Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Spread this Petition to Tax Wall St. Transactions. Needs 100,000 signatures by April 10

Posted 1 year ago on March 17, 2013, 6:35 p.m. EST by TaxWallStreet (3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A Petition to Tax Wall St. Transactions. Needs 100,000 signatures by April 10 and the government will have to respond.

Do kindly spread the word by social media.

Link ==> http://wh.gov/ARGi

Also see hash tag #WallStreetSalesTax on Twitter

http://twitter.com/search?q=%23wallstreetsalestax

112 Comments

112 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Signed. Excellent petition. up to 7524 a long way to go.

[-] 2 points by TaxWallStreet (3) 1 year ago

Yes but there is still time.

It would help for people to tweet http://wh.gov/ARGi with the has tag #RobinHoodTax or #WallStreetSalesTax

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I have sent it out. Whats it up to?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Related wealth inequity info on this subject.

http://www.nationofchange.org/america-split-two-five-ugly-extremes-inequality-1364219818

And a bump up to get people to see this valuable post.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

$1.7 Trillion. Among the Fortune 100 companies alone. That's how much money these US corporations are hiding from Uncle Sam in offshore tax havens.

That's right, these Tax Cheats are making record profits while cutting their American workforces. And now we're cutting hundreds of thousands of critical public sector jobs because they are dodging their taxes.

ENOUGH: Bernie Sanders has just introduced a bill, the Corporate Tax Fairness Act, which would bring an end to the offshore tax haven madness. Join us in helping to get it to a vote.

Thank you for all you do to make this movement real.

Sincerely,

The Other 98% Team

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

On Taxing Wallstreet :

join with Daily Kos and Democracy for America in telling Congress to tax Wall Street speculation and put Americans back to work. Click here to sign the petition.

Despite conservative screams about the “socialist communist Kenyan Muslim” in the White House, fact is that Wall Street just had its best week… ever. That’s not hyperbole -- the Dow just hit new highs ten days in a row.

Meanwhile, in real America, the sequester threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs in the midst of an anemic recovery, with DC deadlocked thanks to obstructionist Republicans. And of course, conservatives continue to insist that any budget deal include further hardships on the working class and retired.

But Sens. Tom Harkin and Sheldon Whitehouse have a better idea -- a Wall Street speculation tax. The burden on traders would be minimal -- just three pennies on every $100 traded, or 0.03 percent.

Please click here to sign the petition from Daily Kos and Democracy for America telling Congress to tax Wall Street speculation and put Americans back to work.

This absurdly modest tax would raise $352 billion over 10 years, or one-third of what the sequester will cut, creating and saving jobs, and putting the burden where it belongs -- on those who created our economic problems, profited most from taxpayer bailouts, and continue to profit today.

As is usually the case in DC, the roadblock isn’t public opinion -- 81 percent of Americans support a tax on trading. What we need are bold leaders to take on the corporatist lobby, and a grassroots army to have their backs.

Join with Daily Kos, Democracy for America, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse by signing the petition telling Congress to tax Wall Street speculation.

Keep fighting, Markos Moulitsas Publisher and founder, Daily Kos

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

So they will "respond"
This requires a LAW
has ANYONE in congress proposed a law to do this ?
how will you get someone to do that ?
At an absolute minimum you MUST have Bernie or Elizabeth propose this

I applaud your efforts,
but how many laws have been passed due to petitions on the federal level?

I would think that requesting everyone "you" know to make a presentation on this subject to any organization they know & to write their congressman would be more effective

How much money would a 0.5% tax raise

The United States had a tax on sales or transfers of stock from 1914 to 1966. This was instituted in The Revenue Act of 1914 (Act of Oct. 22, 1914 (ch. 331, 38 Stat. 745)), in the amount of 0.2% (20 basis points, bips). This was doubled to 0.4% (40 bips) in 1932, in the context of the Great Depression, then eliminated in 1966.

[-] 1 points by TaxWallStreet (3) 1 year ago

There are variations of a financial transaction tax offered in both the Senate and the House of Reps. I am aware of two. There may be others.

From Sen. Bernie Sanders website: Robin Hood Tax to Reduce Wall Street Greed http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=079df010-eae9-4f1d-9c1f-a39a3fcddf08

The Congressional Progressive Caucus "Back to Work Budget" also includes a version of this financial transactions tax: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/back-to-work-budget/

The Obama administration promised to respond to any petition that gets 100,000 signatures in a month, so this petition will at least force them to acknowledge the issue. This petition process is a way to communicate to the government in a mass semi-coordinated way. Yelling at the government may rarely be successful. But we have to keep yelling at them anyway, while we also pursue other strategies at the same time.

Recently there was a petition to allow people to unlock cell phones. It reached 100,000 signatures and the government responded by issuing a plan to reverse the ban on unlocking cell phones. So there are some examples of possible success using this method in conjunction with other strategies.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

Sanders & Grijalva are what we need more of in congress
we need to make sure 2014 puts more 99% in congress

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Agreed and you can find others within the progressive caucus as well.

We need more real progressives in power, and fewer tea party extremist conservatives.

[-] 1 points by visitor111 (1) 1 year ago

Why dont you guys connect with Avaaz (http://www.avaaz.org)? This seems like the kind of thing they'd get behind & they have a community of millions that are always ready to push forward social change, support human rights causes etc via petitions. (I should know. I've signed dozens to support causes they've thrown their weight behind)

[-] -2 points by fanya11 (-35) 1 year ago

I hear by sign, that the tax wall street, is yet another economically ignorant idea by the morons at OWS.

oh yea...and it will never go ANYWHERE!.. Just like everything else this group of chuckle-heads suggests.

[+] -4 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

No. We are bringing in a record amount in taxes this year. On a shitty economy. How about some real cuts?

[-] 3 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

CUTS - YES
cut oil company subsidies
cut cap gains preference
cut military contracts
CUTS - YES

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The Rich are the takers! Time they paid their fair share.

[+] -4 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

I hate fair share. That is a crock of shit. the rich pay the highest percentage of taxes anyway.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

50% of working Americans make $13 an hour or less. If they made a fair share in wages they would pay their fair share in taxes.

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2011

[-] -3 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

So a Walmart employee should make as much as a succesful small business owner, lets say who makes 300,000.

[-] -1 points by mookeydoes (-7) from Fort Sumner, NM 1 year ago

Ridiculous. A loaf of bread goes right to $1000 a loaf. The Walmart employee does not create the value the small business owner does.

LEARN ECONOMICS.

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Calm down buddy, read my other comment and you'll see I made a mistake.

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Did I say equal?

[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

No you didn't, my bad.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The major determining factor in setting wages is selfishness. The poor could easily rise up today and demand higher wages if they would be a little more selfish and realize just how absolutely necessary they are to the economy.

The Unions realized this back in the 1920's and by the 50's and 60's many people were getting a fair share of the fruit of their labor.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

They say though that union membership was only 30% at its peak. Now its 10%. So even then 7 out of 10 workers were not union. Did the unions set the table for everyone else? Or were people simply more engaged then?

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It peaked at about 35%. Unions tend to raise all wages for the lower incomes.

http://voteview.com/images/Union_Membership_1930-2005.jpg

If the minimum wage is raised, it tends to bump up wages above it also.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Aim for a minimum wage for anyone not qualified.

It's around 16$ here in Oz.

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay/national-minimum-wage/pages/default.aspx

[+] -4 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

So. the rich pay a flat 20% on their income. The 50% who earn less than 13 dollars an hour pay a lower flat rate- 10%. That is the only fair share that I can think of.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

90% taxrate on income over $1Million. Like it used to be. And get rid of the loopholes/shelters and deductions for the wealthy.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Your are trying to get at the 0.01% and penalizing everyone else. No Middle to upper middle class would support what you are proposing as you just removed any incentive to be more successful. So if i come up with a great product or idea and sell it for a million, i would only get 100k? How about a painting, a book, or movie? Why do others have a right to what I earn as you propose? So A question: define wealthy.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You have misunderstood my ideas. Which are obviously only drafts.

I do not support nor propose removing incentives to be more successful.

I only propose fair taxes to correct the redistribution of wealth (upwards) that resulted from the rich rigging the system against us over the last 30 years.

[-] -2 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-97) 1 year ago

Couldn't reply to your posting about a Bridge to the Ground. I don't support petitions, but I do support and work for the http://i-govern.org initiative from Occupy Together. This is a community project and I'm only one voice. There are many disagreements about implementation, advertising, etc... This is a good thing, not a bad thing. I mostly work on the programming side, and so that's what I'm mostly involved in. I don't believe we should use petitions to push the projects as I believe petitions are utterly useless. This is my opinion and I defend it with arguments on the website (I have a few postings in the contribution section explaining why I'm against petitions). But, this is a minor detail. What's important is doing the project. We can't all agree on everything, but that doesn't stop us from moving forward. That's the goal of direct democracy, to make decisions even though we don't all agree. What's important is that we all get a voice.

VQ - You should join this Occupy Together initiative. E-democracy is very important. I truly believe it can change the world.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I don't believe you. I don't believe you have anything to do with any good efforts like an i-govern.org, because you don't know anything about the group.

I don't believe you because I don't trust you.

And obviously your main goal is characterized by your thread which is all about NOT taking action. NOT petitioning (VERY VALUABLE), NOT discussing politics. Whaaaaaaat? Nonsense. NOT writing letters.

Maybe after 2 years it's time for you to start reading the website you claim to be a part of.

Does Occupy together also discourage activism like petitions,letters, discussing politics.? Be careful, I've been to the site, you better check 1st.

[-] -1 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-97) 1 year ago

Occupy has always stated that it's bad to legitimize representative by means of demands, letters, etc... But really, it doesn't matter too much if what I believe is shared by all members of Occupy. It isn't. We disagree on many points and that's fine. Occupy is about discussing issues which is argumentation. People don't always agree. We can vote. That's the point of e-democracy.

What you believe about me personally is not important. What's important is Occupy. When you have a chance, join that website and make some contributions. The more people help, the more chance we have of success.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Although I support direct democracy and am anxious to see a successful process/movement towards that, I must pass on i-govern.org because YOU have suggested it.

It is now tainted forever with the stench of your dishonest, divisive efforts to discourage any occupy activism.

You say 'you support occupy'? I disagree. Even THIS new thread/effort is all about discouraging occupy activism (as always).

Tell me, how is i-govern.org doing after 2 years.? Have you gotten anywhere?

[-] -3 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-97) 1 year ago

Although I support direct democracy and am anxious to see a successful process/movement towards that, I must pass on i-govern.org because YOU have suggested it.

It's sad that you don't have the required intelligence to judge an idea on its own merit. Weaker minds do confuse proposer and idea, but you can always learn the proper art of debate. Who knows, perhaps once you understand appeal to authority, appeal to motive, ad hominem, etc... you'll start having the ability to judge an idea for what it is.

Tell me, how is i-govern.org doing after 2 years.? Have you gotten anywhere?

We have a lot of ideas, and some interesting software. We're not getting bogged down with deadlines as we know it takes time to create a proper system. We need to do it right no matter how long it takes.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You've spent more than a year dishonestly disrupting the forum, and discouraging occupy activism.

And you are accusing me of upvoting myself. LOL

Wow, that is clearly a false equivalency. My voting is my business, the numbers are meaningless, I AM NOT nor have I ever been 'VQ'. I AM inclusionman, And that is all that I am.

Most importantly I post honest info, action items of true occupy activism, rarely get involved with YOU, and never take part in any personal attack disruptive troll activity.

Keep your meaningless distractions to yourself.

[-] -2 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-97) 1 year ago

VQ - You're funny, and even cute sometimes.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The messenger absolutely matters. that ain't lame. I've already saidI support the idea. Your website indicates NO progress in 2 years. NONE! not a little NONE!

Your website indicates petitions, you claim your against petitions. The thread you posted is full of discouragement of occupy activism, not positiveness of your website or even direct democracy.

It's obviously bullshit, Which is expected from the bullshitter. This is just another in a long line of your efforts to discourage occupy activism.

You can't resurrect your integrity by spewing insults when people fairly judge you as untrustworthy.

When the townsfolk ignored the boy who cried wolf it was not because they didn't think wolves were dangerous.

C'mon, I can't waste my time teaching you lessons about honesty & integrity that you should have learned in fairy tales when you were a child.

[-] -2 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-97) 1 year ago

VQ teaching lessons of honestly and integrity? Lol You used sock puppets to vote yourself up and wore the cone of shame for it! Funny guy you are...

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I already said I support the idea of direct democracy, It is thewebsite you suggested I question.

So if you suggested a petition I might suspect the petition but not petitioning!

You understand the difference,? you fuckin moron.

[-] -3 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-97) 1 year ago

The moron is the one incapable of judge and idea, or a project on its own merit. You don't like a website because I mentioned it. You wouldn't like a particular petition because I mentioned it. That's lame and unintelligent thinking. It's like a teenager who doesn't like a certain type of music just because his dad likes it. Lame beyond belief.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You resort to calling me unintelligent? LOL. I'm smart enough to know you don't give a shit about occupy, about activism, and even about i-govern.org.

So i-govern.org is not gettin anywhere, In 2 years? If they get somewhere I will know it. If you're involved I doubt they will.

Wow. And in the meantime you spend your time discouraging all other activism? No petitions, no letter writing, no demonstrations, no discussion,

You're a fuckin joke. You ain't fooled anyone.

[-] -2 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-97) 1 year ago

Trolling is too easy! Lol. I mention an Occupy idea which is great and everybody runs away from it! If I told you petitions were amazing, you would start doubting them. Lol!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

"The moron is the one incapable of judge and idea"

Actually, it's someone who does the same thing over and over and over, and keeps expecting a different result.

Kind of like a spammer I've heard of around here.

It keeps coming back, just exactly like a moronic bad penny.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

in stead, why not work on things that have
millions of supporters,
80% approval rating,
and are simple to explain:
end corporate personhood & citizens united

[-] -2 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-97) 1 year ago

Because those are not the best solutions. E-democracy is. However, nothing stops you from working on the issues you find most important.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

how would E-democracy avoid thing that were reported today about computer voter registration fraud in Florida ?

[-] -1 points by BridgeToTheGroundTeam (-97) 1 year ago

There's many ways to heighten security. The problem with voter registration fraud in Florida is mainly because the ones who run the system don't care about security. They are corrupted. They receive money to let the fraud take place. With direct-democracy, there would essentially be no corruption since everyone would be equal in power.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

A little buisnessman I'v heard of ate this argument and spit it out

He knows many rich people and stated that none of them ever made an investment based of taxes. oh yes - his name was Warren something or other I think

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

So no one makes an investment based on taxes? No, that's incorrect. There are lots of people that invest in municipal bonds (or similar) as part of there portfolio, which last time I checked are tax free something or other. For reasons of tax (and safety). Maybe we have different definitions of rich?

[-] 4 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

I may have not clearly stated W.B.'s statement -

Here's the piece from Buffett's Nov. 25th New York Times' op-ed : Suppose that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.” Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Yes, that does clarify the statement much better. We were thinking different investment areas. When one is investing in the example you are giving, making money (minus the tax) is still much better than earning savings rate. If your paying tax, you are making money. In the discussion with VQ, his proposals for such high rates is ridiculous, and just anger at those who have more.

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

Here's my idea - capital gains is really two different situations.

If company X sells stock in its own company to me and commits to spending that money and hiring in America - when I sell that stock there should be no cap gains tax the country benefits

If John Smith sells me HIS stock in company Y and I sell it, I should pay at regular income rates this is a gamble that does not benefit America

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

So the proposal is for first owner sale only to be at a different tax rate (cap gain) with subsequent sales at standard tax rates. Interesting idea. But there should not be a limit or special requirement on the company that initially sells stock. It is a primary way to raise capital for all kinds of needs. To limit how they spend the capital would inhibit normal business operations.

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

My idea is to offer an incentive for the buyer to buy stock that will be used to improve the American economy - rather than enrich an investor.
specifically - if I buy $1000 worth of stock from Ann, and sell it for $1500 a year later, my $500 profit benefits no one but me
if I buy $1000 worth of stock from the company that commits to buy & invest in AMerica , it benefits America


We incentivize tax exempt bonds

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Any buyer of stock is an investor, whether it is for improving the economy or not, and the incentive (risk) is there to make a gain. As for capital usage, That might be a bit difficult to monitor exactly, especially in a changing business environment. If I buy stock from an IPO or just a second issue from company A, who originally has planned to use this capital to build a new factory in state B. The planning, building and factory start up will take about 3-4 years to come online. In 1 year, i sell that original stock for a nice gain and pay a low tax. About a year later, the economic or market condition for that factory now is changed so that it is not needed, or the needs can be met with existing factory operations. Now what happens? I have already bought and sold stock, made a nice gain, and paid a low tax. This is just one pf the problems of forecasting and also placing limitations on capital used for operations.

And yes, Stock sales on the exchange between buyers and sellers are beneficial to the buyer and seller, but there is some benefit to the economy through wealth generation, which drives consumer confidence and spending.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

OK then. 50% on everyone else.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Nothing on those making less then $30k. except 2% for SS/medicare/aca.

10% up to $50k. 20% up to $75k, 30% up to $100K. Something like that might work.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Where is the incentive to earn a profit? Where is the incentive to grow and prosper?

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Same as it ever was. Fair taxes doesn't change that. Don't be afraid.

[-] -2 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Perhaps if I was born and raised with that monstrosity as the societal norm. As it is now, I imagine I would fight like hell if Big Brother decided to take about 60% more of my earning if I earned a million.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well since the wealthy have rigged the system against you and me, and taken all our wealth it is necessary to increase their taxes.

What do you care?. Stop advocating for the people who are preying on your family. Stop betraying your own class. Have a little sense and decency.

[-] -2 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

I am a tax payer. I collect no government assistance. I pay my debts and earn my keep. I really have no desire to help those who have the ability, but not the desire, to help themselves.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Don't worry about the next tax. reserve you concern for WHO is taxed. Use all your energy/influence to get taxes increased on the weakthy and cut for the working class.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Wow you are dense.

The wealthy ( employers ) are wealthier - they make their money off of the middle class and the poor.

But you say don't take away from the wealthy ( who have been taking more and more and more from the middle class and the poor ).

What do you suggest then? Place a wage and income freeze on the wealthy until the rest catch-up?


[-] 0 points by highlander4 (3) 4 minutes ago

then provide the middle class and poor with the opportunity to rise. Do not take from the rich. Do not make the poor or the middle class dependent on the government. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

No, the government should quit growing like a wart. Quit increasing taxes. Even with a record receipt of taxes, we will still be almost 1 trilllion in the hole. Streamline the government, quit feeding the pig, and leave more money for the people.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Your a Bigot - of poor people?

[-] -2 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Are you a bigot of rich people? Are you a bigot of those who earn their way? Or do you fancy yourself a warrior for the downtrodden?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Great! we haven't mentioned them. Therefore we ain't talkin about them.

But we are talkin about gettin our money back from the wealthy who rigged the system against us and left us with nothin.

Alright, no need to distract with the tried and true repub talking point fallacy regarding welfare queens and such.

Let's stick with the thread topic of taxing wall st transactions.

Sign the petition for your families sake.

[-] -2 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

what has always held me back from such things is this...what will be taxed next?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes government is also a part of the problem - taxing middle and lower class more and more and giving the wealthy more and more tax breaks along with other gifts.


[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-1) 4 minutes ago

No, the government should quit growing like a wart. Quit increasing taxes. Even with a record receipt of taxes, we will still be almost 1 trilllion in the hole. Streamline the government, quit feeding the pig, and leave more money for the people. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

flat tax. 1 page tax code.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No I am not a bigot - do I defend the downtrodden? I like to try.

I look at facts/reality - and that shows that the middle class and the working poor and the very poor have been losing ground while the wealthy have received all kinds of bonuses. The wealthy are not wealthy in and of themselves - they are wealthy because of the middle class and even because of the working poor - they even make money off of the very poor.

Facts support this finding that the wealthy ( employer ) income has risen dramatically while the middle class ( small business and worker ) and below has been stagnant or losing ground.


[-] 0 points by highlander4 (3) 0 minutes ago

Are you a bigot of rich people? Are you a bigot of those who earn their way? Or do you fancy yourself a warrior for the downtrodden? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

then provide the middle class and poor with the opportunity to rise. Do not take from the rich. Do not make the poor or the middle class dependent on the government.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

If you earned a million and your employees earned 20 grand explain how you would justify the huge gap in salaries.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Very simplistic. But OK. Perhaps this employee was an entry level employee, working their way up.

[-] -2 points by freakyfriday (179) 1 year ago

Really, you can't have western european socialism without western european tax rates. 47% of americans with no skin in the game just doesn;'t work.

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

pre federal income tax , it was nothing,..for everyone. the govt spends too much. give them more tax money and they will spend more than the tax money coming in. they are out of control.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We've already cut trillions. The problem is the rich are hoarding all of OUR money.

So we gotta fix the system they rigged against us, raise their taxes, use that to invest in high wage jobs, grow the economy and then the spending/budget will by just fine.

Don't worry about a thing.

[-] -1 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

obama hasnt cut anything,.........all show, no substance. which is exactly what HE is.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well the deficit is going down so someones is cutting.

Doesn't matter, the deficit/debt is just conservative fear mongering propaganda. No need to worry about that phony crises.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

VQ. Let me understand your thinking. Your stating that the deficit (annual or cumulative) does not matter and is just fear mongering propaganda? Enlighten me on that. Just how are we to pay all that money to those owning the debt, bonds, T-bills, etc? So we should just ignore it? You always talk about raising taxes, would that be to pay down the debt or just more stimulus as you also have proposed? Just trying to make some economic sense or our statement here (and elsewhere on the forum).

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Deficits are necessary when dealing with slow economies, in order to invest in job creation to spur economic growth. The best way to address any deficit IS economic growth.

More people working, more tax revenue, Also, higher wages, more tax revenue.

So I support growing the economy in order to further reduce the deficit.

But when pols squeal that the deficit is gonna kill us, or we're immorally borrowing from our grandchildren in order to 'starve the beast' and destroy Social security/Medicare/caid then I correct them and say....

We don't have a deficit problem we have an unemployment problem!

And just to be clear I support cutting the defense budget, corp welfare/subsidies for wealthy corps, and of course any waste & fraud.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

VQ Let's talk reality. We are nowhere near on an approach to a neutral budget. Even with unemployment back to a full employment number (3-4%), it will be difficult to achieve. Cutting programs, etc. will help, but yet you are always calling for more spending. Buts let's say we some how get to a neutral based budget, for discussion sake, in 5 years. It's likely the national debt will be at least 17 trillion dollars. So I ask you: just how are we going to make that disapear? Your in denial that this is not a problem and a significant negative impact on the future of our economic system.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I disagree! I reject your offensive personal attack against my style. I have done nothing wrong. I have not attacked you personally.

I have not tried to distract from the issue with meaningless discussion of how you converse,

I have not criticized the important, valuable, effective tactics of petitioning, marching, banging drums.

I only say I support taxing wall street transactions.

Please join us & sign the petition.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Every trade (buy or sell) of stock, bond, etc gets a small transaction tax.

What don't you understand.? This might help.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/wall-street-transaction-tax-revenue_n_1080493.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Wall_Street_Pay_for_the_Restoration_of_Main_Street_Bill

Let me know if I can clarify anything else for you.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

VQ. You still do not listen well. I know what transactions are, I was asking which you would tax. So you are proposing transaction be taxed how? By percentage, or progressively on number of shares, flat rate? So each time a municipal pension fund adjusts or re-levels, it would be taxed? So each time a managed portfolio is re-leveled, it would be taxed? So each time your 401k is adjusted for leveling, it would be taxed? Have you any idea how many times such adjustment on funds are performed each day? I haven't even mentioned money market funds. Do you realize the impact to the average person would be (re. FEES). I doubt it. Wall street would not pay the tax, it would be passed on as part of the basis cost (a deductable on schedule D, whether gain or loss). So when a company wants to raise capital, there would be a tax basis cost on the transaction? The intended tax would be a regressive tax, similar to a sales tax. Bad idea.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26863) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

On Taxing Wallstreet :

join with Daily Kos and Democracy for America in telling Congress to tax Wall Street speculation and put Americans back to work. Click here to sign the petition.

Despite conservative screams about the “socialist communist Kenyan Muslim” in the White House, fact is that Wall Street just had its best week… ever. That’s not hyperbole -- the Dow just hit new highs ten days in a row.

Meanwhile, in real America, the sequester threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs in the midst of an anemic recovery, with DC deadlocked thanks to obstructionist Republicans. And of course, conservatives continue to insist that any budget deal include further hardships on the working class and retired.

But Sens. Tom Harkin and Sheldon Whitehouse have a better idea -- a Wall Street speculation tax. The burden on traders would be minimal -- just three pennies on every $100 traded, or 0.03 percent.

Please click here to sign the petition from Daily Kos and Democracy for America telling Congress to tax Wall Street speculation and put Americans back to work.

This absurdly modest tax would raise $352 billion over 10 years, or one-third of what the sequester will cut, creating and saving jobs, and putting the burden where it belongs -- on those who created our economic problems, profited most from taxpayer bailouts, and continue to profit today.

As is usually the case in DC, the roadblock isn’t public opinion -- 81 percent of Americans support a tax on trading. What we need are bold leaders to take on the corporatist lobby, and a grassroots army to have their backs.

Join with Daily Kos, Democracy for America, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse by signing the petition telling Congress to tax Wall Street speculation.

Keep fighting, Markos Moulitsas Publisher and founder, Daily Kos

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Difficult? Try impossible. As soon as interest rates go up, we are screwed.

[+] -4 points by mookeydoes (-7) from Fort Sumner, NM 1 year ago

Oh, c'mon now. there's no room for logic and reason on OWS.

This is all about raw emotion by the failed class.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Tax wall st transactions, grow the economy, cut the military budget, cut corp welfare, corp deductions, cut waste and fraud, raise taxes on wealthy individuals, eliminate the price gauging at hospitals, med device corp, big pharma.

That'll do it.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

VQ, Not even close. So. Define what a wall street transaction is that would be taxed. Be specific.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I haven't requested your advice on how I present, propose, or discuss.

This Idea ain't my idea, the poster "TaxWallstreet" put up the thread.

I'm not compromising, I maintain we need to tax wall st transactions in order to attempt to achieve wealth equity.

Your "discussion" with me amounts to pedantic, nitpicking, distraction, deflection, & harassment.

Are you gonna sign the petition.? That's what the thread is about.

The thread topic is not about "Victors conversational style".

You can keep that to yourself, My interest is in taxing wall st and the rest of the the corp 1% oligarchs in order to benefit the 99%, I'm not seeking advice on how to converse.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

VQ. As lucy says, " Hopeless, competely hopeless". You not only do not listen well, now it seems when there is a chance at some understanding and compromise, you run away, declaring that you won't change your rhetorical style. By your reaction, you completely do not understand what I said. You miss the point. I was actually agreeing with you on some points, but then you focus on "present, propose and discuss", and do not even mention the common ground. When you stopped the rhetoric, some good discussion actually happened. All you want to do is shout from the roof tops, march and bang drums, sign online petitions. Great, go ahead, your perogative, but that will never accomplish anything. It takes real work, hard discussion, compromise and a willingness to understand that a large segment of the population does not agree with your views. Acting the way you do is the same as what you declare the republicans are doing. But, hard as i may try, I am speaking with a stone.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

If the fund is very wealthy the amount might be large but it would only by 3%.

Individual small investors can afford 3%. $3 on $100 dollar trade is tiny.

And that is not where the money will be made. When you got these hedge fund guys doing massive deals for hundreds of millions, that's where the money will come from.

But if you insist I suppose the proposal could exclude all trades smaller than $10k, and all trades related to retirement/pension. These details can be worked out later.

But please be clear. I am not writing legislation, this is an idea (that you are obviously against) that can capture some of the obscene wall st wealth that sucks up and hoards.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

I am not against your idea per se, it's just that you make such grand statements (rhetoric) that just go no where. Better is to state what you mean, with some thought behind it (a few details). You might actually get someone to agree with you. Its meant to be a convesation, not a fight. In reality, I am not totally against your proposal, but I wanted to flesh out some of your thoughts behind it. This is how it is done. Instead of the usual "tax wall street" pronunciations, why not get rid of the rhetorical statements and actually propose what you would like to see. It did not take long to get moving into middle ground. You countered with a 10k limit and pension/retirement activities. Now we are getting somewhere. There still some issues with that, but at least now you are understanding what it takes to compromise and see where significant trip points are. It's the same approach in engineering, we just don't make grand statements, we consider details beforehand. It may sound like a negative approach, but it works. One must learn to challenge even themselves with this process.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

My personal investments are not an appropriate topic of discussion.

This transaction tax would be higher on larger value transaction, as such obviously it is NOT regressive, ut rather progressive.

If you trade is $100 you might pay $3 (if the tax was 3%) but if your trade is $1million your tax would be $30 thousand dollars.

Understand? That's what makes it progressive.

Are you familiar with the concepts of regressive/progressive taxes?

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

VQ. Of course I understand. But Your avoiding most of the concerning items I wrote about. So your proposing a flat percent. How about answering the concerns I have. Your focusing on one item. And I was not personal, just asking. I will rephrase: if you owned a 401k, would you like to pay on every transaction within your 401k as expressed below? or, do you support taxing every transaction within a 401k? Would you support taxing every transaction within a retirement fund (IRA, etc)? Do you understand the concerns with auto-leveling, or manual leveling within a fund? Do you realize the amount of high dollar transactions that occur within a single mutual fund that suddenly would be taxed by your proposal? You do realize that you are also taxing the middle class with this type of proposal. Please addresss these concerns and also the ones you missed.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You aren't making sense. any time a trade is executed a small % of that trade is added as tax.

Simple. You just don't support taxing the wealthy, so you want to try to make this about non wealthy people and claim it is regressive.

The smaller the trade the smaller the cost. As the trade gets larger the cost grows PROGRESSIVELY larger.

Read the articles I linked, you will understand and if you agree with fair taxes and helping the middle class you will support.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

This is not about taxing the wealthy. This is about taxing the average person, and also every type of fund there is. The impact to the rich is minor. The impact to the average person is high (the very definition of regressive). And what about all the funds that contain pensions, 401k, etc). Every state, municipality etc. would now have pay these fees ( tax). Even unions would be hit with these fees (tax). Anyone with money in any fund. I am not disagreeing that it would generate lots of revenue, rather I am stating who it will impact. Your logic is wrong on this one. Wall street would not pay a dime, brokers would not pay a dime, bankers would not pay a dime. Only we would pay (the 100%). Would you be okay with additional fees in your 401k?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

CEO's trying to get lower taxes!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/288891-ceos-set-tax-reform-goal-25-percent-corporate-rate

We MUST raise their taxes. use that revenue for high paying jo creation.

You with us?

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

If, you believe the deficit is going down than you'll believe anything that obama & co say. This crisis is real, unlike the phoney manufactured obama crisies.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

LOL. I don't care what any pol says. 1st of all I disregard, and dismiss the lies of conservatives that the deficit/debt is any kind of problem.

If you believe that you are an ignorant fool, a moronic tool.

[-] -3 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

Why dont you dismiss the lies of dems? Are you their tool?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I just said I don't care what any pol says. Pay attention moron.

[+] -4 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

If you dont care what the pols say than why do you single out republicans and not democrats?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Because repubs are the number 1 enemy of the 99%.

Dems I think are not too far gone and can be dragged back to the left and serve the 99%. They ain't quite there yet, but there's hope.

[-] 0 points by worldwidereform (0) from Kalamazoo, MI 1 year ago

i would respectfully disagree. They all have their own interests at heart, not the peoples. They are all too far gone, and have been for DECADES. If you cannot see that, then you are blinded by the lies that have been fed to you since you were sucking on the tit. They all need to go, and now.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The fair way is to first close the ever widening gap in incomes.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Not as much as the percent of our wealth they suck up after rigging the system against us.

greedy, corrupt, selfish, criminal fucks!!!!