Hillary Clinton Does NOT Support a Financial Transactions Tax

[stupidicus]

http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/hilary-clinton-does-not-support-a-financial-transactions-tax

surely there are very good reasons why that anyone on the other/right side of where the idiological center line use to be could understand and agree to.

The taxes proposed by Sanders and O'Malley would be a huge hit to Wall Street, bringing it back to the size, relative to the economy, that it was at two or three decades ago. Secretary Clinton has explicitly chosen not to go in this direction.

It is important for the public to recognize this difference. While the other two candidates are proposing measures that would be a major hit to the financial industry, Secretary Clinton is not. Voters should recognize this distinction in their positions; the reporting almost seems designed to hide it. [The Wall Street Journal committed a similar sin, although the error was not quite as egregious.]

I don't have any idea why that "we all want HIllary destroyed!!" corporate MSM wouldn't be trumpeting such a thing, do you?

[cantbeserious]

1. HRC Is Funded By Wall Street - Her Funders Will Most Likely Operate With Impunity - If Elected

eom

[Thinkingabout]

8. Are you talking about employees who work for a corporation? It is legal for donations up to $2700

Just the same as Sanders and O'Malley.

[cantbeserious]

9. Not The Same At All

Source - https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f

Miniscule Amounts From Financial Institutions

By Source

Individual Contributions $39,953,544 (96%)
- Small Individual Contributions $30,652,976 (74%)
- Large Individual Contributions $9,300,567 (22%)
PAC Contributions $200 (0%)
Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
Federal Funds $0 (0%)
Other $1,510,040 (4%)


By Industry

1 Retired $973,306
2 Education $478,753
3 Lawyers/Law Firms $273,462
4 Health Professionals $267,076
5 Democratic/Liberal $264,748
6 Misc Business $261,224
7 Electronics Mfg & Equip $182,782
8 TV/Movies/Music $170,942
9 Business Services $169,630
10 Printing & Publishing $149,506
11 Civil Servants/Public Officials $149,367
12 Other $132,685
13 Internet $112,870
14 Real Estate $110,835
15 Hospitals/Nursing Homes $99,811
16 Women's Issues $66,580
17 Misc Finance $64,261
18 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $49,663
19 Misc Services $48,020
20 Securities & Investment $47,833


By Organization

Google Inc $64,026
University of California $32,945
Microsoft Corp $20,102
University of Illinois $16,048
Apple Inc $15,783
Amazon.com $14,073
US Postal Service $13,088
Columbia University $12,558
IBM Corp $12,461
Boeing Co $10,317
Dartmouth College $10,061
Business Matters in the Visual Arts $10,000
Burton Snowboards $10,000
United Parcel Service $9,735
Cornell University $9,569
Kaiser Permanente $9,308
Federal Coal Co $9,200
Pacific Gourmet $8,700
National Education Assn $8,220
US Navy $7,639

[Thinkingabout]

10. You know that is illegal. When open secrets tells the truth it is employees. They also show Sanders

Getting more than $2700 from a source.

[cantbeserious]

11. Your Point Is Lost On This One

eom

[Thinkingabout]

12. Sanders must be bought by some also. We are finding out more everyday.

[cantbeserious]

13. Not Like HRC Being Bought By Wall Street And The 1% - A Crasser Constituency Could Not Be Found

eom

[Thinkingabout]

16. Ridiculous

[cantbeserious]

17. Disconnected From Reality One Sees

eom

[ThePhilosopher04]

15. Yes, Bernie is bought and paid for by the American middle class and those less fortunate.

nm

[cantbeserious]

18. ^^^ This ^^^

eom

[Thinkingabout]

19. After he gets his tax proposals in place the less fortunate will have less.

[JonLeibowitz]

22. Funny, this is almost a RW talking point. Kudos! n/t

[Thinkingabout]

23. No, I am one who will pay the tax, Sanders said he was going to tax the rich, he is not taxing the

Rich, they don't have wages or income. Guess someone should tell Sanders to go back to taxing the rich.

[JonLeibowitz]

24. I will also pay the tax.

It is still a RW talking point.

[Thinkingabout]

25. When I am struggling already, taking more is going to hurt.

[stupidicus]

26. what I don't understand, and was hoping someone woiuld address

is how Krugman thinks HC's WS reigning in plans are superior given this

[JaneyVee]

31. Bernie DOESN'T HAVE A WALL STREET PLAN.

Why is he letting them off the hook?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/10/hillary-clinton-proposes-financial-transactions-tax.html

[Duckhunter935]

2. Of course not

Wall Street is not in favor of it.

[MaggieD]

21. Then why does support a tax on high frequency trades?

Please explain. Thanks.

[azmom]

3. So they don't donate to her because of 9/11?

[RandySF]

4. Would this hit individual investors as well?

[LiberalArkie]

6. Yes, I had heard about 1/2 cent per transaction. So you trade 1000 shares of AT&T, you would

owe 1/2 cent. Who is hits are the high frequency traders who ruin the market for the small guy.

[merrily]

5. Too bad. It's a great idea.

The taxes proposed by Sanders and O'Malley would be a huge hit to Wall Street

LMAO.

[stupidicus]

27. so why I ask, does Krugman think her "plan/s" superior to theirs?

maybe I should write the guy...lol

[merrily]

28. Silly. That's one opinion. Reich prefers Sanders.

Krugman never met a Third Way idea or politician that he wouldn't defend.

[stupidicus]

32. must be

as things stand from him, it doesn't appear to add up, unlike your explanation

[merrily]

35. um, wha?

[stupidicus]

38. your explanation for his behavior adds up

his opinion regarding HC's plan superiority doesn't imo considering the taxes from the inferior ones.

His favoritism (for 3rdway stuff) would be an acceptable explanation for that

[merrily]

39. I take it your candidate is O'Malley then?

[stupidicus]

40. who?

lol

no, I'm a BS supporter

[merrily]

41. The best choice, LOL!

[EndElectoral]

34. Nobel prize winner Stiglitz is also adamant in favor of Glass-Steagall

[merrily]

36. Yes, thanks. Stiglitz slipped my mind. The whole idea that one

commentator proves something is laughable, but then again, so much of what gets posted in GD: P is laughable.

That's part of its charm.

[onecaliberal]

7. Of course not they are all funding her campaign.

[ThePhilosopher04]

14. Of course not ...

Hillary Clinton is bought and paid for. As long as she gets hers.

[MaggieD]

20. She has a different plan to pay for college

I like her plan better. She DOES a support a tax on high frequency trading.

[NCTraveler]

29. I don't support it either. nt.

[JaneyVee]

30. Ummm...Yeah she does:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/07/hillar-clinton-to-propose-tax-on-high-frequency-trading-in-wall-st-reform.html

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/10/hillary-clinton-proposes-financial-transactions-tax.html

[stupidicus]

33. yep, sure she does if you call two different things

the same thing

While Clinton has proposed a tax on high frequency trading, which is almost certainly unworkable, the other two candidates have actually proposed financial transactions taxes. The taxes they have proposed would raise between $600 billion and $2 trillion over the next decade. Virtually all of this money would come out of the pockets of the financial industry, since its primary impact would be to reduce trading volume. For the vast majority of investors, the savings from reduced trading would be equal or greater than the taxes paid on their trades.

[merrily]

37. Sure, people making millions trading will stop that nonsense because of a tiny tax.

It's why I've never made a billion dollars myself. I mean no sensible person would want to pay the income tax on a billion dollars?