Friday November 16, 2012, 11:02 am
Tiny Fee on Wall Street Would Make a Huge Difference on Main Street
Wall Street Speculation Tax Could Raise $350 Billion to Save Vital Programs and Reduce the Deficit
The Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Act (H.R. 3313, S. 1787) proposed by Rep. Peter Defazio (D-Ore.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) would raise more $350 billion over 10 years through a miniscule fee — 0.03 percent — on Wall Street transactions.
The fee also would slow down some of the most dangerous and volatile high-speed trading on Wall Street — the sort of high-speed, automated trading that led to the May 2010 “flash crash,” when the Dow plunged nearly 1,000 points in just a few minutes.
We can raise serious revenue to reduce the deficit and keep vital services like Medicare and Social Security off the chopping block — while also reining in Wall Street’s recklessness.
Urge Congress to support the Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Act.
Saturday November 17, 2012, 4:09 pm
Thank You for Taking Action
Now Take the Next Step
Gladly signed. Thanks a million. Wall Street's been riding around on their high horses all while those of us on Main Street have been suffering and shoveling out the stables for far too long and it needs to stop!
Saturday November 17, 2012, 11:23 pm
This is exactly why I have opposed Peter DeFazio the last two elections. Always a new tax or regulation will fix everything. Every tax no matter how small stifles the economy to some degree. With the implementation of Obama care it is unlikely that anyone will be able to afford more taxes. Mr DeFazio said he would not vote for Obama care two days before he cast one of the four deciding votes to pass it. Maybe he would have been more accurate to say I will not vote for it unless my party needs me to. What I see in the aftermath of the election is that America lost. Those two democrats represent all that is contrary to the freedom and liberty guaranteed by our constitution. All that is needed to balance our federal budget is to stop spending more than we earn. Cut out what cannot be afforded. Stop placing the burden of payment for services today on our children and grandchildren.
Sunday November 18, 2012, 5:47 am
David, addressing the historical inappropriate reduction in revenues is an essential element in restoring a balanced budget. In other industries (insurance sales, durable goods sales) the earnings from the sales work is subject to similar taxation--this addresses some of the not treating all dollars earned equally inequity with the added benefit of creating a disincentive for market volatility. Restoring revenues and equity will stop placing the burden on our children and grandchildren.
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:19 pm
JLA Spoken like a government employee or retiree. There is nothing inappropriate about reducing the revenue miss-collected by our cancerous government. As compared to other nations we are still the free-est society. Compare now to a few short decades ago finds us lacking in larger degrees of those god given rights protected by the Constitution. We are traveling down a path that leads to the end of American freedom and liberty, and great poverty. If you do not like the limits placed on government in our country by that same constitution please stop voting and start studying history. I do not claim to have the answers to return our country to a path of prosperity. As long as the government spends more than we have given to it we will not again enjoy a life that can be called prosperous. Now most persons who work do not see it as giving money to our society in the of form of taxes instead they view it as money taken from them to distribute the wealth. Why should anyone be forced to share their labors with those who are unwilling to do their fair share? There is no place in the world where the citizens donate more food and shelter to those in need than in America. We do not require a government mandate. I can assure you that we Americans know best how to spend our labors. If you doubt this look at our history and then compare it to any dictatorship the world have ever known. Reducing government is not the whole solution I am sure but it is certainly a giant step in the right direction.
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:27 pm
Our country has never been debt free dating back to George Washington--thus any attempt to link freedom, rights, etc. to debt cannot validly be made--easy to find when one actually does study history. The increase in poverty correlates to the dismantling of the safety net built for the common good for ewealth to transfer to the wealthiest. Study of historical data patterns demonstrates such relationships. The debt problems historically are dominated by decisions to go to war and the related costs. No poverty or program for the common good or for a safety net ever did such fiscal damage. Go after the documented culprits based on fact, not wishful thinking. The unemployment rate is as high as it is because government was reduced. similar answers cause harm when the issues are complex.
Sunday November 18, 2012, 3:54 pm
WHAT A HARDSHIP!
Let's get serious ~ 0.03% ?
They will fight and fight against a tax that is not only necessary for the financial health of our nation, but this extremely small percentage will hardly break the bank, so to speak.
Actually, it's not high, enough.
The advantages that Wall Street traders and employees get are astronomical. If anyone would feel sorry for them, you are not living in the real world.
Sunday November 18, 2012, 5:24 pm
Hey David C. ~ I think you are of those people living in the 'dream world'.
Sincerely, one must wonder if you comprehend the Constitution, at all.
Our financial problems rest with our politicians, without question. About this, you are correct.
They have developed a tax structure that exceedingly benefits, the wealthy.
The trickle-down theory has never worked, but, the TRICKLE-UP, is alive and well and living in the U.S., and it isn't _poverty_ that trickles up.
The reason our government doesn't work, as it should, is the lack of 'term limits'.
The longer a politician is in office, the more power he/she develops and the larger their staff becomes. We, the voters are to blame for this. Many voters see a name they recognize, and pull the lever, or push the button. Until, we comtemplate the consequences of such actions, we are doomed to live under the same set of circumstances.
Our legislators are not particularly good at legislating themselves, as one might expect. If and until, they are faced with 'true' competition, nothing will change.
However, having said this, remember one thing. As I am unsatisfied with our current situation, except for President Obama being re-elected, I don't wish to see our country being run by Big Business, and neither would you, if you were to experiece such a disaster.
How do you eliminate a CEO of a company? You nor I can do it. WE cannot vote them out of their position. At least, with an election, in which we have a vote, something could change. At least, we have a say.
Monday November 19, 2012, 3:24 pm
Charlene R. I think term limits may have a place yes. But I have no idea what trickling you are talking about. If you only hear it when there is rain maybe it is a roof leak. If our public representatives were following the constitution we would not have the financial problems. Example, well fed students arriving at school are certainly better equipped than students that arrive with no breakfast. They will learn, they will not be sick as often, they will live longer more healthy lives. Feeding them is a vary good idea. It is not the place of government to do that. To do so is misappropriating tax money. I am not saying that all of the government programs are bad, I am saying many of the programs are wrong. If our representatives live by the intent of the Constitution we may gradually turn this mess around. As for Obama and DeFazio they both adhere to progressive principles, progressive principles are contrary to conservative principles outlined in the constitution. We cannot have both systems. All I am saying is throw these career politicians that do not support constitutional prosperity (measured by their actions) out of office and be done with it. Another tax is not a solution. Another tax takes more money from the private sector and places it into the hands of our continually bloating government.
Monday November 19, 2012, 3:28 pm
Actually David, many people see the constitution as espousing the most progressive principles on the planet--equality, human rights--that we are not yet fully embracing and living up to--there is no inherent conservatism in that document according to constitutional scholars.
Monday November 19, 2012, 3:37 pm
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This proposal adheres to the intent of the constitution, espoused in the Preamble above, by:
establishing justice (in taxation across more types of income)
addresses domestic tranquility by making taxation more just and equitable
promotes the general welfare (of all by ensure sufficient revenues for general welfare & common defense)
along with reducing the burdens and risks to liberty for our posterity.
Friday November 23, 2012, 8:10 am
It does indeed Frans and I believe it already happens in the UK and elsewhere.
You cannot currently send a star to Frans because you have done so within the last week.