Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

[joecct]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Investors have given the computer programmers the requirements for writing the algorithms. The algorithms are merely the proxies for the investors.

Someone would have to research this, and it ain't me because I just don't care enough to do it - I'm not a reactionary investor, but there are three or four levels of investors, and those levels determine your priority when logging a trade request. The closer your are the brokerage houses and market makers, the higher your priority rating. Retail investors are the lowest.

If any change comes of these investigations that people want, it's leveling the playing field by reducing either disparity between the priority lists or reducing the number of priority levels that currently exist.

But these systems are executing trades in micro seconds. It takes us at least .75 secs to hit the brakes.

 

[unofan]

Investors have given the computer programmers the requirements for writing the algorithms. The algorithms are merely the proxies for the investors.

Someone would have to research this, and it ain't me because I just don't care enough to do it - I'm not a reactionary investor, but there are three or four levels of investors, and those levels determine your priority when logging a trade request. The closer your are the brokerage houses and market makers, the higher your priority rating. Retail investors are the lowest.

If any change comes of these investigations that people want, it's leveling the playing field by reducing either disparity between the priority lists or reducing the number of priority levels that currently exist.

I'd be all for a penny per intra day transaction tax. Enough to affect the major high frequency traders but nothing that would affect retail investors and be barely a blip to anyone else (day traders and the like).

I understand brokerage houses are needed to provide liquidity, but high frequency trading has nothing to do with that aspect of the market.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Investors have given the computer programmers the requirements for writing the algorithms. The algorithms are merely the proxies for the investors.

Someone would have to research this, and it ain't me because I just don't care enough to do it - I'm not a reactionary investor, but there are three or four levels of investors, and those levels determine your priority when logging a trade request. The closer your are the brokerage houses and market makers, the higher your priority rating. Retail investors are the lowest.

If any change comes of these investigations that people want, it's leveling the playing field by reducing either disparity between the priority lists or reducing the number of priority levels that currently exist.

It also depends on what brokerage you use. Remember that market prices are truly controlled by the "Bid" and "Ask"; the price you see in the news is merely where the last trade happened. One brokerage's bid/ask spread could be different from another's bid/ask spread, and there may be some transfer hiccups, similar to if you wanted to transfer money between accounts in two different banks.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I'd be all for a penny per intra day transaction tax. Enough to affect the major high frequency traders but nothing that would affect retail investors and be barely a blip to anyone else (day traders and the like).

I understand brokerage houses are needed to provide liquidity, but high frequency trading has nothing to do with that aspect of the market.

This already exists, if you notice the "SEC Fee" that brokers will typically recover from your transaction, although "charged to the broker". Not to mention wash sale rules for those that want to try to claim a loss on their taxes.

Oh, and don't forget that the 15% rate only applies to long term gains (you must hold the shares for at least one day longer than a year) and qualified dividends (not only the right company, but you must hold the stock for 61 days of a 121-day period symmetrically surrounding the ex-dividend date). They're already paying the higher tax rate, or at least they're supposed to.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

But these systems are executing trades in micro seconds. It takes us at least .75 secs to hit the brakes.

Then set a bunch of limit orders. Online brokers give you the technology. Just expect that the IRS will see it as a day job and require a W-9 and some withholding.

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

To make better sense of the budget for the common man, I'd dedicate the tax towards something specific. So, a whatever % tax on high speed trading goes directly to funding the SEC and any other financial regulatory agency. If the tax delivers more than what was budgeted send that extra money back to the treasury.

Its similar to the proposal in my Manifesto to linke 100% of Highway/Transit funding to the gas tax. Set the gas tax to generate whatever amount you'd like to spend on infrastructure each year. That way you're being transparent with the taxpayers as to what your taxes are being used for and how much these things cost.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

To make better sense of the budget for the common man, I'd dedicate the tax towards something specific. So, a whatever % tax on high speed trading goes directly to funding the SEC and any other financial regulatory agency. If the tax delivers more than what was budgeted send that extra money back to the treasury.

Its similar to the proposal in my Manifesto to linke 100% of Highway/Transit funding to the gas tax. Set the gas tax to generate whatever amount you'd like to spend on infrastructure each year. That way you're being transparent with the taxpayers as to what your taxes are being used for and how much these things cost.

Boy, wouldn't that be nice. Never happen. Too much to be gained by hiding it from us.

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Boy, wouldn't that be nice. Never happen. Too much to be gained by hiding it from us.

Somebody (Bernie?) needs to run on this though and get it out there. Really, you could start with either one but it speaks to the so-called "good government" that everybody clammors for. Frankly the only President I've ever seen address stuff within this train of thought is Bill Clinton, so it remains to be seen if it happens again. I agree that that you'd need 1) good economic times so people weren't all antsy about a potential tax hike (and really, it could be a tax cut depending on how much infrastructure you'd like to build), and 2) same party control of Congress and the WH, which happens occasionally.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

To make better sense of the budget for the common man, I'd dedicate the tax towards something specific. So, a whatever % tax on high speed trading goes directly to funding the SEC and any other financial regulatory agency. If the tax delivers more than what was budgeted send that extra money back to the treasury.

Its similar to the proposal in my Manifesto to linke 100% of Highway/Transit funding to the gas tax. Set the gas tax to generate whatever amount you'd like to spend on infrastructure each year. That way you're being transparent with the taxpayers as to what your taxes are being used for and how much these things cost.

There are some flaws in the plan:

1. Pork spending for future endeavours. It's not limited to government, either; it happens in the commercial sector, too. Consider the following: You're allocated $1,000,000 for a budget for the year, but you only spend $800,000. Therefore, in the next year, they only allocate $800,000 to you because that's how much you spent in the previous year, so they don't think you'll need any more. So, you go crazy with the extra $200,000 so it shows the budget people that you spent $1,000,000, meaning you'll get $1,000,000 the next year.

2. Your manifesto makes a very huge assumption in that it's going to predict how much people will drive in a year, which is something that fluctuates depending upon gas prices. What if you were to base your year's budget upon the revenue received in the previous year? You can also then be sure, after you "eat any costs" in the year you begin this, you'll never short on cash, because it will have been saved for the next year. Yes, this is very wishful thinking and would never happen given the current state of deficit spending, but it's a good start.

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

There are some flaws in the plan:

1. Pork spending for future endeavours. It's not limited to government, either; it happens in the commercial sector, too. Consider the following: You're allocated $1,000,000 for a budget for the year, but you only spend $800,000. Therefore, in the next year, they only allocate $800,000 to you because that's how much you spent in the previous year, so they don't think you'll need any more. So, you go crazy with the extra $200,000 so it shows the budget people that you spent $1,000,000, meaning you'll get $1,000,000 the next year.

2. Your manifesto makes a very huge assumption in that it's going to predict how much people will drive in a year, which is something that fluctuates depending upon gas prices. What if you were to base your year's budget upon the revenue received in the previous year? You can also then be sure, after you "eat any costs" in the year you begin this, you'll never short on cash, because it will have been saved for the next year. Yes, this is very wishful thinking and would never happen given the current state of deficit spending, but it's a good start.

Technically you should be purchasing the Manifesto if you want more information, but no worries. I have this thought out....

1) I wouldn't penalize anybody for timing issues. As in, you have a project that's getting federal dough, but something unforseen (NIMBY lawsuits, etc) is pushing it into next year. That's fine. The money is set aside and can be used once things get going.

2) Again, you make a prediction as to how much the gas tax will bring in. In the event that a good faith independent projection falls short, I'd have the general fund make up the difference within reason. If the tax collects too much, kick the overage back into the general fund.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Just dissolve the government and have the electorate vote on all government spending and taxation. We'll wind up with a 30 trillion dollar deficit, 20 trillion of which will go the Department of Kardashian Studies.

Or weight the votes by SAT score. That would actually fix things in a hurry.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Or weight the votes by SAT score. That would actually fix things in a hurry.

Eastern bias

 

[joecct]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

McDonalds reinventing itself

Still no McWhopper, though.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

McDonalds reinventing itself

Still no McWhopper, though.

Store owners are not at all happy with corporate as of late. Owning a store was almost a guaranteed money maker, and until around 10-15 years ago only one store had ever closed due to bad sales (I forget the location), but now they're becoming more common as people are just finding better options.

I'm curious what this ultimately does to their sales. Can they keep their prices low? A cheeseburger actually costs a whole dollar now, but could be had for $0.49 when I was in high school. That's outpacing inflation, and it still hasn't undergone its quality change yet.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Yeah, but the cost of beef has outpaced inflation. so in not sure what your point is.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Store owners are not at all happy with corporate as of late. Owning a store was almost a guaranteed money maker, and until around 10-15 years ago only one store had ever closed due to bad sales (I forget the location), but now they're becoming more common as people are just finding better options.

I'm curious what this ultimately does to their sales. Can they keep their prices low? A cheeseburger actually costs a whole dollar now, but could be had for $0.49 when I was in high school. That's outpacing inflation, and it still hasn't undergone its quality change yet.

It's not just the microwaving of food that causes this stuff. There's quite the "war" on when it comes to low wage working establishments in general, and many have the misconception that this is all driven by the "big corporations". As you indirectly mentioned, though, there aren't too many corporate stores; many of them are franchisee-owned with licensing fees paid to corporate, with possibly some price ranges suggested by corporate, and the challenges associated with location. A CiCi's location in my area recently failed due to the inability to pay rent at the place, and the costs associated with even running a place like that are staggering.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Yeah, but the cost of beef has outpaced inflation. so in not sure what your point is.

McDonald's used to be famous for owning their beef supply - from the farms to the butcher shops/plants to the stores. Their costs would be less impacted by beef price fluctuations than smaller places trying to compete with them. That may have changed, and if so it would certainly go a long way towards raising the input costs to their product.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

McDonald's used to be famous for owning their beef supply - from the farms to the butcher shops/plants to the stores. Their costs would be less impacted by beef price fluctuations than smaller places trying to compete with them. That may have changed, and if so it would certainly go a long way towards raising the input costs to their product.

You sure it's beef and not horse?

 

[joecct]

You sure it's beef and not horse?

Where's the beef?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Either that, or soylent green. https://web.archive.org/web/2014032...s.com/mcdonalds-exposed-for-using-human-meat/