janie48 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I agree with your comment Janie, thank you. You seem to have a level head on your shoulders. How would you like to be the first person to answer the OP? well thanks but i have no wish to get into any further discussion. i am becoming quite cautious about how much i say. i have had enough insulting replies today. i am rather sensitive about such matters you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 The only people who this will really affect are the ones who invest in the stock market for the short term - especially those financial companies who indulge in high frequency trading (buying and selling shares within a fraction of a second). For people who buy shares and keep them for a long time as a way of saving for their retirement (capital gain focused shares) or for providing an income from them (dividend focuses shares), it won't make much difference. For pension funds it similarly shouldn't make a difference as they should be focused on the long term. Most companies would also like a less short term stock market as that would mean they could concentrate on growing their businesses rather than pandering to the whims of people who a more interested in the share price bouncing up and down rather than how well the company is actually doing. Stock brokers make commission when then buy shares and again when they sell them. Volatility in the stock market gives them an excuse to do so frequently and so make more money from their clients. Reducing the volatility in the stock market, which a Robin Hood tax would, will hurt these companies. The only down side is that so much of the tax that is paid to the government comes from investment banking companies that reducing their profits makes a significant dent in the amount of money the government will have to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 well thanks but i have no wish to get into any further discussion. i am becoming quite cautious about how much i say. i have had enough insulting replies today. i am rather sensitive about such matters you see. I understand Janie, thanks for taking part. I also have had quite a few nutters insult me on this thread tonight. Bad timing on my part I suppose, seem to have attracted the mid week drunkards. Might get some sensible replies when they have all passed out for the night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 The only people who this will really affect are the ones who invest in the stock market for the short term - especially those financial companies who indulge in high frequency trading (buying and selling shares within a fraction of a second). For people who buy shares and keep them for a long time as a way of saving for their retirement (capital gain focused shares) or for providing an income from them (dividend focuses shares), it won't make much difference. For pension funds it similarly shouldn't make a difference as they should be focused on the long term. Most companies would also like a less short term stock market as that would mean they could concentrate on growing their businesses rather than pandering to the whims of people who a more interested in the share price bouncing up and down rather than how well the company is actually doing. Stock brokers make commission when then buy shares and again when they sell them. Volatility in the stock market gives them an excuse to do so frequently and so make more money from their clients. Reducing the volatility in the stock market, which a Robin Hood tax would, will hurt these companies. The only down side is that so much of the tax that is paid to the government comes from investment banking companies that reducing their profits makes a significant dent in the amount of money the government will have to spend. Not very often I come across a post worth reading twice, but this is one of them. Well done altus. Not quite to the point though. Do you think there will be another generation that will enjoy the low taxation (relative) and wealth that we enjoyed in the 80's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Not very often I come across a post worth reading twice, but this is one of them. Well done altus. Not quite to the point though. Do you think there will be another generation that will enjoy the low taxation (relative) and wealth that we enjoyed in the 80's? Eventually - not for a long time though. And they'll probably be in China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I understand Janie, thanks for taking part. I also have had quite a few nutters insult me on this thread tonight. Bad timing on my part I suppose, seem to have attracted the mid week drunkards. Might get some sensible replies when they have all passed out for the night. Steady on, you haven't exactly been a paragon of virtue yourself. All I did earlier was state facts: 1. Osborne hasn't mentioned a Robin Hood tax 2. Some people believe Robin Hood wasn't real. I was using facts to question the premise of you thread. You go a bit stinky with me. All I've been drinking tonight is tea. What have you been on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Steady on, you haven't exactly been a paragon of virtue yourself. All I did earlier was state facts: 1. Osborne hasn't mentioned a Robin Hood tax 2. Some people believe Robin Hood wasn't real. I was using facts to question the premise of you thread. You go a bit stinky with me. All I've been drinking tonight is tea. What have you been on It's okay my friend, you have not offended me. Here is a bit more info for you: Robin Hood Tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 It's okay my friend, you have not offended me. Here is a bit more info for you: Robin Hood Tax What an awful site. If you had called it the Tobin tax I'd have understood what the heck you were banging on about. Anyway, yes in principle such a tax could possibly work. That site just doesn't make a convincing argument for it. Would it "ruin everything"? Nope. It may impact GDP marginally by discouraging the more exotic types of financial trading but that in turn could increase banking stability. The slight GDP decrease would be a decent 'trade' for stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Will this proposed 'rob from the rich to feed the poor' tax quash the very inspiration that produced so many success stories in the 80's? I think so. What is the proposal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 What is the proposal? "The Proposal" (Animorphs), the thirty-fifth book in the Animorphs series by K.A. Applegate "The Proposal" (film), a 2009 film starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds "The Proposal" is an alternative title of Chekhov's play A Marriage Proposal Could you be a little more specific please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.