smaller part of your overall larger take.

[Katashi_itto]

267. Astroturf Outrage

[Bobbie Jo]

275. Really?

This guy has been around here a lot longer than you.

If there's any "astroturf" going on, it usually comes with a sit it out message. Right?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

288. I notice it seems to draw support from supporters of a specific different candidate.

If HRC were onboard with this tax, the OP would be a pretty lonely voice, with only a couple of rich supporters bemoaning the death of volume trading.

[muriel_volestrangler]

268. You know who else proposed a 0.5% transaction tax on shares? Larry Summers

Yeah, that dangerous revolutionary, opposed to all that is Wall Street, proposed this back in 1989: http://www.stampoutpoverty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/When-Financial-Markets-Work-Too-Well.pdf

Unlike most major industrialized nations, the United States does not impose an excise tax on securities transactions.
This article examines the desirability and feasibility of implementating a U.S. Securities Transfer Excise
Tax (STET) directed at curbing excesses associated with short-term speculation and at raising revenue. We
conclude that strong economic efficiency arguments can be made in support of a STET that throws "sand into the
gears," in James Tobin's (1982) phrase, of our excessively well-functioning financial markets. Such a tax would
have the beneficial effects of curbing instability introduced by speculation, reducing the diversion of resources into
the financial sector of the economy, and lengthening the horizons of corporate managers. The efficiency benefits
derived from curbing speculation are likely to exceed any costs of reduced liquidity or increased costs of capital
that come from taxing financial transactions more heavily. The examples of Japan and the United Kingdom suggest
that a STET is administratively feasible and can be implemented without crippling the competitiveness of U.S.
financial markets. A STET at a .5% rate could raise revenues of at least $10 billion annually.

Admittedly, he does seem to have become opposed to it later - blocking the preference of that other dangerous revolutionary, Barack Obama:

According to Ron Suskind, the author of "Confidence Men", a book based on 700 hours of interviews with high-level staff of the US administration, President Obama supported a FTT on trades of stocks, derivatives, and other financial instruments, but it was blocked by Obama's former director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers.[150]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax

Summers refers to the UK tax - it is a 0.5% duty paid on share purchases by normal investors, and the UK has had it forever, at some rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_duty_in_the_United_Kingdom

It apparently raised about £2.2bn in 2012/13 in the UK ('Stamp Duty Reserve Tax' is what is paid on electronically traded shares, which is the vast majority) - about 0.5% of the taxes in the UK: http://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/guides/uk-taxes-compared/uk-tax-tool-how-much-government-earns-/

WHO’S BEHIND IT?

We are Nobel Prize-winning economists, former US Vice Presidents and founders of Microsoft.

We are Ronald Reagan’s Budget Director, the UN’s Secretary General and the Archbishop of Capetown.

We are union members, nurses, small business owners, community organizers, faith leaders, AIDS activists, environmentalists, movie stars and musicians, and we are part of a global movement of more than 220 million people in 25 countries who are fighting for a Robin Hood Tax – a small tax on Wall Street trades.

We are a force to be reckoned with, and we are demanding justice.

http://www.robinhoodtax.org/who

[Sancho]

273. I agree with you...

...any tax on retirement funds is a tax on the middle class. Bernie made a mistake. It would be better to tax capital gains, or go after the big corporate exemptions, or raise top end tax rates. Good post and a good point.

BTW, my wife and I have been in education for 40 years. To me, the rising costs are mostly from two places:
1.) We have a much larger percentage of employees that are "administrators" in public schools and universities than we used to 30 or 50 years ago. The number of full-time people actually teaching someone is getting smaller. That is a large salary cost that doesn't benefit students.
2.) Schools and universities are "micromanaged" in ways we never dreamed of in my parents and grandparents days: rules and regulations about textbooks, student loans, athletics, etc. The politics and attempts to privatize every function costs a lot and partially explains #1 (above). "For profit" education is killing the system. Historically, both public and private schools were essentially non-profit. Like health care, education really should rarely or never be for profit systems.

[daleanime]

274. Have to admit, this is right up there....

with avoiding the 'death tax' because of the family farm.

[OKNancy]

276. Wow, long thread

Lots of personal attacks against the OP which are not necessary.

Joe, don't worry. It won't pass. Even Sen. Sanders said as much.
I watched his interview ( which I thought was good) with Wolff Blitzer.
He said something to the effect that the bill won't pass.

Me: It's just symbolic.

[Buzz Clik]

277. +1

[KingCharlemagne]

278. WTF are you talking about? This OP smells like total bullshit. - nt

[Joe the Revelator]

302. If after taking the time to read through a 200+ post thread, in which I responded to everyone

you still don't know 'wtf' i'm talking about, then PM me and I'll explain it to you.

[TBF]

289. I've got this bridge in the middle of West Texas ...

[n2doc]

294. Can't make everyone happy

For every person like you who can't do the math and can't comprehend that the tax will be insignificant on you, there will be millions who can do so, and understand the benefits of a tax that is aimed at the top.

[Joe the Revelator]

320. No new taxes on the middle class

Its a simple concept.

[DanTex]

322. On what planet is this a "tax on the middle class".

A financial transaction tax is about the most progressive tax I can think of. First of all, ownership of securities is heavily tilted towards the wealthy, and organizations that do large volumes even more so. These are typically hedge funds or trading companies.

[Joe the Revelator]

329. It's completely regressive, like any flat tax would be. nt

[DanTex]

334. Huh? No it's not. It hits wealthier people much more than middle-class people.

It takes people proportionally to how much trading they do, and the people that do the most trading are by far the wealthiest people. I'd guess that the bottom 50% don't do any trading at all, and the 50-95th percent do very little, with the exception of day traders.

[n2doc]

323. Simple enough even for a Bush to articulate! n/t

I'd rather see a simple tax instead of some complicated tax that is going to end up being used by the 1% to get out of paying. I'm a member of the middle class, and frankly looking at my retirement reports far more comes out in fees than would come from this tax. Buy low churn funds and you wouldn't even notice it. If your retirement requires that extra 0.5% to make, you are doing it wrong.

[dawg]

295. So, if it turns out this doesn't apply to retirement accounts ...

will you still be against it then?

[panader0]

298. What's a retirement fund?

All I have is my house and land, paid off over many years, and believe me, it gets taxed.
I live on my SS, and small income from various construction jobs. I've been in construction for 45 years.
I think providing free college education would be a great thing, and you should consider it as an "offset".

[QC]

300. Mama Mia! n/t

[still_one]

306. I also do not agree with Bernir on his proposal that drug patient laws should be

ignored. He was referring specifically to the high cost of Hepatitis C drugs, but I am troubled by suggesting we go around the patent laws

Innovation will be impeded with that, though I realize many here on DU will disagree with me

[kentuck]

314. Look closer.

It is a great idea.

[drm604]

315. This could help your 401K.

The benefits to the economy (from college educations and discouraging high speed speculation) could increase the value of your 401K by more than the miniscule tax you'd be paying.

[TheKentuckian]

317. Investment is not speculating. Stop trying to keep the casino rolling.

[DanTex]

318. A financial transaction tax won't noticeably affect your 401k.

Mutual funds have very low turnover. The people it will affect are day traders and high-frequency traders. Depending on the details, it could actually improve the performance of mutual funds, because right now high-frequency traders make their profits by effectively increasing transaction costs for institutional investors.

If you have kids with college loans, then the benefits of free public colleges will be far, far, greater than the small amount that the tax might reduce the return on your 401k.

[Joe the Revelator]

319. 401k's and the like need to be rebalanced regularly

Especially the close you get to retirement. Each time that happens, there goes another chunk of change out of your retirement. Its like reverse compound interest.

[DanTex]

321. Rebalancing only involves trading a tiny fraction of the assets.

And the transaction tax will only apply to the amount traded, not the total amount of assets. Have you actually tried to work out the actual percentage effect it will have on your returns?

[Joe the Revelator]

325. It could cost me 5 nickels, i still think a new tax that affects retirement accounts of the...

middle class is poor policy on Sander's part.

[DanTex]

327. If it costs you 5 nickels, then it won't make the slightest difference to you.

And that's the point. You already pay tons of taxes -- income, sales, property, capital gains, etc. This one is going to be tiny, and overwhelmingly affect wealthy people and institutions.

You're seriously going to protest because you have 5 nickels less in your retirement account? You don't think that's a worthy price to pay for universal free tuition?

[Joe the Revelator]

328. Yes. I am. That is where I draw the line.

and I'm not protesting, I'm just not supporting him anymore. Like i said in the OP, I may have been a rube to begin with.

I have no problem with people voting for him, and enthusiastically supporting him. He's just not for me, and I thought he was. He excited me at first because I thought he was going to legitimately protect the middle class. The first real 'campaign policy' he throws out puts his hand into middle class retirement accounts. I can't and won't support that. I wouldn't support that from a republican, why should I support it from the so called progressive's progressive?

[DanTex]

333. OK. Then you're being irrational. You're basically admitting as much.

If 5 cents a year in taxes is really that important to you, then you're probably right, Bernie's not the candidate for you.

[A HERETIC I AM]

360. Wrong.

Your terminology is incorrect.

Please see my post at the bootm of the thread for the answer as to why this is so.

[DanTex]

362. No, I'm not wrong, and my terminology is not incorrect.

Your post at the bottom of the thread (which is also wrong BTW) has nothing to do with the costs of rebalancing a portfolio of ETFs, which is what the OP is concerned about. ETFs (exchange-traded funds) are in fact exchange-traded, hence the name.

[A HERETIC I AM]

368. The post you responded to mentioned rebalancing a 401(k)

Your response used incorrect terminology.

As far as the OP is concerned, he mentioned 3 accounts;

I cannot afford to have my 401k taxed.Or my kid's 529 taxed. Or my tiny investment fund on Betterment that needs to rebalance EFT's in order to make sure I don't lose everything taxed

So his, or your concern is with the 3rd and smallest, an admittedly "tiny" account with an online brokerage. Fine.

[DanTex]

369. Umm, well, if the 401k contains ETFs, then it is relevant (which seems to be the case here).

And besides, even if it is just mutual funds, the transaction tax will still apply to the trades that the fund itself does (hence my discussion of turnover rate), unless mutual funds are explicitly exempt from the tax (which they probably will be, making the whole discussion moot).

[A HERETIC I AM]

372. Fair enough.

But the number of 401(k) plans that do offer ETF's and other securities along with Mutual Funds are very rare indeed.

The vast majority of such plans offered the average company and worker consist almost entirely of Mutual Funds. There is a very specific reason for this, and it has to do with fees. It is counterproductive in a Tax Deferred account like a 401(k) to do excessive trading.

[DanTex]

324. Another thing to keep in mind.

In the unlikely even that this actually becomes law, you are probably going to be exempt. Looks like Bernie is proposing a 0.5% tax on stock transactions, which is pretty high as these things go. In this case, it is likely that 401ks are going to be exempt, and that there is going to be a threshold where the tax kicks in.

For example, here is the text of a FTT bill that was proposed to congress, charging 0.25% per stock trade. Tax-free retirement accounts are exempt, mutual funds are exempt, and all individuals receive a credit for their first $100,000 of transactions per year. So if Bernie's bill looks anything like this, unless you are planning to trade more than $100K (and this means actually trade, not just own) in a year in a non-retirement account, it won't affect you at all.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr4191/text

[Joe the Revelator]

326. Right, we went over this last night, the difference in this bill and the FTT from the past....

....is that there is no offset or 'carve out' for 529's or PP, or 401ks

[DanTex]

331. I wasn't here last night. I also wasn't aware that the text of this bill is available yet.

I do agree with you, if the tax is 0.5% then there should be an exemption of some kind for the middle class. Although, truth be told, even if there isn't it won't make much difference, unless you invest in high-turnover funds. If you invest in index funds or ETFs, you're only looking at turnover rates of like 5%, so you'd end up paying in the range of 0.025% of your investment fund per year in taxes.

To put this in context, it means that if you have $1 million invested in index funds, you will pay $250 per year due to this tax. I think you'll survive.

[A HERETIC I AM]

358. Wrong.

[True Blue Door]

330. This is astroturf nonsense.

Are you the same guy who always chimes in to support eliminating estate taxes on millionaires and billionaires by climaing to be a middle-class "family farmer"?

[Joe the Revelator]

339. No, I am not astroturf, and FAR from being a farmer

But yes, good call, anyone who disagrees with you is always a shill.

[okaawhatever]

346. LOL good one. nt

[Rex]

364. Nice to notice nobody fell for the OP's myth on the RHT.

One of the lamest attempts to smear Sanders I've seen yet.

[lovemydog]

332. He didn't lose me.

I think it's a great idea.

[Joe the Revelator]

340. Fair enough.

Like I said, I don't hate Bernie or anything, I just can't support this kind of policy and I'm disappointed because I feel like I may have jumped the gun in my support of him.

[PowerToThePeople]

344. let investments become investments again

Not who can exit the fast paced ponzi scheme the quickest with other people's money.

[JDPriestly]

348. Joe, how many trades do you make in a year?

If you are a responsible, average investor, you make very few.

This tax would slow down the gambling on the stock market which contributes to the risky volatility we now have.

It is a good idea which would make investors more thoughtful and responsible. It would mostly hit the large investors, not you and me with our stodgy retirement accounts.

The fast-traders actually hurt us. In the short term, they make the market look a lot more active than it is. In the long term, their shorts and longs and various maneuvers make the markets dangerous to small investors.

You and I do not have the time to "time" the market as these big investors with their split-second, fast computers and their endless supplies of money and economic analysts.

I am very, very much in favor of the Robin Hood tax.
We should be focusing on education which will have long-lasting value in our society and world and not on these silly stock market ups and downs. When the stock market is up, small investors think they are getting rich. They aren't. I've seen more than one fool ruin himself thanks to the illusory fast pace rises in the stock market that the untaxed fast-trades cause.

Remember the story of the tortoise and the hare. Slow but sure is best, especially when investing. Right now it doesn't look that way, but historically, quality investments are better than making lots of little trades based on market games and anomalies caused by the "market makers" with their speedy trades and deceptive practices.

That's my opinion. I realize it is not worth that of the pundits on CNBC like Jim Carmer.

Watch this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/03/12/jon-stewart-jim-cramer-face-off-on-daily-show.html

[Rex]

367. Pundits...

The crap that rises to the top always become pundits...the rest are busy being investigative journalists. One group has a huge ego, the other is busy finding out the truth.

Pundits basically destroyed the mainstream media...they are about as sad as Reality TV imo.

[A HERETIC I AM]

354. CAN I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE? YOU! YES, YOU IN THE BACK...CAN YOU HEAR ME? GOOD.

OK....1ST OF ALL...Joe...calm down, OK? This will NOT affect your 401(k) or 529 plans IN THE LEAST, alright?

YOU will not be affected by this tax because...ready? it is a tax on TRADES and trades do not occur with Mutual Funds, in spite of what the many market mavens and internet financial professionals above have told you. THEY'RE WRONG, full stop.


And I'll bet a days pay that what you have in your 401(k) is Mutual Funds, including any Money Market funds because they are also - READY? Mutual Funds.

Mutual Funds DO NOT TRADE ON AN EXCHANGE, therefore this tax will not apply to your rebalancing. It will not apply to any new purchases or any redemptions.

Notice I did not use the word "sales" because in fact, you do not "sell" MUTUAL FUNDS. They are redeemed by the issuing Mutual Fund Company. There is no trade. You do indeed "buy" them, but you can only buy a specific Mutual Fund share from its specific issuer and each new share of a Mutual Fund is in effect and brand new security. That is why you get a Prospectus each time you buy. You know what those are. Those are the little booklets most people never read with the name of the fund company on it and the word "Prospectus" that you either throw out or put in a drawer somewhere to throw out when you move. (Sorry for the tone there. Got carried away!)


Don't sweat it, pal. You'll be fine.

For more information on Mutual Funds, you can look at this thread I put up in the Personal Finance and Investing Group a while back;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1121392

[DanTex]

365. The lesson here is, don't listen to all-caps financial advice given on the internet...

First off, the OP was talking about rebalancing a portfolio of ETFs, which are not mutual funds, and are exchange traded, thus subject to tax.

The other thing is, even if the tax doesn't apply to buying and selling mutual funds, the mutual funds themselves buy and sell stocks, which means that, unless transactions by mutual funds are explicitly exempted, then this tax can still affect investors in mutual funds.

[A HERETIC I AM]

370. And a larger lesson is ....

That sometimes on a 350 + response thread full of bad and blatantly incorrect information, one needs to put a title line in caps to get it noticed.

One other thing I would suggest to any and all readers is to not pay any attention to people who do not know the difference between trading on an exchange and the purchasing and redemption of Mutual Funds with a Fund company.

And again, Dan...the OP talked about ETF's in reference to his "tiny" account.

You are making it sound as if the entire OP was centered around that. It didn't read that way to me, but you go on with your bad self!

Just curious, but how long have you had your Series 7, anyway? Series 66? Or don't you know what those are without Googling them?

[DanTex]

373. Make that 351+ responses of blatantly incorrect information.

Please tell my that you understand that mutual funds actually buy and sell stocks. They don't just magically weave money out of thin air.

It's odd, the OP doesn't mention mutual funds at all, only ETFs. And yet you decide to chime in to (falsely) suggest that a financial transaction tax would have no effect on mutual funds.

The simple answer to the OP is, yes, if an FTT is enacted without any exemptions, then your investments will affected, including mutual funds and ETFs. However
(1) the amount that you will be impacted will be very small, unless you invest in very high-turnover funds
(2) if the rate on stock transactions is as high as 0.5%, then it is almost certain that there will be exemptions on 401Ks, and probably also a threshold exemption, so that middle class investors won't be affected at all.

[A HERETIC I AM]

376. I'm sure you mean well, but let me help you a bit;

That should do it.

Have a great day!

[DanTex]

377. In other words, you were wrong, and an FTT will in fact affect mutual funds.

Unless they are explicitly exempted.

Glad we could come to an agreement.

[A HERETIC I AM]

378. Again, terminology is important.

Nomenclature. Words.

They matter. How they are put together. In what order. These things matter.

I posted above that the Mutual Fund Companies MAY encounter these taxes when they trade. Unless there is language in the bill I have yet to read or additional language not yet added or a court order.

I'm betting that Mutual Funds offered for the retail investor as well as the institutional invester (pension funds, ETC) would be exempt. If they aren't, additional trading costs would be added to the expense ratio.

If a given MF has a low portfolio turnover ratio, their taxes would be low, obviously.

And you are so kind to point out I was wrong, even thugh I wasn't! Where you continue to be wrong is insisting account changes made by Mutual Fund share holders will be taxed. They won't be.

Want some more straws?

[DanTex]

380. That's a good point. For example these words:

This will NOT affect your 401(k) or 529 plans IN THE LEAST, alright?

Those are completely false, unless the investments are held in cash. But if they contain (stock) mutual funds, then this is completely wrong. The mutual funds will do trades, and be liable for a transaction tax, unless of course there is an explicit exemption.

Let's find some more words, shall we?

Mutual Funds DO NOT TRADE ON AN EXCHANGE, therefore this tax will not apply to your rebalancing. It will not apply to any new purchases or any redemptions.

The OP specifically complained about rebalancing a portfolio of ETFs, which makes this statement false as well, at least the part about "your rebalancing". Again, unless there is some kind of exemption.

Where you continue to be wrong is insisting account changes made by Mutual Fund share holders will be taxed.

Umm, what? Where did I insist that? The only person who brought up changes made by mutual fund share holders here is you. The OP was explicitly talking about ETF transactions. And I was talking about stock transactions made by the mutual fund. Both of which would be taxed, barring exemptions.

Buying and selling mutual fund shares wouldn't be taxed. Neither would buying and selling toilet paper.

[A HERETIC I AM]

374. Oh, one other thing, Dan...

I didn't give any "financial advice"

I never have on DU and I never will.

[Rex]

361. HE voted for the RHT? Wow, that puts him one more notch up on my respect meter.

Thanks for the OP, I would have never known!

[JEB]

371. Support for RHT puts him solidly in my voting field.

[Electric Monk]

375. So, Joe, has it occurred to you yet that your "someone is wrong on the internet" cartoon might be

referring to you?

[L0oniX]

381. LMFAOROTFLOL

[Joe the Revelator]

385. Apparently not, actually...

[L0oniX]

382. If you think .50 from $100 is bad wait until you try an ATM ...and parking meters WTF!