[The American President] was caught between two competing European visions of how to solve the financial crisis at the G8 summit when David Cameron rejected outright a French proposal to raise €57bn (£46bn) through a tax on financial transactions.

<snip>

The French president is proposing a EU-wide financial transaction tax (FTT) that could raise up to €57bn a year that could be used to stimulate the 27-nation bloc.

<snip>

However on arriving in the US, Cameron said: "On the financial transactions tax I'm very clear, we are not going to get growth in Europe or Britain by introducing a new tax that would actually hit people as well as financial institutions. I don't think it is a sensible measure I will not support it."

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/18/g8-summit-financ...

A small tax would have negligible impact on everyone *except* HFTs....

A small tax would have negligible impact on everyone *except* HFTs....

Don't know what an "HFTs" is, but the last time New York state threatened to put a "small" tax on financial transactions the New York Stock Exchange threatened to move out of state.

IIRC the NYSE still owns land in Connecticut or Rhode Island or somewhere.

There is no such thing as a "small" tax it's just the camel's nose in the tent.

Seems like this would move investments from the fake growth in the finance sector to more growth in real world industries. It isn't like giving more money to Dimond et.al. is going to help the rest of us.

Another Tax; Yeah That'll Stimulate Growth


DD,

You are back to reading those moronic bumper stickers again aren't you?

It wouldn't hurt to look at the details of the idea rather than going into the silly looking petulant rejection mode of anything that mentions the word "TAX"?

We live in a complex society that does not run on air and good will. If nothing else it costs money to regulate the bunch of crooks prevalent in the financial industry as well as dumping their living costs on the tax payer when and if we finally manage to put them in jail.


Any <thinks anti-tax people should return their SS and forego police and fire protection> mouse

A small tax would have negligible impact on everyone *except* HFTs....

If it's so small why don't you pay it.

I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else.

If you want it, sack up and pay your own bills.

I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else.

We are the virtuous. They are the wicked.

The (philosopher) Captain

I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else.

If you want it, sack up and pay your own bills.

lazarus

Wow, you must have spent a half second with that snappy reply that added nothing to the conversation?

You don't use any government services, trade on a regulated stock exchange, live in a functional country with a military, police, firefighters, streets, electricity, telephone, sewage, water, mail or any of the other things that make a modern society run?

Bad news Lazarus, taxes pay your own bills, you don't get to pick and chose unless you move to Carjackestan.


Any <damn there are a lot of... "interesting" people here> mouse


Who would have thunk it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_sign

"There is no such thing as a "small" tax it's just the camel's nose in the tent."

That's a kinda extreme position. A small tax on high frequency trading would stop it cold. HFT is in itself a tax on the financial industry that just puts money in private pockets instead of helping us all get out out of debt. I also think a small tax, say a penny on each email would be a great idea, NO MORE SPAM, though I don't know how it could be implemented. The no tax ever meme is irrational and destructive. We need sane rational taxes to spay for all the S*it we as a society have already bought. Going forward, we also need to lower our assumptions and expectations and only buy what we really need.

You are back to reading those moronic bumper stickers again aren't you?

It would seem you've never stopped believing those moronic pro-tax bumper stickers.

It's just plain silly to assume new taxes will fix everything or anything.

Had you actually read the news story you'd know the new tax wasn't about regulating "crooks" in the financial industry, but rather digging their way out of the hole they'd borrowed their way into.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/18/g8-summit-financ...

Desert (thinks people who advocate governments spending and borrowing like drunken sailors should follow the government's example and see how long they remain solvent.) Dave

If it's so small why don't you pay it.

LOL! Funny how that never occurs to the pro tax and spenders.

I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else.

When I'm elected Emperor of the Universe (campaign donations now being accepted) I'll decree that all taxes be equal across the board then we'll see how many pro tax people want to raise taxes.

Had you actually read the news story you'd know the new tax wasn't about regulating "crooks" in the financial industry, but rather digging their way out of the hole they'd borrowed their way into.


DD,

So paying down a nation's debt is a bad thing? }};-()

Just my opinion but unless nations in trouble pay down the debt while interest rates are low they will soon find themselves financing that debt at much higher interest rates? How would that help the taxpayers?

The trick is to cut spending to the bone while they still have the option and use every spare penny... er nickel in our case they have (or can tax) to reduce the debt while they still have the room do it themselves rather than having it forced upon them.

This blaming taxes for debt is silly, blame instead the voters who demanded payment for votes from their politicians?

One interesting and very successful method used by Finance Minister Paul Martin with his politicians was that any new spending proposal had to include where the cuts to finance it were coming from. When a politician has to piss off one set of voters in order to make another set happy they really think twice about it. The odd thing about voters is that the pissed off ones have better memories than the happy ones.

So that is my suggestion, what’s yours?


Tim

Don't know what an "HFTs" is, but the last time New York state threatened to put a "small" tax on financial transactions the New York Stock Exchange threatened to move out of state.

HFT is High Freguency Trades, which are a burden on the market.

So what if the NYSE moved? You mean other than the fact it would no longer be the NEW YORK Stock Exchange? The tax is on the TRADE--not where the transaction occurs. Even if they moved out of the US, they would still be taxed--because it is US shares being traded.

There is no such thing as a "small" tax it's just the camel's nose in the tent.

Then there are lots of elephant's trunks in that arena....

If it's so small why don't you pay it.

I would.

I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else.

If something is needed or wanted, it needs to be paid for. That is why taxes exist.

HFT is High Freguency Trades, which are a burden on the market.

I don't believe that has been proven one way or another.

Why tax HFT? Why not tax hedge funds or big banks or Buffett, or foreigners? Why not simply throttle the computers? As long a HFT is within the law, I don't see what the problem is.

Denny Schlesinger

...unless nations in trouble pay down the debt while interest rates are low they will soon find themselves financing that debt at much higher interest rates?

Now now, Tim.

You fail to recognize that Japan and the US have conclusively proven that, by central bank intervention, a nation can take on unlimited amounts of debt without ever increasing interest rates. The trick is to only incur debt denominated in a currency that your local central bank can conjure from thin air.

So long as crisis-like conditions can be maintained, the interest rates can easily be held down by a combination of private party fear and central bank "open market" debt price support.

In other words, central bankers have proven that private markets can be killed off and prevented from driving up yields. All it takes is a determination to keep printing, purchasing & expanding a limitless balance sheet.

Central banks, fiat currency & debt: the perfect symbiotic relationship.

;-)

Now now, Tim.

You fail to recognize that Japan and the US have conclusively proven that, by central bank intervention, a nation can take on unlimited amounts of debt without ever increasing interest rates. The trick is to only incur debt denominated in a currency that your local central bank can conjure from thin air.

Mutt,

Good point, our guys just won't let us have any fun anymore since the mess we got into some years back. The Finance Minister is desperately trying to return to the balanced budget that he inherited when he took the job and the BoC governor seems to feel that he has to set a good example since he also runs the FSB.

Purely out of curiosity, can they keep it going into infinity... or just until those people are no longer holding the key to the printing press room?


Any <watching a great hockey game between Rangers and Devils> mouse

Sunny and 21C here, the BBQ is finally out on the deck and ready to go.

Dalio's World
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB500014240531119043700045... central banks deleveraging. He likes the way the US is doing it.
Now only 10 years left in the process...

Wow, you must have spent a half second with that snappy reply that added nothing to the conversation?

You don't use any government services, trade on a regulated stock exchange, live in a functional country with a military, police, firefighters, streets, electricity, telephone, sewage, water, mail or any of the other things that make a modern society run?

Bad news Lazarus, taxes pay your own bills, you don't get to pick and chose unless you move to Carjackestan.


Any <damn there are a lot of... "interesting" people here> mouse


Who would have thunk it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_sign

Oh Tim, my fellow Canadian, it's always a sign of desperation of concession when someone goes into calling people names instead of address the issue. So thanks for your admission. As for my screen name goes, you need to read some more, here's the correct Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long

But since you mentioned it, I find it interesting that you are from Nova Scotia Canada, a province which is well known to be a receiver of provincial transfer payments. Of course you'd want the taxes to keep rolling in, since they go to your geography.

And yeah, I do use government services, in fact I know from looking at my tax returns that I pay in way more than I get back every year. As a net payer, I'd like a little say in what I get for what I pay for.

If something is needed or wanted, it needs to be paid for. That is why taxes exist.

Hmm. Needed by whom? Wanted by whom? As for why taxes exist, interesting isn't it? That the reason which originally compelled nations to levy taxes was their desire to wage war. Of course nowadays, there are other options: A) trash the currency B) print more 'money'

The first proposal to impose an income tax on America occurred during the War of 1812. After two years of war, the federal government had accumulated a then-staggering $100 million of debt. To fund the war against Britain, the government doubled the rates of its major source of revenue, customs duties on imports, which obstructed trade and ended up yielding less revenue than the previous lower rates.

Don't know what an "HFTs" is, but the last time New York state threatened to put a "small" tax on financial transactions the New York Stock Exchange threatened to move out of state.

HFT is High Freguency Trades, which are a burden on the market.

So what if the NYSE moved? You mean other than the fact it would no longer be the NEW YORK Stock Exchange? The tax is on the TRADE--not where the transaction occurs.

Jerry, it was New York State getting ready to impose the tax so moving out of the state of New York would have meant that NO New York taxes would have been collected since the trades wouldn't have occurred in New York.

Also you've got a lot of offices "around" Wall Street that would have moved too. Peripherally there's also the commuters bringing pockets full of money in each weekday.

You may think it's no big deal, but the state of New York did and backed off real quick.

I believe they could have kept the name New York Stock Exchange no matter which state (or country) they moved to since the NYSE is a corporation.

If it's so small why don't you pay it.

I would.

Easy to say when there's no one around to collect your offering.

I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else.

If something is needed or wanted, it needs to be paid for. That is why taxes exist.

I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else.

One interesting and very successful method used by Finance Minister Paul Martin with his politicians was that any new spending proposal had to include where the cuts to finance it were coming from.

That's called a "paygo" rule. The US used it successfully when the person in the WH and the Congressional leadership decided to stick to it....but that was in the 90s. Then we entered a new era of profligacy, with the backing of powerful propaganda.

Steve

Purely out of curiosity, can they keep it going into infinity... or just until those people are no longer holding the key to the printing press room?

Good question!

The Fed and the CBJ have shown that, with sufficient repeated and forceful intervention in the markets with conjured digital cash, any "market participant" who might underbid the Fed (and thereby increase interest rate yield) will leave empty-handed. Just like the Borg, the Fed can, by relentless displacement of other purchasers, convince all other market participants that "resistance is futile."

Here's a video of Ben Bernanke speaking to market participants who might attempt to drive up interest rates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJTgg8

Since the Fed can create as much cash as it needs to out-bid all others (market participants who have to use their own cash from savings), resistance truly is futile.

This is how the will of the market is broken. The bond vigilantes are powerless against the all-encompassing-infinite Fed balance sheet.

Unlike physical matter, modern debt does not follow the "law of conservation of mass" (that mass cannot be created or destroyed). Rather, under the central banking fiat debt-as-money currency system, debt can be created, but so long as it is owed to banks, such debt can never be destroyed, defaulted upon or bankrupted. That's how the will of human market participants is broken.

As to whether the central bank's market control and displacement can be continued infinitely, even after different folks "have the key to the printing press room," the answer is "yes."

The Japanese Central Bank has proven for almost 3 decades that, no matter who is at the helm of the bank - and no matter who is at the helm of the government, the bankers controlling the debt-as-money fiat currency system (where debt can be "created, but not destroyed") is, in fact, the economic-equivalent of a "perpetual motion machine."

Here's a video of a magnetic perpetual motion machine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZjNbjhxgt4

The Central Bank-induced "perpetual motion" machine works as follows:

1. The ease of creating cash from thin air merely by creating more public debt makes the growth of debt inevitable, infinite and irresistible to politicians, treasury officials and central bankers.

2. This growth of debt discourages entrepreneurial human market participants, who know that their own "fair share" of public debt will grow at a rate faster than they can generate new wealth through economic activity and business ventures.

3. The Fed's imposed zero-interest-rate-policies take away interest income potential, making individual human savers hesitant to spend their hard-earned cash - thereby reducing "free spending" by those who normally could afford to spend. This hesitance of savers to spend simultaneously reduces the earnings potential of entrepreneurial human market participants.

4. Human beings become resigned to a state of economic malaise, lose hope in a brighter economic future due to the ever-growing debt and stagnant or falling incomes, and "hunker down" in a form of paralyzed financial stasis.

5. Such paralyzed financial stasis is interpreted as "crisis" by politicians, treasury officials and central bankers.

6. "Crisis" policies are continued, such as Fed-imposed zero-interest-rates, market displacement/distortion by Fed purchase of Treasuries, and increased government borrowing to fund more government services needed by the unemployed, underemployed, and elderly.

7. The ease of creating cash from thin air merely by creating more public debt makes the growth of debt continue.

Thus, a "perpetual motion machine" of constantly growing debt, debilitation of human spirit, and a deflationary debt spiral grows and continues unabated.

And with an infinitely expandable balance sheet, Japan and now the US central banks have proven that they can maintain the status quo of ever-growing debt forever.

I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else.

Warren Buffett for example. Wait...

"I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else."

Not that evidence will ever change your mind, but that is demonstratably false. Just ask Warren Buffett.

You are back to reading those moronic bumper stickers again aren't you?

It wouldn't hurt to look at the details of the idea rather than going into the silly looking petulant rejection mode of anything that mentions the word "TAX"?

We live in a complex society that does not run on air and good will. If nothing else it costs money to regulate the bunch of crooks prevalent in the financial industry as well as dumping their living costs on the tax payer when and if we finally manage to put them in jail.

The perfect METaR's post - raise taxes, insult a conservative and blame the bankers - how fitting it comes from a Canuck.

Oh Tim, my fellow Canadian, it's always a sign of desperation of concession when someone goes into calling people names instead of address the issue.

Actually it popped up and I thought it was hilarious. I felt a touch guilty and was going to FA it but your reply disuaded me. As to the issue, I think I did a pretty good job though clearly "there are none so deaf as will not listen".

But since you mentioned it, I find it interesting that you are from Nova Scotia Canada, a province which is well known to be a receiver of provincial transfer payments. Of course you'd want the taxes to keep rolling in, since they go to your geography.

Draw wrong conclusions much? Since you are from Ontario (as am I though I retired in Nova Scotia because my wife is from Halifax) I'm sure you are aware that Ontario is a current recipient of equalization payments as has every other province since the beginning of the program been at one time or another?.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/20/growing-equalization...

Growing equalization payments to Ontario threaten country: expert

Postmedia News Jul 20, 2011 – 6:35 AM ET | Last Updated: Aug 5, 2011 6:58 PM ET

By Lee Greenberg

TORONTO — In just three years, Ontario has become the second-largest recipient of equalization payments in the country, with $2.2-billion set to flow into its “have-not” coffers this year.

========================================================

And yeah, I do use government services, in fact I know from looking at my tax returns that I pay in way more than I get back every year. As a net payer, I'd like a little say in what I get for what I pay for.

Cry me a river, I paid into the EI system my whole career and never received a nickel, perhaps that is why they call it "insurance". I paid into two different pension plans (Canadian Forces and CPP) only to have the government decide in IIRC the mid-70s that their share of each ended up being a bit generous so they changed the rules to reduce the payout.

Now I'm sure you are feeling a bit foolish right now but I'm also guessing it is not the first time you stuck both feet in your mouth?


Tim <now hates to admit he is from Ontario> mouse

"I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else."

Not that evidence will ever change your mind, but that is demonstratably false. Just ask Warren Buffett.

Many years ago I watched a 20/20 or 60 Minutes (I forget which) show about a couple who'd sold their successful business & retirement plan to a company and retired. Soon thereafter the company they'd sold their business to folded leaving all their retired ex workers without income.

The couple stepped in and assumed the pension payments.

When asked why he was paying pension payments when he was under no legal obligation to do so the retired millionaire said: "What am I going to do with the money; buy another suit?"

Buffett, IIRC, drives and old beat up pickup and lives in an old house. He doesn't need the money. That's his choice. But he doesn't get to choose for the rest of us.

Buffett is saying 'Take the money I'm not using anyway.'

Desert (has uses for his money) Dave

"I find it interesting how when people call for taxes, it's always to tax someone else."

Not that evidence will ever change your mind, but that is demonstratably false. Just ask Warren Buffett.

Wrong. If someone wants to pay more taxes, they have the ability to write a check to the U.S. treasury for any amount of their choosing to help reduce the deficit.

When someone is calling for higher taxes, it's -always- for the purpose of taxing someone else. Buffett doesn't need a higher tax rate on himself to pay higher taxes, and that's a fact. Buffett wants higher tax rates on everyone else in order to force them to pay more.

And the key point here is that people like Buffett are the vast, vast minority. Virtually every person in this country who is lobbying for higher taxes want those taxes imposed on someone else. That's a small step from outright theft, and in my opinion, a person has to be ethically bankrupt to advocate such a thing. It's no different than some hoodlum wandering the streets, spotting a Mercedes he likes, and stealing it just because the owner "can afford it."

If someone wants to pay more taxes, they have the ability to write a check to the U.S. treasury for any amount of their choosing to help reduce the deficit.

This is a silly meme that has no merit at all. If someone believes that the growing discrepancy between rich and poor in the US is a big part of the current economic doldrums, they may favor tax increases for the untra-wealthy as one thing that can contribute to solving the problem. So they accept that paying a higher tax rate themselves is part of the solution. But if a single individual pays a higher tax, it will not contribute to the solution at all. No single individual can impact the growing gap between rich and poor.

People don't want to pay higher taxes. They want a healthier economy. They want value for taxes they pay. If paying less tax makes the economic problems worse, then they get no value for the small amount of taxes they pay. If paying more (as a class) improves the situation, then their taxes purchased something of value.

This is the basic misunderstanding some people seem to hold. They look only at tax levels, never at value. They don't seem to grasp that financial deals have two sides. It is such a naive, simple-minded view of the world. What do you get for your money is more important than how little you spend.

If you applied this "consider-cost-without-value" line of thinking to other aspects of life, it would lead to really stupid choices. Go to the grocery store and buy stick of gum because it's cheaper than bread. Invest in Scamalot Inc. stock because the stock price is lower than Microsoft. Paying less tax is always better than paying more regardless of how it affects the economy or the effectiveness of the government.

I don't believe that has been proven one way or another.

Think about the concept of HFT and get back to us....

Why tax HFT? Why not tax hedge funds or big banks or Buffett, or foreigners? Why not simply throttle the computers? As long a HFT is within the law, I don't see what the problem is.

It is not a tax just on HFT--it is a tax on ALL trades. It could be modified to REDUCE (eliminate?) the tax owed the longer the stock is held. So, a HFT trader would pay more per share than a day trader--or a buy-and-hold investor (who might pay near-zero or zero tax on purchases held more than some arbitrary period--90 days? A year?).

Think about the concept of HFT and get back to us....

No need. As I said in a previous post, look it up, HFT does not bother one bit. I welcome market initiatives. Innocent until proven guilty. If you think they are guilty the burden of proof is on you, not me.


It is not a tax just on HFT--it is a tax on ALL trades.

All are equal under the law. This tax is specifically designed to be punitive for one type of action.


Denny Schlesinger

"That's a small step from outright theft, and in my opinion, a person has to be ethically bankrupt to advocate such a thing."


Taxation is not theft. Never was.

Advocating taxes on financial transactions makes it impossible to play dumb quant games to unproductively siphon money out of the trading system. Which would of course, greatly inconvenience the people who are stealing from the rest of us by doing that little thing.

Just as even a small charge for an e-mail would make spam impossible.

Which would cut about half the load off the e-mail servers of every company and person on the planet... Is that load is a "tax" and a "theft"?

Is the maintenance of government a theft? No.

This whole thread HAS gone off into the weeds. I won't p-box you, but the thread? It's done. Always happens once the libertarians and lefties start soapboxing.

"Wrong. If someone wants to pay more taxes, they have the ability to write a check to the U.S. treasury for any amount of their choosing to help reduce the deficit."

Sigh. That tired, irrational argument again.

The idea that Buffett should just write a check is addressed here:
http://boards.fool.com/quotwarren-is-was-and-always-will-be-...

Besides, it wasn't wrong. It was a perfectly accurate counter-example disproving the person's assertion that when people call for taxes, it is always for someone else. Under Buffett's proposal, he would end up paying more in taxes. The person's statement was the one that was wrong.

"That's a small step from outright theft, and in my opinion, a person has to be ethically bankrupt to advocate such a thing. It's no different than some hoodlum wandering the streets, spotting a Mercedes he likes, and stealing it just because the owner "can afford it."

The "taxes as theft" meme is silly.

Really? You cannot tell the difference between paying to maintain a society that a person voluntarily agrees to live in (even if only implicitly) and unarguably benefits from, and stealing a car?

People who use the "taxes as theft" agrument are like people who go to a restaurant, order food and eat it, then when the bill comes cry "Theft!" because the restaurant owner is taking money out of his wallet.

Besides, this generation (and the one before it) have enjoyed the benefits from living in our society. the real theft is them enjoying the benefits, but refusing to pay for them all and instead passing the bill on to future generations.

No need. As I said in a previous post, look it up, HFT does not bother one bit. I welcome market initiatives. Innocent until proven guilty. If you think they are guilty the burden of proof is on you, not me.

No need to think? Hmm, that might explain a lot....

HFT is limited in the number of people who can do it (i.e. how many physical computers can be placed). Thus, by definition, it is disruptive to the market by failing to provide the same information at the same time to all traders.

If you do not understand that concept, then try horse racing. All horses in their starting gates--but two of those starting gates are two and three lengths ahead of the others (closer to the finish line). All gates will open simultaneously. Which horse do YOU bet on--and why?

HFT is limited in the number of people who can do it (i.e. how many physical computers can be placed).

So is major league baseball. How many teams can you have? I wannabe a shortstop!

Talking about horse racing, if they would just handicap great athletes with weights like they do with horses, I might have a chance to be a major league shortstop. Fair is fair!

Talking about handicapping in horse racing, by putting weights on fast horses you are bringing them down to the common denominator. This is the problem with communism and socialism, they do not elevate anyone, they just bring down the better ones. They don't create wealth, they just redistributed misery more evenly.


HFT does not have a material influence on my portfolio. I bet it costs me less that the commission I pay to trade. As long as what the HFT gang does is legal, I could care less what they do. Default swaps are a lot more dangerous as is the leverage banks are allowed to use. The SEC should go after naked shorts, real thieves!


Just one more time: HFT is limited in the number of people who can do it

Can you do what Buffett does, buy a whole railroad? There are only so many railroads to go around, not enough for everyone. Then tax the heck out of buying whole railroads in the name of fairness! As per your suggestion let's think this through. We don't all have the billions to buy Burlington Northern or a similar railroad. If buffett found it attractive at $50 a share, he probably would not want to pay $100. Put a 100% tax on buying whole railroads. No on would would ever again buy whole railroads. OK, we stopped Buffett but we also stopped everyone else! Sell how fairness kills the economy? Think it through!


BTW, I really don't see how you jump from scarcity to market disruption. Scarcity (lack of supply) is a basic ingredient of markets. If there was too much of everything there would be no need for markets. The economy, as we know it, would not exist.

Talking about scarcity, my time is also scarce, hence valuable, at least to me. Therefore, in order to save this valuable asset (at least to me) I'm putting this thread on ignore.


Thank you for inducing me to think through the various disruptions caused by the socialist fairness doctrine. Equal outcomes is a very damaging policy.


Denny Schlesinger

Wrong. If someone wants to pay more taxes, they have the ability to write a check to the U.S. treasury for any amount of their choosing to help reduce the deficit.

I apologize in advance for the lapse in civility, but this meme is such an asinine line of reasoning.

If I (or Warren Buffet) want to voluntarily send the government some money, that's not going to do a damm thing. If the government institutes a more sane approach to taxation (as it did in 1993), that will help the nation get back on course (as it did in 1993). Any logical discussion about taxation need to follow from the assumption that citizens will continue to strive to pay their minimum tax obligation under the law. As such, only changing those laws will affect our nation's economic course.

He11 yes I want others to pay up! And I'm willing to be taxed a higher rate myself as part of the deal, because I can easily recognize that this low tax party is killing us and stealing from my son's future. Where's the "ethical bankruptcy" in that?

It's no different than some hoodlum wandering the streets, spotting a Mercedes he likes, and stealing it just because the owner "can afford it."

You just called Thomas Jefferson, Ike Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon (and anybody else in our history who has supported progressive taxation, and raising taxes to pay for spending rather than borrowing money), a bunch of hoodlums. And you just called fiscal responsibility "theft." Good grief.

So is major league baseball. How many teams can you have? I wannabe a shortstop!

As many as the market will support. How many is THAT?

Talking about horse racing, if they would just handicap great athletes with weights like they do with horses, I might have a chance to be a major league shortstop. Fair is fair!

The weights have more to do with the total weight carried than the horses' running speed and endurance.

Can you do what Buffett does, buy a whole railroad?

Yes.

There are only so many railroads to go around, not enough for everyone. Then tax the heck out of buying whole railroads in the name of fairness!

Now you have created your very own Catch-22. The govt sets up monopolies in some areas--including railroads. Because they ARE monopolies set up for the public good (otherwise they would not be allowed to be monopolies), those businesses are regulated to LIMIT the profit they can earn. HFT is neither regulated nor limited in the profits it is allowed to earn--but it is a monopoly nonetheless....

HFT does not have a material influence on my portfolio.

You are just another sheep in the herd. Your owner keeps sheering you over and over again. You are condidtioned to getting sheered--even though you are not aware of it.

I really don't see how you jump from scarcity to market disruption.

Remember the Hunt brothers?

Scarcity (lack of supply) is a basic ingredient of markets.

So is over-supply. Yet, for some reason, oil is STILL ~$100/bbl....

Wrong. If someone wants to pay more taxes, they have the ability to write a check to the U.S. treasury for any amount of their choosing to help reduce the deficit.

I apologize in advance for the lapse in civility, but this meme is such an asinine line of reasoning.

No it isn't, but you are attempting to ignore the point.

If Buffett thinks HE is not paying enough taxes, HE is perfectly free to pay more and it's very easy for him to do so. No legislation is needed.

Therefore, if he is calling for a tax increase, he is asking for a tax increase on OTHER PEOPLE.