Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman On "The Joy Of Sachs," As Frontrunning Truths Emerge (292 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Woody

    What is the difference between being nicked on checking/savings bank withdrawals and being nicked when you sell 100 shares of Intel (or GM or a mutual fund for that matter.)

    Oh Barry, they are turning Health Care into an Actuary's wet dream.

    by fredlonsdale on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 02:51:21 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Because the money in your (0+ / 0-)

      bank account has probably already been taxed as income, and nearly everyone has to have a bank account. Owning investments is optional. A better option is to tax stock transactions only which reduces short-term sell and buy churn in the market, and tax capital gains at the same rate as payroll/wage income. You aren't making money on withdrawals from bank accounts, but stocks and bonds are investments for the purpose of making money, and therefore should be subjected to taxation.

      "There's a bailout coming, but it's not for me, it's for all the creeps watching the ticker on TV"-Neil Young

      by NoMoreLies on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 06:38:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tax every transaction (0+ / 0-)

        Tax every check written, whether by a corporation, partnership, or individual.

        But relax. I said start with 1/10th of one per cent. Go to an ATM of another bank from where you have your account and you will pay $2 or $3 for doing that. Your check would have to exceed $2,000 to equal the fee that bank is charging for every amount of any size.

      •  Not to get into an endless arguement... (0+ / 0-)

        But a bank deposit is as much an investment as buying a stock or bond. There are people that keep significant dollars in an insured bank account as a conservative investment. There is no difference between putting 200,000 in a bank savings account and 200,000 in a money market mutual fund. Post bailout, there is even less of a difference in terms of risk because they granted insurance to the money market mutual funds a'la FDIC.

        You are correct that investing in stocks is optional when you control the money. It is not discretionary when you have money in a pension plan or other investment scheme. Putting you money in a bank account is also optional. You can keep your money in your mattress. You can keep a cash account with a broker. Or you can buy gold.

        After our recent experience, people think twice about about more than FDIC insured limit in banks.

        If you want to discourage speculation or excessive trading in stocks and bonds, then you can tax transactions. But the impact of an x% transaction tax is the same on someone who trades their stock on a weekly basis or someone who buys and holds a stock for 20 years or more. It just takes longer to collect the tax.

        Oh Barry, they are turning Health Care into an Actuary's wet dream.

        by fredlonsdale on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 10:14:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well put (0+ / 0-)

          Not to get into an endless argument, but you make my case better than I did!

          I know that Brazil put a tax on all financial transactions some years back. I don't know if they kept it. But I suspect they did. And coincidentally Brazil's governmental finances and economic performance have been relatively better in the past decade or two. Um, relatively better than their previous performance no doubt, and by some accounts, better than the performance of the U.S. Truly do not know what other countries do, but I saw one claim that every developed country except the US has a financial transactions tax.

          Seems to me the transaction tax is difficult to avoid, because basically the banks collect it, and they are audited and regulated fairly well.

          And the tax falls nice and heavy on two industries famous for tax avoidance: real estate and Wall Street. Of course, Wall Street screams when anyone suggests a financial transactions tax. That alone is good enough reason for me to support it!

          •  Brazil ended the 0.38% financial transaction tax (0+ / 0-)

            Brazilian lawmakers axe financial transaction tax.

            It is one thing to impose a tax to raise revenues and another thing to impose a tax to influence behavior. I would support a progressive consumption tax... a national sales tax that would provide relief to lower income people through the internal revenue code even if those low income people do not earn enough to pay a a federal income tax. But that is not what was being discussed. We were talking about a financial investment tax as opposed to a tax that would be applied to all money transactions which I view as unfair. Not all investors are engaged in practices that will destroy our economy.

            Oh Barry, they are turning Health Care into an Actuary's wet dream.

            by fredlonsdale on Sun Jul 19, 2009 at 01:18:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site