BERNIE'S TAX

>>1168764
they have to pay their fair share

>>1168770
So, if they lose a lot of money, they should pay even more in tax?
There has to be something missing here.

>>1168764
STFU day trader

Speculatory-driven asset inflation has caused things like home prices and automobiles to grow to many times the median income. A house used to be twice the median income 30 years ago. Now it's 15 times the median income thanks to real-estate speculation.

He's trying to go after high frequency trading

but what's really going to happen is he's going to fuck over people who manage their own money. If passed, a transaction tax would give a huge incentive to park money in mutual funds that collect fees for NOTHING. A transaction tax fucks over middle class regular guys with $2000 - $5000 equity accounts it makes no sense. It's faggot shit. Only silver lining is it's probably all fluff, it'll never really pass hopefully just like when Obama ran for office in 2008 he was going to change everything. Hope and Change lol k

>>1168775
>Now it's 15 times the median income thanks to real-estate speculation
Then how come they're not charging people a tax when they lose money selling their home?

>>1168774
Why not tax stupidity when it can fuck up the whole economy?

Reminder that OP is a pathetic butthurt NEET that continued to post in the same thread about how butthurt he was for a week and a half after he was BTFO.

>>1168790
I think you may be confused.
Unless you think the guy at home trading 100 shares of Apple is some sort of threat to the "whole economy".
Do you?

>>1168764
if you take a loss when selling stock you still have to pay a broker commission

if you invest in a mutual fund and it tanks you're still paying the advisor whatever management fees or load % the fund charges

just two examples where you will pay fees even if you're taking losses

>>1168795
It's not one guy though is it? It's lots of people doing lots of stupid shit.

You want to play, pay, why are you entitled to shit?

>>1168775
>all houses of the same size and quality from 30 years ago

You're partly correct though

>>1168802
>It's lots of people
If it's "lots of people" trading 100 shares of Apple, that's still not going to make any difference.

>>1168802
>why are you entitled to shit?
I don't think I'm "entitled" for being willing to pay tax on my profits, just not on my losses.
Unreasonable?

>>1168792
Oh, I remember that thread. And you are the marxist leaning Authotorian monarchist who got fucking told by everybody but still kept evading shit and acting like you were right. How about you understand that /biz/ loves business, not a dead economy.

>>1168789
Because the people that live in the homes aren't the ones inflating the prices, it's banks. Also it's not just houses. It's also automobiles, food, raw materials like metal, etc. You're just a small part of a cancerous system that's killing the economy.

>>1168804
New homes are built with much cheaper, lower quality materials.

>>1168799
Your examples aren't taxes, though.
The US system taxes profits, not amounts spent.
If that were the case, Safeway would pay a fixed amount of tax on a truck load of vegetables, even if they went rotten and were sold at a loss.

>>1168824
>You're just a small part of a cancerous system that's killing the economy
Really? Can you explain how trading 100 shares at home is connected to evil banks raising home prices?
Is it because we both use "money"?

ITT no one has heard of inflation adjusted numbers.

>>1168764
Sales taxes are better than capital gains taxes.
Suppose there is a capital gains tax of 20%
Let's say you buy $100 worth of assets, after 1 year they are worth $125 and you sell. You are taxed 20% on the $25 and you pay $5 in taxes, yielding a profit of $20. Now lets say you decide for some reason to buy back in with $120, now lets say the gains in the stock market are completely lose, meaning the general stock market fell from 125 back down to 100, that means you would lose 20% which is $24 in this case, so your assets are now down to $96 dollars, despite the fact that the stock market didn't change at all.
A sales tax makes more sense as it is a guaranteed tax regardless of whether or not you make money, hence you don't have to deal with tax hurting you harder for risk.
Although I think Bernie's rate is too high, it should be on the order of 0.05 to 0.1%, maybe smaller, it should be very small.

>>1168831
Financial markets are a highly networked system. But I don't expect someone like you to understand that.

>>1168837
Those are prices with respect to median income. They aren't supposed to be affected by inflation.

>>1168821
Hmm, I don't remmber that last bit happening at all. Nice strawman, though.

>>1168874
Inflation removes the value of liquid holdings and inflates assets. So yes. it moves the asset price and it moves the median value. They are affected. That is why we use inflation adjusted numbers across time spans.

>>1168842
>meaning the general stock market fell from 125 back down to 100
>despite the fact that the stock market didn't change at all
Wait, what?

>>1168874
>highly networked system
Sounds like you just want to tie a guy trading at home to evil global financial elites by claiming "They're both part of the problem!"
Except citing this doesn't tie them together at all.
The only thing you could claim is that I'm funding my brokerage. This is some sort of nefarious crime?

>>1168842
You don't seem to understand my unwillingness to lose money.

Why would I invest $100 to have $96

That by taxing this industry you concentrate power.

If you lose money in the stock market, can't you get re imbursed by the govt. because these were investments?

>>1168764

>proposing 0.5% tax rate.

Seriously, is that on total equity invested?

Bernie Sanders logic: "Oh looking to invest your money? I'll take some of that."

>>1168925
You could write actual losses off against gains, but you couldn't write off the tax.

>>1168930
>Seriously, is that on total equity invested?
Yes.
Buy for $5,100, sell at a loss for $4,900:
Pay tax on $10,000, plus your loss of $200.

>>1168966
Yeah, I know all about it. Really no better example of this kind of thing in action.
Which makes it really ironic, because the people who are supporting Sanders have a real hard on for Sweden.

>>1168939

Almost making me want this just to see the economy burn. How long would it take before the bread lines appear? How much would the usd be devalued, peso level? zimbabwe level?

Reminder bernie didn't have any job until he became a senator at 40. Reminder he's a leeching NEET who has never paid his own way. Who do I want as the financial policy maker for the entire country: the guy in credit card debt who has less net worth than a car mechanic, or the guy who owns half of nyc and is a self made billionaire? Hmm.

>>1168802

Isn't the stock market a way to REGULATE the market and smooth out bumps by buying low and selling high, thus keeping away larger fluctuations and generally ensuring the economy is smooth rather than a chaotic, tumultuous mess?

Oh wait, you don't know shit about economics. Go back to faggit, pls.

>>1169006
>How long would it take
I don't know, but anyone running a business would be moronic to accept this kind of arrangement.
The tradeoff of our system is that you can use business losses to offset gains, not pay more taxes on them.

>>1168824
Day traders think the economy owes them. It will take a wooden stake through their hearts to stop them.

I didn't think it was true but he's never really had a job.
>>1169006
No wonder he thinks money is evil

>>1169065
>Day traders think the economy owes them
Nice ad hominem.

>It will take a wooden stake through their hearts
Holy drama, Batman.
Do you really get this worked up about day traders?

>>1169012
this

>>1169065
Lol wut

>>1169128
I do get worked up about speculators and HFTs (not market makers) because they basically place tons of orders on the order book with no intention of letting them be filled

It's like spamming emails

>>1169230
Yeah, that shit pisses me off too.
But it's not like it couldn't be fixed without fucking everything else up.

>>1169323
How about forced delay between transactions? Few seconds won't hurt human traders.

>>1169364
That's not a bad idea.
First thing that came to me was a fraction of a cent charge on cancelled orders. How many would the average trader cancel in a year?
HFT would get fucked though.

>>1168764
This is all the argument you ever need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax

It doesn't work and will completely kill any trading (as well as market liquidity - if you want huge spikes and crashes, this is how). It won't generate a fraction of the expected taxes. People will plainly stop trading, and move elsewhere. This, along with taxing the rich (who would simply move their assets and themselves out before Hernie could go through with it, leaving the middle-class to pay as usual), would put a hard and sudden stop to the slow decline the US has been enjoying. Right now you're (eurofag here) slowly becoming more and more irrelevant as even the european allies start realizing that the american eagle is merely a folded paper crane, but you still have the petrodollar and reserve currency status. If a commie like Bernie were to enact his policies, you'd lose reserve currency status since you'd be very financially unstable.

However - don't worry about any of this. Bernie won't even be the nominee. Even if he was elected president, he'd be a lamer duck than Obongo. None of his policies would pass, as the republicans would just lock it down with their current control (which would only increase after two years of absolutely nothing he promised would happen, happening).

If we pretend for a second that he has any sort of chance, he wouldn't win the election (Democrats may be ready to elect an open communist, but the general public isn't) - unless, and this is what they're going for, the GOP arrives at their convention with Trump having 49.99% or less of the delegates. In that case, they will re-allocate delegates to a dud and even Bernie could win against the ensuing outrage of that betrayal. But again, he couldn't even pass any of his less controversial policies. He'd be sitting in that office tapping his little red book against the desk, muttering party slogans. Progress! Forward!..

>>1169402
>This is all the argument you ever need
Oh, you'd be surprised.
I've talked with several who have pat answers for why "it wouldn't work there, but would here in the US".
Not that any of their arguments are correct, but it shows you how far they're willing to go with it.

>>1168764
Get a job.

>>1168764
Why do you retards waste any time thinking about Barneys nonsensical policies? He can't mathematically get a nomination, and he'd lose to any competitor, even if Hillary was indicted.

>>1169448
>Get a job
I'm not a Sanders supporter.
So yeah, I already have one.

>>1169172
Were you born that stupid or did you take a class?

>>1168775

Actually housing prices have skyrocketed because of low interest rates and down payment requirements.

Up until the 90's in CA, and 00's elsewhere, you NEEDED a 25% down payment to buy a house. Literally making housing affordable for poor people made it unaffordable for everyone.

Fuck those lazy sacks of shit.

>>1169469
Shitposting in your underwear is not a job.

Do something useful for society you parasite.

>>1169671
>you parasite
As long as I can feast on the life blood of losers like you, I'll die content.

>>1169766
>thinking you do more for society than a mechanical engineer
Yeah, don't lie to yourself like that kid.

>>1169793
>a mechanical engineer
How is being a mechanical engineer? It sucks?
And is feasting on the blood of losers compulsory, or optional?

>>1169980
>openly admitting you're an economic cancer
>now I am become avarice, the destroyer of prosperity

>>1169994
Wait, I thought you said mechanical engineers were cancer?
I thought you said that you were alright, Spider.

>>1169402
It's worked in almost every country but though, including the UK, which is home to the largest stock exchange outside of the US.

The rest of your post is garbage. Do you really think this is going to cause people to stop trading on the market that's larger than the next seven combined?

File: [catchy trump music playing in the distance].jpg (495KB, 900x1166px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 900x1166px

>>1168764
who gives a shit

this crazy old socialist is just scamming dumb shits out of their money so he can ride off into the sunset

donald trump is going to be the 45th POTUS after beating hillary clinton in a landslide victory anyway and all of us who are good with money are going to enjoy it being even easier to make more of it

this thieving turd can fuck off LOL

>>1168775
>bernie is anti-supply and demand
Thank god for shillary

>>1169994
Wait a minute......
>mechanical Engineer
>quotes Bhagavad-Gita
Are you from the Subcontinent?

>>1170348
It doesn't work in the UK, dude.
Instead, its forced anyone who wants to day trade in to buying CFD's, a poorly regulated asset-linked product.
Get it?
They're buying this kind of crap instead of stocks, because they won't pay the asinine tax set up there.
In the event of that kind of stupidity here, people will just pull the same stupid end run, and those that market the "replacement" product (guess who?) will win again.

>>1168764
I'm guessing the tax for an individual transaction is ridiculiously low, say 0.1% (if that - but then I haven't read his proposal). For people who buy and sell theirs shares and the like every few years, rather than days, the tax will add up to nothing. For faggoty day traders like you, however, it's a whole other thing.

>>1170565
>but then I haven't read his proposal
All we need to know, right there

>>1170565

1 pick = 1%
10 picks = 10%

I'd like to think of myself as the type that would support Bernie Sanders, but this is retarded.

As a guy trying to start investing individually, Bernie Sanders' proposal would be wiping out my potential investment returns before I even get into the investments.

>>1168770
>fair share

I hate this term. I use the protection of the military and the roads as much as the guy making 10k a year. Why does he only have to pay 5% but I have to pay 50% of my income?

If it were truly a fair share, we'd both get taxed the same amount and the government woulds top sucking dick at budgeting.

File: pajit.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>1168764
> be me 2 years earlier
>working for an international company
>i was sent to india to expand our maket
>no sight seeing go straight to the office with a cap
>arrive
>literally everybody is called PAJIIT
>fuckthisplace.jpg
>meeting is boring af
>stomacrumbl.exe
>oh shit
>this is not a drill
>storm out looking for a toilet
>404 toilet not found..
>not even in the next building
>not even in the restaurant
>i doubt the existence of toilets in india
>i can't hold it anymore.gif
>pants down
>taking explosive shit on the street
>wipe my ass with bare hands
>businessmen storms out of the building towards me
>shit they saw me
>they shake my shitty hand one by one
Anon you are so openminden towards our culture.. DEAL
>tfw i basicly doubled our income because i had diarrhea

>>1170631
>but this is retarded
Pretty much.
Rather than tailor his policy to the specific activity he's against (High Frequency Trading), he'd rather broaden it to screw anyone who is involved with the financial markets.
This is popular with his support base, but few realize that it will undoubtedly affect them as well.
They might have to pay more to buy or sell (or have someone do it for them), but at least the rich Wall Street guys have to pay too, right?

>>1170640
because x/y, where x is total tax revenue to be collected and y is labor force, is a much greater proportion of his income than yours. not really sure how much simpler this can be made.

>is a much greater proportion of his income than yours
You could only make this argument if everyone's contributions were equal.

>>1170671
11/10

>>1171893
9/11

File: 1458776205071.jpg (7KB, 274x184px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 274x184px

Stock-market centred financial systems are not even beneficial when you take into account their costs of operation. Finance claims to efficiently direct society’s savings towards their optimal investment pursuits but finance in reality has little to even do with real investment and it's generally poor when it tries allocating capital. The stock-markets prime role is just arrangement and rearrangement of ownership patterns. The prominence of institutional investors in the stock market has just increased rentier power over corporate policy and portfolio managers keep demanding higher stock prices. Wealthier households plunged into stocks (through the medium of mutual funds) and poorer households keep going deeper into debt resulting in the poor borrowing from the wealthy at interest.

Bank-centered financial systems are much better at actually allocating real capital where controlling interests are typically in the hands of large banks or close business partners like suppliers and customers, and it’s practically impossible for firms to be bought and sold on the open market. You don't end up with all the expenses of all the people who under-write, analyze, trade, and sell securities and the inflationary effects they create.

>>1171923
>central banks should own everyone and everything
this is Bernie's endgame

File: retard.png (48KB, 219x219px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 219x219px

>>1171926
You can either finance growth with money creation or be dependent upon commercial bank debt to grow your economy

Japan and Germany were highly successful in this style for most of the 20th century but neoliberal globalists have strategically been attempting to undermine Japan and Germany for the past 25 years by introducing Western style financial markets to destroy their economies and engineering population crises to destroy and destabilize their societies

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm
>Another case in point: does capitalism require plutocrats? The classic capitalist answer is that somebody has to own productive assets with a view to maximizing their profit, some of those who do will succeed brilliantly, therefore somebody must be rich.
>But the Japanese see this as wasteful, so their system is designed so that corporations, in essence, largely own themselves. Even when there are nominal outside owners, corporations are managed so that the bulk of the wealth generated by the corporation flows either to the incomes of present workers or to investment in the future competitive strength of the company, making the workers and the company itself the de facto or beneficiary owners.
>Most corporate capital in Japan is owned by banks, and the banks are principally owned not by shareholders, but by other companies in the same keiretsu or industrial group. And who owns these companies? Although there are some outside shareholders, majority control is in the hands of the keiretsu’s bank and the other companies in the group. So in essence, the whole thing is circular and private ownership of the means of production has basically been put into the back seat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MayzfjnzeCk

>>1171947
That sounds like more of a cultural difference as opposed to a policy one, how would the US theoretically move towards such a system without throwing out the Constitution/private ownership laws

>>1171923
>The stock-markets prime role is just arrangement and rearrangement of ownership patterns
That's certainly one of its roles.
My guess is that much of the claims of efficient distribution and optimal investment are just a standard result of pushback against regulation and legislation.
Like any other sector of the economy, it's in their best interest to trumpet the positive aspects of their existence, including those that they have little to do with. This makes it harder for legislation industries deem "overreach" to succeed.

>the inflationary effects they create
Do you mean in terms of speculation moving prices?

>>1170435
It's like I'm really on facebook

>>1171923
This a an incredibly uninformed and stupid statement and its amazing someone took the time to type this out. Do us a favor and don't post on biz.

>>1168831
>Can you explain how trading 100 shares at home is connected to evil banks raising home prices?
Is it because we both use "money"?

It's because you both use "churn".

>>1168905
How does it concentrate power? The powerful ones now are the ones paying millions to straighten the fibre optic cables between their offices so they can trade a few nanoseconds earlier. How can the average guy buying and selling 100 apple shares in his home compete with that shit with or without a tax?

File: 5645423.gif (769KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

769KB, 320x180px

>>1170435
great post. you're the best.

>>1168770
Funny how people can never validate "fair"

>>1173409
You get taxed too friendo. If you couldn't compete now how could you compete with a tax on your gains.
It just raises the bar for entry for the the leaner faster guys who can get in and out quicker.
They can afford the tax you can't.

1 its billions and they already straightened them.
They straightened them b/c they were getting picked clean by clever vultures who figured out their algorithms and got in front of them. If you're running trillions of dollars through 800 miles repeatedly, that's a lot of people who by virtue of location can take your stuff repeatedly.

2 you're shooting a bb gun and they're shooting a railgun. You cannot compare the two. They are playing an entirely different game. Their investments will actually change the bid/ask price yours is just packaged up at the broker level.

3 with few lions and elephants keeping hyena's in line you don't get Wolf of Wall Street character's pumping and dumping everything, they can get their hands on. Most of these people aren't nearly as smart as they think they are and quickly become lunch, once their little games are figured out.

It sounds like you don't actively trade.
Back in the day if there was a big order your smaller order would be ignored until after the big one cleared today we have electronic ordering first in first out.

File: 1389126701174.jpg (48KB, 351x380px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 351x380px

>>1170435

>>1173406
>It's because you both use "churn"
Day traders don't use churn, bud.
I think you may have read too many screenplays.

>>1173409
>How can the average guy buying and selling 100 apple shares in his home compete with that shit
Your problem is that you think the guy at home is in direct competition with those firms.
He isn't.

Maybe bernie, because he's been poorfag all his life, tricks everyone.

He claims to adress problem, actually makes it easier for big boys, has a bank account in caymans, and retires and makes his family rich.

He found out long ago there is no justice, and the public is stupid. Makes sense rite?

>>1168879
Hw convenient that you don't remember getting BTFO.

>>1168879
>don't remmber that last bit happening at all
Well then, put down the bong.
Everyone who was in that thread remembers your cornholing.

Dumb hook nosed kike.

>>1168775
>Speculatory-driven asset inflation has caused things like home prices and automobiles to grow to many times the median income. A house used to be twice the median income 30 years ago. Now it's 15 times the median income thanks to real-estate speculation.

Caused by government and banks, dipshit.

File: feelin the bern.gif (542KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 500x378px

>>1172767
insecure bernie pampers bitch boy detected lmao