General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie validated my faith in him with the Robin Hood Tax
It is high time that we recognize that the United States has the the worst economic inequality among industrialized Western nations.
Furthermore, in the last 30 years we have been crippling the futures of young people with back-breaking college debt which not only puts them into indentured servitude for, in some cases, decades, but limits their professional choices to ones that can return quick economic payback -it is incalculable how much damage this does to the society as a whole (for example, doctors choosing profitable specialties rather than general practitioners as one example).
"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."
http://www.robinhoodtax.org
This small tax of %0.5 on Wall Street transactions would generate hundreds of billions of dollars each year in the US alone. The revenue raised would be enough to protect American schools, housing, local governments and hospitals, to pay for lifesaving AIDS medicines, to support people and communities around the world, and to deal with the climate challenges we're facing.
It won't affect ordinary Americans, nor their personal savings, nor everyday consumer activity, such as ATM usage. It's easy to enforce and tough to evade. This is a tax on the same Wall Street interests that created the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression - and that continue to reap record profits and bonuses while ordinary Americans cleaned up the mess.
Autumn
(44,756 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(13,989 posts)It's at least five years old, but still refreshingly appealing:
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I love it.
msongs
(67,193 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Corporations exist only because they have been given the right to exist.
And that "right" is derived from the will of the people of this country.
They OWE something to the society and must assume reasonable responsibility in the social contract. A responsibility they have abandoned.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)don't see it that way. We saved their asses with the bailout, but that isn't enough and the TPP and TTIP will ensure that they enrich themselves even further at our expense.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)government that isn't beholden to Wall St.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)No doubt they bet on the fund not doing it's job.
And keep in mind, I'm in Vegas. I have seen people push the button and actually bet real money on which elevator door is going to open.
erronis
(14,952 posts)None of the real culprits of the WallStreet raid on the investor's funds will ever go to jail or pay back their thievery. The only ones who get/got sucker-punched are the taxpayers - again, and again.
Logical
(22,457 posts)blue neen
(12,306 posts)Forgive my ignorance on this, as this is the first time I've heard of the Robin Hood Tax.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But 401Ks do not NEED to be invested in the stock market either.
blue neen
(12,306 posts)You have a choice of how aggressive you want the investment to be, but that's it.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)has given the employee the option of taking their 401k money into a schwab/ameritrade/whatever account where they can choose to invest in individual companies, buy mutual funds, bonds, or whatever they want. You do have to take the initiative, get the paperwork from HR, and then be a responsible investor with your retirement money.
The bottom line is this: if you are afraid this tax will get passed on to you by the people who manage your 401k, then get out. I got out of it years ago just because of management fee's (which are often way more than a .5% tax).
Invest in solid companies that aren't going anywhere and whose products you buy. Your personal 100 shares of starbucks wont be skimmed by money managers and wont get touched by new wall st. taxes.
blue neen
(12,306 posts)possibly because they matched contributions up to a certain amount. He is retired now, so we are no longer contributing. In fact, we will be required to take a certain amount of money out soon. We just don't want to have to pay more taxes on it.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)But it still seems since you are retired you could roll it over into a schwab account. I have no idea if doing that at your point would cause some kind of taxes to be applied... I'd definitely look into it if it were my money
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)you have control over where your pension funds etc are invested. By those who support investing OUR money in the Stock Market. But then when it suits them, they apparently forget that excuse for a practice that should be ended and tell us the opposite.
erronis
(14,952 posts)Just let our little GOP friends manage your investments, manage your retirement funds, manage your Social Security.
What could possibly go wrong?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Dreier, I believe. He dipped into one of those Pension Funds when he ran into trouble keeping up with his scam.
Sure, let's put the SS Fund into the hands of Wall St 'investors' and then say goodbye to it.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)It is something that many have no control over.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)You can blame Bernie all you want for your poor choice in investments but it is your choice. Want to make money quick and take more risk? That's your problem. You know what he is talking about ...asshole millionaires who do nothing for anyone but make money from their investments and pay a tax rate far below the rest of us common people.
Fla_Democrat
(2,545 posts)So what should 401K's be invested in? As an aside, my company* doesn't offer a 401K, but say if they did... what should then be in, if they don't "NEED to be invested in the stock market"? Gold? Bank CD's? Real estate? Pork bellies?
Can't be gold, Glen Beck hawks that.
Can't be Bank(STER'S) CD's... hell, give more money to the banks..
Can't be Real Estate... bubbles and all of that.
Can't be Pork bellies... meat is bad for the environment.
So, how does one avoid the stock market with 401K's (403B's, IRA's, etc), and still save for retirement?
* no 401K, but I have a ROTH set up. It has mutual funds, which..... ...... are made up of stocks.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)blue neen
(12,306 posts)I'm not too sure I can get behind this.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)[center]
[/center]
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I'd be more concerned about those management fees you're paying.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The tax would be on transactions that most 401K's are only supposed to go through at most quarterly and usually only yearly. The tax is less than half of what most brookerage houses charge in fees for such transactions. The point of the whole thing is to reduce speculative gambling and punish investment houses that transfer around this stuff to saddle the 401 K people with the losses to assist wealthier clients.
The talking points saying this is going to hurt 401K's badly are probably coming from the very brokerage houses that make lots of money by shuffling things around. Speculative investment in general is bad for the economy.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Even Bernie said that on CNN ( he said it won't pass when asked by Blitzer)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Not the BS stuff being linked from wiki that is NOT his plan.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's from wiki. Read HIS plan.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and I would say, they are thrilled to have a candidate who is not just talking, but working in their best interests. The comments are wonderful, the questions intelligent, their appreciation that there might finally be some hope that one day the debt they are saddled with won't be forever.
It's a fantastic plan. Tax the Wall St gamblers, just a teeny bit, to help pay for higher education. What an investment in the future that is.
Btw, what do YOU object to in his plan? And don't waste our time with the talking points, they've been debunked already.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)His pay for on this bill is ridiculous. Don't pay for it off the backs of the middle class trying like hell to save for retirement.
But I am not going to get too worked up about it since a) it will never pass, and b) he will not get elected.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Wall St Gamblers to invest in Higher Education do you object to?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Stick to the facts (even though you just learned them this morning when I told them to you).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)plan to reduce the cost of higher education? Wouldn't it serve your candidate better to show us what she is going to do?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She's been touting it since 2007.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)get support for her ideas, as Bernie has?
And have her views changed since then? Or not?
Bernie has talked about this too for years. But now he is a candidate and is talking about it in his campaign, not telling people to back and read what he said seven years ago.
Why not post positive information about your own candidate of choice, rather than go back to the early 2000 internet negative campaigning when people thought it was 'so cool' to do, not on DU where the conversation was generally a lot more adult.
You are not going to win any converts by repeatedly attacking Bernie. And it sure doesn't make your candidate look good to go on the attack rather than present her ideas.
My advice to Hillary would be to speak to her supporters about this, as Bernie has.
I doubt this is the kind of campaign she wants to run.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... and you are just bashing her on general principle?
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-on-college-affordability/
Here is the thing. I happen to be fully aware of the records and proposals and policy positions of the various candidates. That's how I can comment on them intelligently. I, personally, think that is the duty of people who (at least SAY) they want to be involved in political policy discussions. I guess that is a quaint idea these days.
What I find MOST astounding is that many Bernie supporters have no clue what his "College for Free" plan entails. Look at the OP -- for goodness sakes. It's a link to a Wiki article about the "robin hood" tax, which has nothing to do with Bernie's plan. It's not like these folks couldn't actually read Bernie's plan. They just don't.
Here is my advice. If people have time to post on a web forum regarding these issues, people ALSO have time to know what they are talking about. Again, perhaps a quaint idea on my part.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It could also encourage more stable investments too by penalizing quick, rapid fire, speculation.
But my real reason is that we have to pay for investments in our people in education and in our infrastructure and this seems to be the best way to do it.
metalbot
(1,058 posts)It puts the lowest tax on derivatives trading, which would encourage investors to bet on stock price rather than actually invest in stock.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Derivatives are very complex formulae based on numerous transactions. Believe me, even that miniscule tax will quickly add up to drastically control their usage and bring them back into better scrutiny.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)outlawed after the economic collapse and give it to students.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But it will never pass congress, so whatever. It's just political pandering in my view. I guess he's desperate for the youth vote. But he's lying to them. He knows it can't pass congress.
The idea that he wants to tax retirement plans is an issue though.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Emphasis on "right"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Many of us have paltry retirement plans that are invested in stocks and we have no control over this. If it comes down to a choice of whether I can eat or pay taxes so someone can go to college free, which one of those do you think will win out with us middle class retirees?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ProfessorGAC
(64,420 posts)I don't work for a bank. I don't work on Wall Street. And i've been saving for retirement (and yes, i still have a vested pension on top of that) for nearly 40 years.
So, it's ok for my lifetime savings to get taxed because the tax only applies to banksters and Wall Street thieves?
That makes no sense.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)retire like you. Wall Street and banksters crashed the economy ...put people out on the streets ...took their homes ...but hey as long as it doesn't affect you it's all good.
ProfessorGAC
(64,420 posts)Who's looking down on whom? You're screaming with hyperbole and i just said i'm not a bankster, i'm not judging anyone, and I'M THE ONE LOOKING DOWN ON OTHERS?
Get a grip on yourself, will you?
I will bet you my employees would not be happy to find out that a vote for him is a vote to tax their 401k.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Exempts 401k and 529 plans from this tax.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's from wiki. SMH.
reddread
(6,896 posts)If you cant do better investing your money your way, that is just sad.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Offering them as a benefit? I'll tell all my employees that's what Bernie thinks then.
reddread
(6,896 posts)OR maybe a pension plan?
show a different set of stripes.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Talk about living in la la land. SMH.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Good to know. I will immediately close mine down and pocket the extra $100k that would have gone to my employees. Thanks for the info.
reddread
(6,896 posts)for me, I did as well.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)So imagine my surprise to discover that giving them $100k out of my pocket is actually bad for them. LOL!
reddread
(6,896 posts)just dont force them to invest through crooked intermediaries or into funds that profit from war crimes or other despicable measures.
If you can help them turn it into a MUCH larger number with NO STRINGS ATTACHED go ahead.
otherwise, its better for them to do what they will.
but then, 401k's are a ripoff from start to finish.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Really? Don't give my employees a 100% vested match on their 401K? That's evil or something?
You folks have jumped the shark. You really have.
reddread
(6,896 posts)dont injure yourself patting your back.
100k goes pretty much nowhere these days.
I hope it is no more than 3 employees.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I should have figured that out previously. Apparently you have never had a decent job that offers one. My condolences.
reddread
(6,896 posts)I work fast food, never had a 401 k, never worked for large companies owned by multimillionaire big game hunters or family enterprises that own phone companies or anyone but street people, have no idea what an employee contribution or employer match is, and have never seen a 401k balance jump up and down like Jack Lalane.
Neither do I consider 100k a significant amount, no matter what you think.
Feel free to continue with your assertions, just dont fool yourself, it reflects only upon you.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)SMH.
Just to clue you in, us LIBERALS own companies too. And we live our values. Like taking good care of our employees. I am sorry you are bitter that you cannot find that situation.
reddread
(6,896 posts)and there was much more to be had than a 401k.
How many employees benefitting from your largesse?
seriously, you started that discussion, I could care less.
And how well Ive done with my investments is none of your business.
I can tell you no 401k would hold a candle.
thats actually irrelevant.
401k's are a cover for the death and rape of pension funds,
and none of that helps the masses of poor in this country.
Which Im sure bothers you considerably.
Lurker Deluxe
(1,031 posts)I've been here ten years. My match is 7%. I have averaged 75K a year in that time.
75KX10=750KX7%=52,500.
That is no growth match number.
Add my contribution and my 401K is quarter mil, give or take.
Let me know how well your investments have done since "no 401k would hold a candle ".
reddread
(6,896 posts)none of your business.
Lurker Deluxe
(1,031 posts)You should create a fund, if your results are so great you will be rich in a matter of a couple of years.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Or something. SMH.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)For not taking investment advice from someone who never owned a business and never even had a job that provides a 401K, won't you? LOL!
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)What kind of business do you own that allows you the time to hang out on DU 24/7?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)In fact, I am hanging out in my lovely office right now.
cali
(114,904 posts)was fooled by it. You'd attack him over and over and over on the most bullshit premises, from he's a Ralph Nader to he's lied to your cutesy story about your son- and more, but your dislike of Bernie shone bright and clear. You kept pretending that you weren't supporting HRC- who knows why.
At least now you're edging toward some semblance of honesty as to where you stand, though as I've noted, it was always clear to just about everyone. I don't get your game playing at all. Oh, and you aren't fooling anyone at all with your claim that Bernie's supporters turned you against him. you were against him from day one.
You are who you are, why pretend to be anything or anyone else?
delrem
(9,688 posts)This dissemblance mirrors an identical "I gave to Bernie, but this is the last straw, he's trying to take away my retirement savings!" posted by another OP yesterday.
False flaggers. Bottom feeders.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)But don't worry, Hillary has a plan to make a plan.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the world's economy.
So it has a two fold benefit, it takes back some of the profits made by those using it, AND it will help students who want to go to college.
That man really does think about the policies he believes are needed to begin fixing this country's major problems.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Says the least astute observer of politics I have ever seen.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Why doesn't he do some REAL work like Hillary!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... For him to base his campaign on pandering with pie in the sky BS? Just guessing.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)pandering to Wall Street to pandering to Main Street, HRC has it covered. Her history of pandering is so extensive, it'd take volumes to document. Literally. And there's not even any guess work required.
Bernie is running on what he's been running on for nearly 40 years. He combines nitty gritty goals with long term idealistic objectives.
Hillary? She opposed marriage equality until after the majority of the public supported it. She supported returning immigrant children to their countries of origin until the majority supported immigration reform.
Hillary is the want to be Panderer-in-Chief.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Nice idea, though.
Omaha Steve
(99,070 posts)Sancho
(9,065 posts)Sorry, but this Robin Hood tax is a bad idea.
Maybe Bernie would be better to have raised capital gain taxes, removed tax exemptions from big corporations, or cut the military by half to pay for education.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)because it isn't giving to the poor. It is pooling resources. People here seem to think it extends to retirement funds. If so, it's taxing the middle class to pay for the middle class' education, which is great, but it's not really helping the poor, many of whom lack access to k-12 education adequate to prepare them for college.
hunter
(38,264 posts)... since I figure taxes should be pretty close to 90% for income above a certain multiple (much less then 20X) of an untaxed minimum living wage, with similar taxes on wealth too.
I also think stock, bond, hedge funds, and futures market trades should be taxed at a rate just high enough to discourage high frequency trading.
Anything that's traded more than twice a day ought to face tough regulatory scrutiny.
That's right, a Bill Gates lives in a big house in the same neighborhood his immigrant janitor lives in a two or three bedroom apartment. Their kids attend the same public schools. Bill doesn't have to worry about "security." Sure, he has all the high end name brand stuff, an expensive car, designer clothes, Italian stone countertops in his kitchen, but the single mom working at the fast food place down the street has reliable transportation, nice clothes, and a kitchen she can cook most anything she likes in.
More importantly, nobody can buy the political process. The voice of the janitor or the retired widow or the disabled unemployed person is just as loud as the voice of an oil tycoon.
That's right. I would tax the uber-wealthy out of existence.
Lagom
(26 posts)This type of Tobin Tax is a HUGE plank in my core belief system, but I hate the name "Robin Hood Tax"
Wall Street Sales Tax implies a types of tax that all people, rich or poor have to pay upfront on most personal purchases, thus opening up the opportunity of showing that the banksters and mega corporations are dodging it to a huge extent. This gathers in many many additional people from a more diverse coalition.
Robin Hood, as a name, feeds into the "Class Warfare" meme that moronic corporatists bash any anti-bank, income equality-engendering measure with.