|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wants to take from the rich in order to make public college tuition-free for everyone else.
On Tuesday, the Vermont senator will hold a press conference in the nation's capital at which he will introduce a plan to use a so-called Robin Hood tax on stock transactions to fund tuition at four-year public colleges and universities.
Sanders' bill sets a 50-cent tax on every "$100 of stock trades on stock sales, and lesser amounts on transactions involving bonds, derivatives, and other financial instruments," the group Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street said Monday in a press release.
Source
Not sure that I think this is a good idea. I really can't see this bill getting passed or even helping him in this election.
|
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea?
|
On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea?
Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody.
|
On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody.
It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor.
|
They have a whole lot fewer college grads % wise, but waaaay better trade schools.
*edit... which would mean telling 30% or so of future college grads in the US that college is not for them, and they need to go to a trade school.
|
On May 19 2015 14:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2015 08:43 cLutZ wrote:
I have 90% confidence Hillary will be the next President. However, I really don't see any of her institutional advantages flowing to another Democratic candidate (Sanders included) were she to bow out. Warren could pick up a bit, but she is very New-England and doesn't have the tech boom Bill Clinton glow.
Edit:
Cruz points seem very plausible.
+
If non-Clinton nominee, I would swing to 85% confidence in Republican President. I'm closer to 60-75% but that's with Bush coming out pretty clean from the primary (not likely as he's not even technically running for money reasons [even though he said he was] and already shit up the Iraq question). Rubio/Walker are the only other ones I see getting more than 45%. I think either of them without Hillary could be a narrow win for Republicans with about 60% confidence. Of course if the election were held tomorrow Hillary would crush anyone but Bush, even by Fox News polls. I don't really think Republicans have a plan to 'get' voters. At best the strategy seems to be to try to lower turnout low enough where they can win on the back of white males. EDIT: I had a question pop up in my head related to the swing voter issues. Is there a single issue where the republican party stands in opposition of the predominate view among white men? If not, I could see that being the biggest shift Republicans could pick up and Democrats might not see coming. If there's one party that doesn't oppose any of the views held by the majority of your demographic that could be pretty damn appealing. It's not sustainable, but it could get republicans another 4-8 years or until women leave in droves too. Per your other posts - young voters tend not to vote in any significant %'s, and as you age, your perspective on economic matters generally tends to become less pro-Government. There is also a significant portion of the young that are libertarian and we are for the most part despondent about both parties. If anything I'm more excited about the effects of internet media in lieu of traditional cable-TV outlets that are controlled by powerful interests all ready in bed with the G-men. How this will turn out in voting trends in 20 years is anyones' guess, but I have a pretty positive outlook. I imagine in 20 years the GOP won't look like the GOP of today or the 90s. Social conservatism is all ready on its way out demographically and us younger libertarians will be the predominant view I imagine. The Democrats look old and stale to me. Both parties I feel like will have significant voter-turn out problems and hopefully we can get the duopoly out of the business of running the debates. Perhaps they'll be another chance for an independent/3rd party to run and garner significant votes that turns into something approaching voter satisfaction. Neither party represents the country well at all. There are huge chunks of the country that are disenfranchised by the duopoly. Or, maybe things will be so bad that independent movements in the country will grow and peacefully leaving the country might be an option (most of the old people are the most adamant about Lincoln nationalism...). Who knows. PS: I think Hillary wins if the nominee is anyone else other than Rand as the polls indicate as much and she can position herself being less interventionist and gung-ho about war all the time if its a non-Rand nominee which if history is an indicator is a pretty good predictor of electoral victory. Also, Bush has zero shot. He has -20 negatives with GOP electorate, so I found it funny you thought he would even have 1% chance. Oh, by the way Fox News purposefully left out Rand when he is polling 4% better than Hillary (47-43), as they really really really really hate the libertarian wing of the party.
are you sure about that? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_clinton-3825.html and all other sources i could find see Hillary in front of Rand
|
On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor.
As long as this bill is used to provide funding for existing public universities I am fine with that. One of the biggest offender is the University of California "public" university system which has been raising tuition non-stop to a almost private university level in order to cover costs for renovations and expansions at the cost of the students and their parents.
As long as the universities themselves remain a stringent and competitive selection and admission process I don't think this bill will be detrimental for the economy. I don't want the universities to use money from this bill to build more housing and classrooms to admit those less qualified and thus neglect to provide tuition help for those who are qualified.
Nonetheless the chance of this bill being passed is less than the chance of me finding a date.
|
On May 19 2015 23:14 RCMDVA wrote:
They have a whole lot fewer college grads % wise, but waaaay better trade schools.
*edit... which would mean telling 30% or so of future college grads in the US that college is not for them, and they need to go to a trade school.
Also a quite a lot of college degrees are still organized as apprenticeships here, nursing for example.So it's not like you can't do what you want, you just don't go to college for it.
|
On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea?
Its not even a robin hood tax and its insane to take that high on transactions. If he is serious (doubtful) he's essentially disqualified himself as a serious person. 50 basis points is crazy.
|
If just having a degree would actually be worth something, that would be nice, but everything in the business world is about connections, "soft skills" and working on the side during studies to get a hang of business culture.
|
On May 20 2015 00:24 cLutZ wrote:Its not even a robin hood tax and its insane to take that high on transactions. If he is serious (doubtful) he's essentially disqualified himself as a serious person. 50 basis points is crazy.
Yeah, that's why its clearly more about getting these conversations started in terms of how and not why. I'm pretty sure Bernie ain't going to take it too hard when this specific bill fails. The exponential growth of student debt relative to other kinds of debt and the for-profit problem are going to become even more important issues in the coming years, so I can appreciate a politician willing to start conversations rather than end them. That being said, Sanders' ability to do just that might very well end up being why he is unelectable.
|
United States42984 Posts
On May 20 2015 00:24 cLutZ wrote:Its not even a robin hood tax and its insane to take that high on transactions. If he is serious (doubtful) he's essentially disqualified himself as a serious person. 50 basis points is crazy.
My understanding was that it was a 0.5% tax on trades over $100 in value. It won't impact buy and hold players hugely, it'll mainly hit the speculators and traders who aren't investing in a company because they believe it is undervalued and has potential for growth but instead because they hope to resell short term for a quick profit. I'm not hugely against taxing that.
For reference the UK has exactly that tax, at exactly that rate, and still retains its position as the financial centre of Europe.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-buy-shares/overview
It always amazes me when I see things that already exist elsewhere dismissed as insane by Americans.
|
On May 19 2015 23:19 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. As long as this bill is used to provide funding for existing public universities I am fine with that. One of the biggest offender is the University of California "public" university system which has been raising tuition non-stop to a almost private university level in order to cover costs for renovations and expansions at the cost of the students and their parents. As long as the universities themselves remain a stringent and competitive selection and admission process I don't think this bill will be detrimental for the economy. I don't want the universities to use money from this bill to build more housing and classrooms to admit those less qualified and thus neglect to provide tuition help for those who are qualified. Nonetheless the chance of this bill being passed is less than the chance of me finding a date.
Here it works by each student being worth a sum of money. Each term the school gets paid and upon completion of the degree they get a bonus. So a student is worth more per term if they complete their degree and each course than if they just study one term and drop out. The state also reviews the schools to see if the students actually learn what the degree should teach them. Since they have the money string it is easy to demand certain standards, though it is hard to ensure every year due to changing teachers and technological advances happening.
Those reviews were part of what I checked into when deciding which school to go to for a MSc. Generally all the degrees I considered scored well, so it didn't end up helping me.
|
On May 19 2015 15:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 09:51 oneofthem wrote:
a major part of it is simply the nature of segregation in america, something a canadian would not have expereince with. Canada had plenty of segregation in its history, including segregation of Black people. There's also been a longstanding issue with Natives across the country, and the worst of it was essentially the same kind as in the US, with separate schools, restaurants, facilities, etc. British Columbia in particular has a rather messy history with Asians, Chinese especially considering the slave labour used for the Pacific Railway, and the Head Tax following that. Then there was further efforts to segregate Chinese, Japanese and Indians into their own communities and away from ethnic Europeans. The difference is, somehow, that Canada as a whole has dealt with and gotten over most of its racial issues a lot faster than the US has. It's probably something that has all kinds of social science papers written about it.
You also never had a massive slave society. So there's that.
And if I asked your average Canadian native if he thought you had "dealt with and gotten over most of Canada's racial issues," would he agree? Would his answer include expletives?
|
On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor.
So throwing more of other people's money at it is the solution?
3 things I'd like to see are:
Move education into state jurisdiction up from counties and down from federal.
Discourage unmarketable degrees like art history majors and encourage trades.
Spending on college sports is a huge misallocation of resources.
Implement reforms along those lines and wait for data before proceeding. Unfortunately, this is a generational problem where solutions implemented will not be seen for decades, thus there is little political willpower to implement solutions.
|
On May 20 2015 01:32 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. So throwing more of other people's money at it is the solution? 3 things I'd like to see are: Move education into state jurisdiction up from counties and down from federal. Discourage unmarketable degrees like art history majors and encourage trades.Spending on college sports is a huge misallocation of resources. Implement reforms along those lines and wait for data before proceeding. Unfortunately, this is a generational problem where solutions implemented will not be seen for decades, thus there is little political willpower to implement solutions.
The bold part is such an incredibly annoying stereotype that floats around traditional conservative circles.
These "useless" majors (art history, gender studies, etc.) are not anywhere near the most popular degrees at most institutions.
http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/09/310114739/whats-your-major-four-decades-of-college-degrees-in-1-graph
The most popular degrees continue to be business, science, and healthcare-related. The most popular humanities degrees, English and History, are both incredibly useful in a wide variety of settings.
The idea that students are getting too many "useless" degrees is a myth that is used as a lazy excuse to explain away the debt and employment problems that college graduates are facing because people don't want to face the reality of the situation.
|
The tax is less than 1%. It's clearly targeted at bot traders. Think about how much bots mess up games like WoW or other mmorpg's, then realize there are people making millions and billions of $$ using "Stock Bots". The tax is basically an anti-exploit measure.
College sports are usually about a break even or profitable endeavor in div 1 schools and many div 2's below that throw and they are generally money sinks. Honestly more would be profitable if they didn't subsidize women's sports.
Everything I buy other than food get's taxed ~10% that's $5 on a $50 purchase, so I don't have much pity for people who constantly trade being hit for $0.50 on every $100. Now instead of buying 100,000 shares at $100 then turning around and selling them at $100.50 moments later for ~$50,000 in profit, they will actually need an investment strategy based on investing and not exploiting the market.
Remember the flash crashes? That's what happens when to many large brokerages use these automated algorithmic flash trading systems. Any given moment some unrealized threshold can be met and the market can crash in a matter of seconds. Using the stock market like a casino without a rake is as dangerous as it is brilliant for everyone, even more dangerous if you realize people are placing computers at the table to play for them.
|
United States42984 Posts
On May 20 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
The tax is less than 1%. It's clearly targeted at bot traders. Think about how much bots mess up games like WoW or other mmorpg's, then realize there are people making millions and billions of $$ using "Stock Bots". The tax is basically an anti-exploit measure.
College sports are usually about a break even or profitable endeavor in div 1 schools and many div 2's below that throw and they are generally money sinks. Honestly more would be profitable if they didn't subsidize women's sports.
It's all mostly automated these days, with the exclusion of the "I have a good feeling about this stock" amateurs who don't have much money or impact because they lose their money on their good feelings. It's more of a tax on activity. It rewards buy and hold strategies and penalizes hit and run strategies which, as a Bogle fan, I approve of. If you think it's a profitable company making a good product and you believe in it then you pay 0.5% on your investment but reap the dividends of ownership of that company for years to come. If you don't know or care what the company does but plan to resell it tomorrow for higher and then use that money to immediately buy something else then the 0.5% will very quickly erode your capital.
It's not about bots, it's about investing vs raiding.
|
On May 20 2015 02:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
The tax is less than 1%. It's clearly targeted at bot traders. Think about how much bots mess up games like WoW or other mmorpg's, then realize there are people making millions and billions of $$ using "Stock Bots". The tax is basically an anti-exploit measure.
College sports are usually about a break even or profitable endeavor in div 1 schools and many div 2's below that throw and they are generally money sinks. Honestly more would be profitable if they didn't subsidize women's sports. It's all mostly automated these days, with the exclusion of the "I have a good feeling about this stock" amateurs who don't have much money or impact because they lose their money on their good feelings. It's more of a tax on activity. It rewards buy and hold strategies and penalizes hit and run strategies which, as a Bogle fan, I approve of. If you think it's a profitable company making a good product and you believe in it then you pay 0.5% on your investment but reap the dividends of ownership of that company for years to come. If you don't know or care what the company does but plan to resell it tomorrow for higher and then use that money to immediately buy something else then the 0.5% will very quickly erode your capital. It's not about bots, it's about investing vs raiding.
Well yes and no, the automation itself isn't the culprit (although it does present dangers) it's the mindless part of the automation. Nothing wrong with letting the computer do some math for you, the problem comes when it's making the decisions with little to no human input.Combined with that it's decisions are specifically short term oriented and based on the stocks ability to move and not the company itself and you get a recipe for disaster.
This is definitely targeted at automated algo-traders (or will hurt them the most at least).
|
On May 20 2015 01:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 01:32 Wolfstan wrote:On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. So throwing more of other people's money at it is the solution? 3 things I'd like to see are: Move education into state jurisdiction up from counties and down from federal. Discourage unmarketable degrees like art history majors and encourage trades.Spending on college sports is a huge misallocation of resources. Implement reforms along those lines and wait for data before proceeding. Unfortunately, this is a generational problem where solutions implemented will not be seen for decades, thus there is little political willpower to implement solutions. The bold part is such an incredibly annoying stereotype that floats around traditional conservative circles. These "useless" majors (art history, gender studies, etc.) are not anywhere near the most popular degrees at most institutions. http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/09/310114739/whats-your-major-four-decades-of-college-degrees-in-1-graphThe most popular degrees continue to be business, science, and healthcare-related. The most popular humanities degrees, English and History, are both incredibly useful in a wide variety of settings. The idea that students are getting too many "useless" degrees is a myth that is used as a lazy excuse to explain away the debt and employment problems that college graduates are facing because people don't want to face the reality of the situation.
I am obviously pro-education and agree with you that the vast majority of degrees are a value added investment. Still, reducing the few who do enter the workforce with crippling student debt with very little earnings premium is only a part of the solution. The problem with English, History and similar degrees is a supply and demand one. Upon graduation, they are all chasing the same education jobs putting downward pressure on salaries. It also leads to bad teachers, but that's another issue entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
