***Official Iowa Caucus Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[humpback]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

According to his website, part of how he plans on paying for "Medicare for all" is by "taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work". According to this "analysis", the rates go up to 54.2% for those at the very top, and everyone would be paying more than they are now.

 

[The Commish]

But it's Iowa and not the DNC that chooses to hold a caucus and not a primary.

Not sure if this is to me or not, but if it is I'm not sure how it matters. If the DNC did it or the state did it, the caucus is what it is (much like the voter id laws). I'm surprised there hasn't been more push back on those who chose to use this format. Seems pretty bad.

Alright, good point.

I'm a Dem and I ##### about both Iowa always being first and the stupid caucuses every 4 years, but nobody listens to me.

Well, you now have one listening

The other thing that's bizarre is why do they have two different methods for the two different parties? That's why I thought the DNC had a hand in the decision making on theirs and the GOP on theirs.

 

[General Malaise]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

According to his website, part of how he plans on paying for "Medicare for all" is by "taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work". According to this "analysis", the rates go up to 54.2% for those at the very top, and everyone would be paying more than they are now.

Yeah, that's never going to happen even by some miracle he is elected. I think he's trying to walk this back a bit.

 

[The Commish]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

According to his website, part of how he plans on paying for "Medicare for all" is by "taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work". According to this "analysis", the rates go up to 54.2% for those at the very top, and everyone would be paying more than they are now.

Yeah, that's never going to happen even by some miracle he is elected. I think he's trying to walk this back a bit.

Haven't seen this happen yet. He HAS explained the whole thing several times. The larger picture is that taxes for everyone will go up, but they won't go up the amount they were paying for premiums already. Under his plan, one wouldn't have an insurance premium to deal with.

 

[humpback]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

According to his website, part of how he plans on paying for "Medicare for all" is by "taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work". According to this "analysis", the rates go up to 54.2% for those at the very top, and everyone would be paying more than they are now.

Yeah, that's never going to happen even by some miracle he is elected. I think he's trying to walk this back a bit.

I agree, just telling you what he's supposedly proposing. It's a lot different than his rhetoric of just sticking it to "evil speculators".

 

[General Malaise]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

According to his website, part of how he plans on paying for "Medicare for all" is by "taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work". According to this "analysis", the rates go up to 54.2% for those at the very top, and everyone would be paying more than they are now.

Yeah, that's never going to happen even by some miracle he is elected. I think he's trying to walk this back a bit.

Haven't seen this happen yet. He HAS explained the whole thing several times. The larger picture is that taxes for everyone will go up, but they won't go up the amount they were paying for premiums already. Under his plan, one wouldn't have an insurance premium to deal with.

I think we're talking about different things here, GB.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Bernie's different tax proposals fund different initiatives.

The financial transaction tax funds the federally funded public college program.

The capital gains tax and higher progressive tax rate (and some other stuff) funds Medicare for all.

 

[chet]

Well, that's all well and good, but he's not being elected as god nor dictator. He can say he'll raise all these taxes on Wall Street with a single pen stroke, but that ain't happening and frankly, if that's what he is truly advocating, he's lost some of my respect. That's almost as dumb as Trump saying he's going to have Mexico pay for a lavish, luxurious wall.

But in his speech last night, he ONLY suggested tax hikes for speculative Wall Street transactions and boy, there's lots of them out there.

That's because last night was his typical stump speech where he attacks Wall Street. He didn't talk about actual details.

So, he's calling for a 0.5% tax on commissions? How on earth is that the same thing as raising the tax rate on dividends and doing away with long-term gain tax treatment?

.....................

It's not a tax on commissions, it's a tax that acts like an additional commission on every transaction in stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc. That's separate from his proposal to increase tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

Right, a friction tax, essentially. I don't think that would destroy liquidity or alter the financial landscape significantly, but I could also see it angering a lot of people in the industry. You know what else angered a lot of people in the industry? The Patriot Act. And yet, here we are.

Again, his proposal is to raise LONG TERM capital gains rates for people making over $250K, moving them from ~20% to ~39%. Yes, I could see that pissing off the rich, but I don't think it would halt commerce in its tracks or keep rich people from buying and selling stocks, bonds, etc.

I forget that there are companies and entities that still pay dividends. That was so gauche in the late 90s!

I disagree. A huge % of the daily volume is high frequency trading--as high as 73% in 2011 and falling to 50% in 2012. 50bps to buy and sell would kill much of that business considering that they often hold for seconds and trade for a penny of profit or less.

His proposal is awful and not well thought out at all.

 

[baymen]

While I am no fan of HFT, I agree with Chet. 50bps is too high IMO and I am a buy side guy who averages about 25% turnover.

 

[humpback]

Bernie's different tax proposals fund different initiatives.

The financial transaction tax funds the federally funded public college program.

The capital gains tax and higher progressive tax rate (and some other stuff) funds Medicare for all.

That was in the link I gave, but the point is that both of these proposals would negatively impact a heck of a lot of people, not just "evil speculators". You wouldn't know it from listening to him though...

 

[The Commish]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

According to his website, part of how he plans on paying for "Medicare for all" is by "taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work". According to this "analysis", the rates go up to 54.2% for those at the very top, and everyone would be paying more than they are now.

Yeah, that's never going to happen even by some miracle he is elected. I think he's trying to walk this back a bit.

Haven't seen this happen yet. He HAS explained the whole thing several times. The larger picture is that taxes for everyone will go up, but they won't go up the amount they were paying for premiums already. Under his plan, one wouldn't have an insurance premium to deal with.

I think we're talking about different things here, GB.

sorry....thought you were talking about how he was going to pay for medicare. Was just pointing out that he does plan on taxing everyone a bit more, but the net between those tax increases and the relief from having to pay insurance premiums still comes out to the benefit of the individual under his plan. He had to make all that clear when Hillary had her minions out about him taking their insurance away from them and taxing everyone to blah blah blah....

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'd be interested in understanding better why some folks in here think the financial transaction tax would be bad and what its impact would be for the 99%.

 

[mr roboto]

I'd be interested in understanding better why some folks in here think the financial transaction tax would be bad and what its impact would be for the 99%.

It's inside baseball and the 99% wouldn't give a flying ####. But you gotta protect the right to make money off thousands of meaningless trades a day that provide no ####### value to the market at all.

 

[chauncey]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

What potential consequences would taxing at 39% have? Would that cause the wealthy to take a considerable amount of money out of the market (and park it in real estate or other investments) and have negative effects on the 401ks and pensions of the middle class?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'd be interested in understanding better why some folks in here think the financial transaction tax would be bad and what its impact would be for the 99%.

It's inside baseball and the 99% wouldn't give a flying ####. But you gotta protect the right to make money off thousands of meaningless trades a day that provide no ####### value to the market at all.

Thanks but I was hoping someone could actually explain the argument to me.

 

[Eminence]

What spooks me about Ted Cruz winning the state is how foretelling it is that Hilary Clinton actually has a chance to win this thing.

 

[Judge Smails]

I know the stats, but I still have a hard time with 250K being "wealthy"

 

[elbowrm]

At the end of the day the financial transactions tax will flow to the end investors - the 99% - via lower liquidity due to chasing away "speculators", leading eventually to higher expense ratios in their 401k's, etc.

 

[chet]

I'd be interested in understanding better why some folks in here think the financial transaction tax would be bad and what its impact would be for the 99%.

Many professional money managers have turnover of ~100%. Stocks on average return ~10%/year.

In the above scenario, Bernie's tax would take about 10% of the profits earned in an average year before any realized gains tax.

At least 50% of the 99% that you refer to have some sort of investment in the equity markets and would be directly impacted by Bernie's proposal.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Bernie ever meet a tax he didnt like?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'd be interested in understanding better why some folks in here think the financial transaction tax would be bad and what its impact would be for the 99%.

Many professional money managers have turnover of ~100%. Stocks on average return ~10%/year.

In the above scenario, Bernie's tax would take about 10% of the profits earned in an average year before any realized gains tax.

At least 50% of the 99% that you refer to have some sort of investment in the equity markets and would be directly impacted by Bernie's proposal.

Wouldn't the money managers just buy and hold more? Isn't that part of the point of the tax?

 

[msommer]

I'd be interested in understanding better why some folks in here think the financial transaction tax would be bad and what its impact would be for the 99%.

Many professional money managers have turnover of ~100%. Stocks on average return ~10%/year.

In the above scenario, Bernie's tax would take about 10% of the profits earned in an average year before any realized gains tax.

At least 50% of the 99% that you refer to have some sort of investment in the equity markets and would be directly impacted by Bernie's proposal.

Wouldn't the money managers just buy and hold more? Isn't that part of the point of the tax?

If that is the point then the fund raising effect of the tax will be greatly diminished (similar to Trump's proposal to tax the remittances of the illegal immigrants he deported, to pay for the wall)

 

[Mister CIA]

I'd be interested in understanding better why some folks in here think the financial transaction tax would be bad and what its impact would be for the 99%.

Many professional money managers have turnover of ~100%. Stocks on average return ~10%/year.

In the above scenario, Bernie's tax would take about 10% of the profits earned in an average year before any realized gains tax.

At least 50% of the 99% that you refer to have some sort of investment in the equity markets and would be directly impacted by Bernie's proposal.

Wouldn't the money managers just buy and hold more? Isn't that part of the point of the tax?

Don't spend the dime if you can't do the the time.

 

[chet]

I'd be interested in understanding better why some folks in here think the financial transaction tax would be bad and what its impact would be for the 99%.

Many professional money managers have turnover of ~100%. Stocks on average return ~10%/year.

In the above scenario, Bernie's tax would take about 10% of the profits earned in an average year before any realized gains tax.

At least 50% of the 99% that you refer to have some sort of investment in the equity markets and would be directly impacted by Bernie's proposal.

Wouldn't the money managers just buy and hold more? Isn't that part of the point of the tax?

No. The point of the tax is to raise revenue to pay for college.

As to your other question, who knows how they'd react. Maybe turnover would go down--that's logical--but maybe that hurts performance. And turnover will never go to 0.

 

[SIDA!]

I'd be interested in understanding better why some folks in here think the financial transaction tax would be bad and what its impact would be for the 99%.

Many professional money managers have turnover of ~100%. Stocks on average return ~10%/year.

In the above scenario, Bernie's tax would take about 10% of the profits earned in an average year before any realized gains tax.

At least 50% of the 99% that you refer to have some sort of investment in the equity markets and would be directly impacted by Bernie's proposal.

Wouldn't the money managers just buy and hold more? Isn't that part of the point of the tax?

No. The point of the tax is to raise revenue to pay for college.

As to your other question, who knows how they'd react. Maybe turnover would go down--that's logical--but maybe that hurts performance. And turnover will never go to 0.

Not saying it would happen...but I could see a shift to other markets outside the U.S. if things got out of control.

When the government comes and says we are going to start taxing the system...people maybe decide to take the ball somewhere else. in today's electronic age...

 

[Don't Noonan]

I don't think Sanders has a chance. His tax increase plans won't fly in the general election.

 

[crewmember]

Hard to believe people are having a difficult time with the nuances of Iowa's completely reasonable and not at all convoluted method of choosing convention delegates.

I am REALLY surprised that the democrats would settle for this methodology given their strong opinions on voter ids. I just always assumed the problems with voter ids were their floor. I was wrong.

There is no reason for voter id but Iowa's process on the Democratic side is begging for sabotage. Sanders was penalized for having voters in concentrated areas, if you were working for Clinton and saw the overcrowded rooms, I'm sure you had a good right of mind to call the Fire Marshall. Hell, they were even talking about the strategy of a team sending it's voters to O'malley to make him viable at certain precincts.

To be clear, I only bring up voter id as a starting point or point of reference...I wasn't comparing them. Point was, if they don't like the way voter ids restrict voting I have a hard time understanding how the caucus format passes muster given all the potential problems it can cause. Seems far more deliberate in their intrusiveness. I'm embarrassed that this caucus thing is news to me. Had no idea how these things work.

I think it's just something that has been tradition. I doubt most Democrats would really favor the process Iowa has. I don't think they would favor Washington DC being without congressional representation or favor the electoral college. 2 things that stand out about voter id, is they are new laws, so the energy to fight something new is a lot greater than something that has always been. And of course the consequences for the party itself is greater. Something that is the right thing to do and also benefits you also is naturally going to be fought for more eager. This is not say that I am not often frustrated with how undemocratic the Democratic Party can be.

 

[TripItUp]

I don't think Sanders has a chance. His tax increase plans won't fly in the general election.

Correct, he'll get destroyed.

It's Hillary vs. Rubio or Trump

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

I feel like we're a long way from comparing net worths with Melly.

 

[crewmember]

I don't think Sanders has a chance. His tax increase plans won't fly in the general election.

Correct, he'll get destroyed.

It's Hillary vs. Rubio or Trump

Sanders does 10 points better than Clinton vs republicans in Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Most people will find his tax plan plenty acceptable.

 

[TripItUp]

I don't think Sanders has a chance. His tax increase plans won't fly in the general election.

Correct, he'll get destroyed.

It's Hillary vs. Rubio or Trump

Sanders does 10 points better than Clinton vs republicans in Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Most people will find his tax plan plenty acceptable.

"most"...not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Two states is a bit of small sample set...although I'm guessing those states were hand picked.

 

[General Malaise]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

What potential consequences would taxing at 39% have? Would that cause the wealthy to take a considerable amount of money out of the market (and park it in real estate or other investments) and have negative effects on the 401ks and pensions of the middle class?

Wouldn't a change in long term cap gains include real estate and 'other investments'?

 

[General Malaise]

Basically, if you make $250K per year, every capital gain will be treated the way short term capital gains are treated for EVERYBODY right now. If you make less than $250K, you'll get favorable tax treatment on any gain you've held for longer than a year.

So rich people will have to pay 39% on ALL gains going forward instead of 20% if they held these gains for a year plus.

Not really seeing the outrage, nor am I going to feel sorry for rich people who have profitable investments that are now getting higher tax treatment.

But whatever, I'm a socialist who makes nothing.

I feel like we're a long way from comparing net worths with Melly.

That was 7 kids, one divorce and one lucrative job ago.

 

[General Malaise]

While I am no fan of HFT, I agree with Chet. 50bps is too high IMO and I am a buy side guy who averages about 25% turnover.

So what did you do when it cost 4-5 cents a share for trades on the buy side?

 

[humpback]

Here's what the tax code would look like if Bernie Sanders got everything he wanted

Remember, this is just Federal....

 

[crewmember]

I don't think Sanders has a chance. His tax increase plans won't fly in the general election.

Correct, he'll get destroyed.

It's Hillary vs. Rubio or Trump

Sanders does 10 points better than Clinton vs republicans in Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Most people will find his tax plan plenty acceptable.

"most"...not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Two states is a bit of small sample set...although I'm guessing those states were hand picked.

I just picked the last 2 polls the came out, if I went to 3, he's doing better than her in Minnesota too. The last national match up polls Sanders is +15 on Trump, Clinton is +10. I came to the "most" conclusion, because most people will save money under his plan. If you want too say why you think his tax plans won't fly in the general election your free to do so.

polls were from realclearpolitics.com They list all the polls that come out from different sources

 

[General Malaise]

0.05% would be the burden of the buy side, sell side, shared?

You can buy foreign stocks sure, that 90% of our current book. But we still pay commissions and have to pay our prime broker for clearing here in the US. You want run away from this by buying other markets.

 

[baymen]

While I am no fan of HFT, I agree with Chet. 50bps is too high IMO and I am a buy side guy who averages about 25% turnover.

So what did you do when it cost 4-5 cents a share for trades on the buy side?

I remember studies we did back then and our average basis point on commissions per share price was around 15bps, so less than a third of the cost. Using Chet's example above with 100% average turnover (a problem in the asset management industry especially when taking into account the tax ramifications) taking away 10% of expected returns for the investing public seems a bit onerous to me. Now, as you said, our average commission price is a bit more than a penny per share so even that cost has gone way down.

I manage money mainly for pensions plans for unions and in the defined contribution channel so my "end" clients are composed of the "99%" with the exception of some high net worth accounts.

 

[chet]

Here's what the tax code would look like if Bernie Sanders got everything he wanted

Remember, this is just Federal....

####### communist.

 

[chet]

Here's what the tax code would look like if Bernie Sanders got everything he wanted

Remember, this is just Federal....

####### communist.

Communism has zero taxes, dip####.

It's called hyperbole, brainiac.

 

[Short Corner]

Here's what the tax code would look like if Bernie Sanders got everything he wanted

Remember, this is just Federal....

####### communist.

Communism has zero taxes, dip####.

It's called hyperbole, brainiac.

Congrats on giving Em a run for his title. I'm pulling for ya GB.

 

[humpback]

Here's what the tax code would look like if Bernie Sanders got everything he wanted

Remember, this is just Federal....

####### communist.

Communism has zero taxes, dip####.

It's called hyperbole, brainiac.

Oh, ok. Sorry I underestimated the magnitude of your rhetorical genius. At least we know up front that you are full of it.

Bernie's plan is not going to be liked by the 1%/Wall Street. He thinks that after getting the middle class to pay for their $700 billion bailout it is time for them to give something back. It's not surprising that you would resort to exaggerated misrepresentations to keep from paying your fair share.

Go take a few more laps in your infinity pool and try to come up with something substantive to contribute.

Two hyperbole-wrongs don't make a right....