PDA

View Full Version : Greedy Union Fucks...



Big Train
08-31-2009, 07:47 PM
I keep hearing we aren't trying to kill captialism...but, ya know, the record shows something different.

AFL-CIO, Dems push new Wall Street tax - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/56789-afl-cio-dems-push-new-wall-street-tax)

AFL-CIO, Dems push new Wall Street tax
By Alexander Bolton - 08/30/09 10:17 AM ET
The nation’s largest labor union and some allied Democrats are pushing a new tax that would hit big investment firms such as Goldman Sachs reaping billions of dollars in profits while the rest of the economy sputters.

The AFL-CIO, one of the Democratic Party’s most powerful allies, would like to assess a small tax — about a tenth of a percent — on every stock transaction.

Small and medium-sized investors would hardly notice such a tax, but major trading firms, such as Goldman, which reported $3.44 billion in profits during the second quarter of 2009, may see this as a significant threat to their profits.

“It would have two benefits, raise a lot of revenue and discourage speculative financial activity,” said Thea Lee, policy director at the AFL-CIO.

“The big disadvantage of most taxes is that they discourage some really productive activity,” she said. “This would discourage numerous financial transactions. People flip their assets several times in an hour or a day. They make money but does it really add to the productive base of the United States?”

Lee said that taxing every stock transaction a tenth of a percent could raise between $50 billion and $100 billion per year, which could be used to pay for infrastructure projects and other spending priorities. She said the tax could be applied nationwide or internationally.

The proposal would hit especially hard those hedge funds and large banks earning hefty profits despite the shaky economy from a practice known as high-frequency trading. High-frequency traders use powerful computers to conduct hundreds of thousands of orders in mere seconds, taking advantage of slower traders.

Only the biggest investment firms can afford to develop the technology, which delivers handsome profits at little risk. The growing popularity of the practice has contributed to the soaring volume of trades on Wall Street in recent years and, some critics argue, market volatility and rampant speculation.

High-frequency trading is estimated to earn about $20 billion in profits for the nation’s biggest investment firms, who guard the their practices zealously. Goldman Sachs, for example, has accused a former computer programmer of stealing the valuable code, launching a high-profile legal battle.

The AFL-CIO and some allied Democrats would like to cut down on the overall level of trading, or at least give the U.S. government a piece of the action, which would likely tamp down trading.

Democrats and labor officials would also like to take a bite out of Goldman’s profits. Liberals are angry the company, which immersed itself in the frenzy of speculation leading to last year’s financial collapse, is now making huge profits after accepting (and repaying) $10 billion in government aid. Goldman employees are on track to earn an average of more than $700,000 this year.

There is also a growing realization among Obama administration officials and lawmakers that tax increases may be necessary to curb the ballooning federal deficit.

The idea of taxing financial transactions has gained some support on Capitol Hill and among senior government officials in London, a major foreign financial center.

In Congress, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the Highways and Transit Transportation Subcommittee, has seized on the idea as a way to help pay for a new massive surface transportation reauthorization bill, estimated to cost $450 billion over six years.

Instead of taxing all stock transactions, as the AFL-CIO has contemplated, DeFazio wants to focus on oil-based derivatives.

At the end of July, shortly before the House broke for the August recess, DeFazio introduced legislation that would impose a 0.2 percent transaction tax on crude oil futures contracts. The legislation would tax the options for oil futures (in other words, the premium paid to have the option to buy a futures contract) at 0.5 percent.

“The tax is simple; it imposes a small burden that penalizes short-term traders for speculating on the price of oil,” DeFazio said in a statement. “This legislation exempts legitimate hedgers from the transaction tax. Since the tax is on speculation only, it deters speculation and undermines much of the crude oil price bubble.”

DeFazio estimates his proposal, which has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, would raise $190 billion over six years. It has 29 cosponsors.

An aide to a liberal Senate Democrat said a transaction tax seems like a good idea but did not know who might champion the cause in the upper chamber. An aide on the Senate Finance Committee was not aware of discussion of the proposal.

Taxing financial transactions has gained some momentum in Europe. Lord Adair Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Britain’s top banking regulator, voiced support for taxing financial transactions in a recent magazine interview. The French government has endorsed the idea as a way to fund development in poor countries.

The proposal to tax financial transactions is also known as a “Tobin tax,” after the late American economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin. Tobin proposed a transactions tax in the early 1970s to discourage currency speculation after the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed-exchange-rate system.

sadaist
08-31-2009, 08:06 PM
The word "tax" was used 22 times in that post. Sounds like Democrats to me.

Nickdfresh
08-31-2009, 09:13 PM
So, why would unions be greedy if they want to tax stock transactions? How would they actually make on bank on that?

Big Train
08-31-2009, 09:34 PM
Lee said that taxing every stock transaction a tenth of a percent could raise between $50 billion and $100 billion per year, which could be used to pay for infrastructure projects and other spending priorities. She said the tax could be applied nationwide or internationally.




Which of course would fund many, many bona fide, unionized, jobs for the local hacks at the unions. Grease the wheels of democracy dems...

Dr. Love
08-31-2009, 09:34 PM
I'm in favor of it as long as the business doesn't pass it on to the customer.

I have big issues with an industry that actively participates in the system that fucks over the citizens and then continues making huge profits without any significant reprecussions. I think they need to be regulated, and be made to pay.

sadaist
08-31-2009, 09:48 PM
I'm in favor of it as long as the business doesn't pass it on to the customer.




Any tax imposed on a business get's passed on to the customer. The only other choice is to lay off employees. It's nice that they don't do that...otherwise we might have an unemployment problem in this country.

Dr. Love
08-31-2009, 09:50 PM
3.44 billion dollars in profits in the 2nd quarter... and their only options are to pass the tax on or lay off employees?

Nickdfresh
08-31-2009, 10:21 PM
Any tax imposed on a business get's passed on to the customer. The only other choice is to lay off employees. It's nice that they don't do that...otherwise we might have an unemployment problem in this country.


Not if they're regulated. And how many employees do you think would be laid off?

Personally, I think there should be a stiff fucking tax on CEO bonuses...

sadaist
08-31-2009, 10:23 PM
3.44 billion dollars in profits in the 2nd quarter... and their only options are to pass the tax on or lay off employees?

I'm not a billionaire CEO, but unfortunately when their costs go up, rather than take the hit themselves they pass it on to us as consumers or employee layoffs.

Nickdfresh
08-31-2009, 10:27 PM
I'm not a billionaire CEO, but unfortunately when their costs go up, rather than take the hit themselves they pass it on to us as consumers or employee layoffs.


Yeah, isn't deregulation great?

Dr. Love
08-31-2009, 10:34 PM
I was under the impression that the intent of the proposal was to increase taxes in such a way that the impact to consumer trading would be minimal while the impact to the larger corporations would be broader.

If they meant to offset this with other fees, I'd expect to see consumers migrate to other firms that don't charge fees, or don't charge as much. A cursory consideration would seem to indicate that these firms would have to accept lower revenues due to tax, or even lower revenues due to customer desertion.

Just my theory anyway. ;)

Blackflag
08-31-2009, 10:43 PM
"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery."

"We are living in a sick society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor, but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them."

:dafinger:

hideyoursheep
09-01-2009, 05:15 AM
"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery."

Credit default swaps are legalized gambling and should be outlawed (again) immediately.

Wall Street runs the government. Blame them. They've taken more from you than you care to admit.

Financial WMD's (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5274961n&tag=contentMain;contentBody)

Nickdfresh
09-01-2009, 08:13 AM
"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery."

"We are living in a sick society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor, but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them."

:dafinger:

LMFAO!! Nice theory. We should have a nice world where you're ideology of right wing anarchist dystopianism reigns supreme. Of course, it's egged on by corporate think tanks seeking oligarchy and legalized collusion and a market that is anything but "free."















































http://www.prisonflicks.com/images/rwmax1.jpg
http://www.madmaxmovies.com/making/madmax2/images/MundiMundi/WezFaceoff.jpg
http://www.daviddylanthomas.com/wp-content/uploads/blog/atop50action/road_warrior.jpg

Big Train
09-01-2009, 11:35 AM
Wall Street runs the government. Blame them. They've taken more from you than you care to admit.
[/URL]

Even if I did buy that (and I don't) how does that justify the unions taxing companies they aren't even involved with for the express purpose of creating jobs for union members?

This is a pure money grab...

WACF
09-01-2009, 11:49 AM
Even if I did buy that (and I don't) how does that justify the unions taxing companies they aren't even involved with for the express purpose of creating jobs for union members?

This is a pure money grab...

I am missing part of the equation here.

What union jobs exactly...are the jobs within the infrastructure projects and other spending priorities all unionized?

To a degree...say they are...are more jobs all that bad?

I would rather see someone work off of a collected tax than sit at home waiting for a government cheque.

Big Train
09-01-2009, 03:15 PM
I am missing part of the equation here.

What union jobs exactly...are the jobs within the infrastructure projects and other spending priorities all unionized?

To a degree...say they are...are more jobs all that bad?

I would rather see someone work off of a collected tax than sit at home waiting for a government cheque.

Most of the infrastructure work will be performed by union labor and/or subcontractors with union labor.

I have a problem taking from them, as greedy as you may feel they are, simply because someone feels they make too much money, therefore they should be "taxed".

It's what a liberal might call a "Slippery Slope". But a liberal is also likely to go along with this, decrying for the "working poor" while locking up votes for the next election cycle. The lesson of the Lion.

We used to have an appreciation for profits in the US, now they are disdained and if you stick your head up too high, they are there with their hands out demanding 'Justice'.

FORD
09-01-2009, 03:17 PM
Goldmine Sucks should be pay a tax rate of 99%.

And even then, the fucking criminals would still make too much money.

They're actually in the top 5 of corporations that serve no valid purpose whatsoever and should not be allowed to exist (along with Halliburton, Blackwater, Phillip Morris, and Rupert Murdoch's "News" Corporation)

Fascism? No, just enforcement of existing laws that require a corporation to serve the public good in some way. And none of them can legitmately claim to do so.

Blackflag
09-01-2009, 05:50 PM
Fascism? No, just enforcement of existing laws that require a corporation to serve the public good in some way.

I love that law. :hee:

Big Train
09-01-2009, 06:28 PM
Goldmine Sucks should be pay a tax rate of 99%.

And even then, the fucking criminals would still make too much money.

They're actually in the top 5 of corporations that serve no valid purpose whatsoever and should not be allowed to exist (along with Halliburton, Blackwater, Phillip Morris, and Rupert Murdoch's "News" Corporation)

Fascism? No, just enforcement of existing laws that require a corporation to serve the public good in some way. And none of them can legitmately claim to do so.

This post so neatly summarizes every difference of opinion I have with you...it's all there. Well done Ford.

Nitro Express
09-01-2009, 07:22 PM
Credit default swaps are legalized gambling and should be outlawed (again) immediately.

Wall Street runs the government. Blame them. They've taken more from you than you care to admit.

Financial WMD's (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5274961n&tag=contentMain;contentBody)

Yes. Wall Street has merged with Washington. This has been going on for some time. Derivatives and credit default swaps were illegal under the Glass Stiegal Act and made legal again during the Clinton administration. This whole Republican vs. Democrat cherade is nonsense. If they really wanted to stimulate the economy they could set aside $100 billion and give every citizen over 18 years of age a cut. That would be around $140,000 per person. Pay your debts, buy some health coverage, invest it, buy a new car. It would stimulate things more than giving the bankers tens of trillions of dollars and far cheaper. The bankers win. They speculate and keep the money if they win and the taxpayer bails them out if they lose.

GAR
09-02-2009, 02:56 AM
I'm in favor of it as long as the business doesn't pass it on to the customer.

Did any of that edumacation impart some basics of US economics infrastructure theory to you?

GAR
09-02-2009, 02:57 AM
This post so neatly summarizes every difference of opinion I have with you...it's all there. Well done Ford.

That's why he's doing Main forums now!

hideyoursheep
09-02-2009, 03:22 AM
Yes. Wall Street has merged with Washington. This has been going on for some time. Derivatives and credit default swaps were illegal under the Glass Stiegal Act and made legal again during the Clinton administration. This whole Republican vs. Democrat cherade is nonsense. If they really wanted to stimulate the economy they could set aside $100 billion and give every citizen over 18 years of age a cut. That would be around $140,000 per person. Pay your debts, buy some health coverage, invest it, buy a new car. It would stimulate things more than giving the bankers tens of trillions of dollars and far cheaper. The bankers win. They speculate and keep the money if they win and the taxpayer bails them out if they lose.


The problem with that is, even for working people, health insurance is unaffordable, so buying a new car would be out of the question.


UNION JOBS on the other hand,..........(control yourself, BT)


Even then, health insurance doesn't cover everything, you can't "shop" for a cheaper provider unless that provider accepts your insurance, and if they don't, it's probably because the assholes in charge of the company are slow to pay claims and doctors are tired of getting burnt, OR the insurance co. doesn't want to pay 1000 bucks for a CATSCAN.

Just some of the reasosn why reform is needed.