The new word for "spending" through tax deductions.

http://www.atr.org/?content=taxexpendcracke

I just read this article that attempts to defend them, but I see a whole lot of pointless spending:

1. Employer provided health insurance: $298 billion/year -- This is us spending trillions per decade to subsidize the silliest way to provide health insurance, ever.

2. 15% capital gains/dividends rate: $39 billion/year -- For what purpose are we taxing capital gains at a lower rate than any other type of income? Do we need added incentives to invest in the market? Would we not be doing so were it not for this reduced rate?

3. Mortgage Interest Deduction: $99 billion/year & Home Capital Gains Exclusion: $35 billion/year -- Honestly, folks, who here has purchased a home who would've have were it not for these deductions?


That's 4.7 trillion over ten years. If the goal is to give the middle and upper class 4.7 trillion in tax cuts, then these deductions are accomplishing their goal. I don't see how they're justified in any other context, though.

8/1/2011 9:22:31 AM

I will agree with #1, for sure. Half of the problems people bitch about with the healthcare system would have been better solved by divorcing health insurance from employment rather than the reform package that was passed last year.

8/1/2011 9:55:27 AM

Wait. Tax cuts for middle and upper class people are bad things now?

8/1/2011 10:01:09 AM

YEs. They serve no purpose other than bankrupting the government right now. The only time they could be good is if we had some kind of surplus and needed to trim it off and give it back.

8/1/2011 10:05:07 AM

Why is it that they "serve no purpose..." instead of "the gov't spends too much". The people are already overtaxed.

8/1/2011 10:14:17 AM

The government does spend too much and it also makes too little so its a double edged sword slicing through our future. People are far undertaxed. This is the lowest taxes have been in 60 years.

8/1/2011 10:29:03 AM

No, it's not double edged. The gov't spends too much and the people are already overtaxed. I don't get how stealing money from citizens is a good thing. The people aren't undertaxed; that's the dumbest thought ever. It doesn't matter if taxes are the lowest they've been in XX years. Overtaxed is overtaxed. The government does need to be so big. The government doesn't need nearly as much money as it is already getting. When has taking money from the people been a good thing for the people?

8/1/2011 10:35:03 AM

Quote :

"The people aren't undertaxed; that's the dumbest thought ever. It doesn't matter if taxes are the lowest they've been in XX years. Overtaxed is overtaxed."

That sounds a bit whiny when juxtaposed with this:




You can argue for your ideal rate of taxation, but "WE'RE OVERTAXED BECAUSE WE ARE" doesn't really hold water.

And here's another neat image:



[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 10:49:53 AM

All of those graphs seems to leave out state taxes. When comparing our Federal to overseas where there is no structural semblance to our states is being deceitful.

That said, I completely agree we should increase effective tax rates. It was the democrats that lowered them so much with the stimulus spending and tax rebates for everything from electric cars to alternative energy rebates for corporations.

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/14848446/article-A-pious-Congress--shilling-indulgences

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/1/2011 11:16:54 AM

Comparing U.S. taxes to countries with the highest taxes doesn't mean U.S. citizens aren't overtaxed. All you proved is that in many developed nations, the people are overtaxed, including ours.

8/1/2011 11:19:01 AM

^^ That's a good point. The discrepancy narrows with state and local taxes factored in:



The original point stands, though: it's hard to claim we're overtaxed in any relative terms.


^ It seems like a pretty comprehensive list of developed countries. What is it leaving out?

8/1/2011 11:32:45 AM

Don't need relative terms. There isn't a graph, or paper, or anything for it.

It's just that simple. Taxes are too high. Governments are too powerful. Governments are doing too much.

8/1/2011 11:38:51 AM

"CAUSE I SAID SO"

8/1/2011 11:42:01 AM

I appreciate the credit, but actually, it's the same thought that millions of people have.

8/1/2011 11:43:56 AM

Quote :

"1. Employer provided health insurance: $298 billion/year -- This is us spending trillions per decade to subsidize the silliest way to provide health insurance, ever. "

And that's only the surface costs. It's impossible to factor in how much employer sponsored health insurance is driving up costs, but I think it's a very substantial factor. Group plans mask the true cost of health care; not only does it normalize premiums, but it discourages actual wellness. People that live unhealthy life styles need to know that there is a financial cost associated with that behavior.

8/1/2011 11:52:47 AM

Quote :

"but it discourages actual wellness. People that live unhealthy life styles need to know that there is a financial cost associated with that behavior."

I've really been wondering why this isn't discussed more often.

Not just with private group insurers. We could really score a two-fer by imposing a hefty (hah-hah) premium on fat, diabetic-by-their-own-doing medicare/medicare recipients; less money being spent and more people living healthy.

Quote :

"I appreciate the credit, but actually, it's the same thought that millions of people have."

"CAUSE I WE SAID SO"



[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 11:59:44 AM

Quote :

"I've really been wondering why this isn't discussed more often."

My guess is that it would really turn the current health care model on its head, and no one in Washington wants to deal with the sweeping changes that would entail. How do you transition away from the model we currently use without there being major gaps in coverage?

Quote :

"Not just with private group insurers. We could really score a two-fer by imposing a hefty (hah-hah) premium on fat, diabetic-by-their-own-doing medicare/medicare recipients; less money being spent and more people living healthy."

Well, this is just how it would work in a normal insurance market. An insurance company charges the fat smoker a substantially higher premium than the non-smoker that exercises and cares about nutrition. Group plans eliminate that dynamic, which is obviously a problem.

I think you'd find a lot of people still make an appeal to "fairness" on this issue. "But, why doesn't the 550 lb smoker with diabetes get cheap health insurance too? It's a right!" Problem is, there are only so many doctors/hospitals to go around, so you either get "fairness" or you get stable prices.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 12:03:41 PM

wait a minute. you lefties, on one hand, say to raise health insurance costs because people don't live the way that you prefer them to live, but on the other hand, you say it's too expensive and that the poor can't afford it, and that it's a right and that everyone else should have to pay for them.

so in your plan, if a poor person is fat, does everyone have to pay his higher health care cost?


[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2011 12:28:57 PM

Quote :

"Well, this is just how it would work in a normal insurance market. An insurance company charges the fat smoker a substantially higher premium than the non-smoker that exercises and cares about nutrition. Group plans eliminate that dynamic, which is obviously a problem."

I don't see how group plans or even government plans rule out price discrimination. Even my state employees plan discriminates: 70/30 plans for fat smokers and 80/20 plans for healthy people or unhealthy people willing to pay a premium.

Quote :

"How do you transition away from the model we currently use without there being major gaps in coverage?"

Medicare for all. Don't cover self-inflicted injuries, e.g. obesity and its symptoms.

Quote :

"wait a minute. you lefties, on one hand, say to raise health insurance costs because people don't live the way that you prefer them to live, but on the other hand, you say it's too expensive and that the poor can't afford it, and that it's a right and that everyone else should have to pay for them. so in your plan, if a poor person is fat, does everyone have to pay his higher health care cost"

Not at all. My priorities are to cover everyone and to do so in the most-efficient way possible. In that order. The way of accomplishing this would be a single-payer plan with death panels and fat panels. But "you righties" won't let that happen, so we're stuck with the AHA.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 12:32:21 PM

so in other words... if people don't live like you want them to, then they should pay more for health insurance (because you'd scrap employer group plans), and if they're poor, they actually don't pay anything anyways and the rest of society is stuck paying for their health insurance?

8/1/2011 12:40:26 PM

No, in my ideal world the government would provide universal and mediocre healthcare coverage. If you want experimental treatments, costly efforts to keep you alive for another 60 days, and all that, pay extra for supplemental private insurance. If you want to be fat and out of shape, pay for some the gov't plan or be dropped.

But between "HERP DERP NO GOVT HEALTHCARE" and "HERP DERP ITS MY RIGHT TO BE FAT" it'll never happen.

8/1/2011 12:48:08 PM

But what about the poor people?

and who determines mediocre?
do your other leftists agree with your death panels?
do your other leftists agree with leaving behind the poor (those who don't live like YOU say they should?
do your other leftists agree with only providing covered advanced health care to those who can afford it?
who determines how we should live?


[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM. Reason : /]

8/1/2011 12:51:18 PM

lol, so now I'm expected to speak on behalf of all "leftists."

wdprice3, debate me, BUT CONFINE YOUR ARGUMENTS TO MY RIDICULOUS STEREOTYPES OF RIGHT WINGERS, plz.

8/1/2011 12:56:31 PM

Two graphs:



See 2nd of these graphs, debt to GDP ratio:



What do you notice here?

A. There were 2 times in our history where our government debt was very high, in fact, critically high. These times were at the end of WWII and right now.

B. We taxed at an extraordinarily high rate from 1940 to 1963. THIS PAID OFF OUR DEBT.

----
Let's be clear, if you think government spending is a problem, then fine, but that's irrelevant of the need to pay off the existing debt. We can pay off the debt by increasing taxes.

If we can not increase taxes on the rich, we are beholden to keep our debt forever. We only fixed a major debt problem once before, and we did it by taxing the rich at a 94% rate. Right now we have a debt problem of almost the same magnitude and the rich are paying very little in taxes.

Who argues with this?

8/1/2011 12:57:19 PM

94% is asinine and this country should be ashamed to have taxed at such a rate.

And sure, maybe some taxes can be "raised". I'm sure that more than 49% of Americans can afford to pay an income tax. I'm sure that some tax loopholes and absurd corporate subsidies can be fixed. Look, I don't have a problem with the rich paying a higher tax rate than others. One solution to the debt issue may be a temporary, small tax increase, on the rich, while spending can be cut drastically. However, the biggest problem is how many of you define rich. I'm hesitant to call any household earning <$250,000/person rich. wealthy? sure. rich? no. Households earning such income are well-off and don't deserve to be demonized and taxed so highly. 6 figure households to a lot of spending, and thus paying associated taxes. These people take those vacations, buy big boy toys, build nice homes, etc. And many such households are the small business owners. These households are one of our greatest assests. These people are the reason jobs exist and are created. If you want to tax the real rich, i.e. millionairs and billionares (again, on a per person per household basis), then that can have some merit.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2011 1:28:06 PM

this is one of the better soapbox threads in quite a long time.

8/1/2011 1:32:24 PM

Complain about the ultra-rich --> Insist that we must keep the banking cartel alive and well --> Suggest that we tax people making 300k a year at 94%


[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 1:40 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 1:39:56 PM

Quote :

"94% is asinine and this country should be ashamed to have taxed at such a rate."

Remember that 94% was a marginal rate for the top end of probably five persons' incomes, so it's not really relevant.

Quote :

"I'm sure that more than 49% of Americans can afford to pay an income tax."

Keep in mind that half of those 49% are retirees. Should we begin taxing social security benefits? It seems sort of redundant to me.

Quote :

"I'm sure that some tax loopholes and absurd corporate subsidies can be fixed."

I hate to keep disagreeing with you, but this is the one place loopholes are needed until the rate is cut. 35% is too high to be competitive. We'd need to cut out loopholes and cut the rate at the same time. Or just institute a VAT.

Quote :

"I'm hesitant to call any household earning <$250,000/person rich. wealthy? sure. rich? no."

I agree, but I'll remind you that our tax system works on marginal increases. If we "increase taxes over $250,000," someone making $250,001 will see an overall tax increase of a couple pennies. Someone making $500,000 will only have their last $250,000 taxed at a higher rate. "Taxing people making over $250,000 at a higher rate" doesn't really have much impact on anyone making a sub-seven-figure salary.





[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 1:45:12 PM

Quote :

"94% is asinine and this country should be ashamed to have taxed at such a rate."

We had that tax rate because we had a debt problem. If killing a man in war is justified, then so is wealth redistribution when in the midst of a debt of historical proportions.

8/1/2011 1:54:49 PM

So, government builds up a bunch of debt waging wars and starting stupid programs. Some guy builds his business and makes money off of it. Then, for some reason, the guy that made money (in spite of the government's attempts to discourage entrepreneurship at literally step of the way) is responsible for cleaning up the mess?

I'm not rich, but I'd tell you what my response to that would be: fuck right off. The bankers are still getting rich. The military contractors are still getting rich. The best thing that could happen is to let this corrupt system burn so we can rebuild from the rubble. The worst thing we can do is drive off what's left of the productive class in this country.

8/1/2011 2:04:03 PM

I endorse the sentiment of your statements.

I can't endorse their practicality.

It says a lot about our government and regulatory capture-- where banking and military-industrial interests are able to push us towards default, but not be held in financial risk.

But this:

Quote :

"drive off what's left of the productive class in this country."

...is inaccurate. Our most productive class doesn't consist of people living off the largess of capital gains. Our most productive class consists of people who've not yet made their fortunes. People who would be entirely unaffected by an increase in the top marginal income rate.

8/1/2011 2:21:32 PM

Quote :

"Complain about the ultra-rich --> Insist that we must keep the banking cartel alive and well --> Suggest that we tax people making 300k a year at 94%"

Or we could simply distinguish between those making 300k a year and those making 10+ million.

8/1/2011 2:32:08 PM

It's worth pointing out, destroyer, that the political unity of those making 300K and the hyper-wealthy is planned. There's a reason the tax code looks the way it does: to drive the roots of capital (and political unity with capital) really far down into the middle class.

8/1/2011 2:36:30 PM

That too. We need a couple more brackets before we start discussions over who can give more and who can't.

8/1/2011 2:50:08 PM

Quote :

"So, government builds up a bunch of debt waging wars and starting stupid programs. Some guy builds his business and makes money off of it. Then, for some reason, the guy that made money (in spite of the government's attempts to discourage entrepreneurship at literally step of the way) is responsible for cleaning up the mess? I'm not rich, but I'd tell you what my response to that would be: fuck right off. The bankers are still getting rich. The military contractors are still getting rich. The best thing that could happen is to let this corrupt system burn so we can rebuild from the rubble. The worst thing we can do is drive off what's left of the productive class in this country."

This is just full of funny.

good: business owners, the productive class
bad: bankers, waging war, stupid programs, "this corrupt system"

This really is an interesting exercise in the socially engineered nouns we have to talk about the state of our nation with. One way or the other, there appears to be two houses of wealth in this nation, that created and owned by the good God-fearing people and that created and owned by bankers. Did you know that normal middle class people own stocks. Yeah, really. They're really out there.

When I don't break things down along the lines of good and evil, I'm forced to use those boring terms that have relevance to economics. Such as the following:

- Capital
- Income
- Labor

We have so far talked about taxing 94% of income. Income comes from both capital and labor. Rich people own capital. Those who do not own much capital but manage to produce lots of income with their labor can build capital and eventually enter the ranks of the rich. Whether it's the good or the bad kind of rich, I cannot say.

So far, no one has tried to go Venezuelan on your butt and tried to socialize your property, or capital. Not even the most vapidly liberal of the liberal has proposed such things.

But let's be honest about the way society works. Your income is not secure, your capital is not secure, but at least your labor is secure... as long as someone will give you a job. When a society falls, it's not just one of these things that people loose. And it's not just the "bad" kind of rich who loose it.

But maybe in the next cycle of creative destruction we should make sure we just attack those "bad" rich. We'll appoint a panel to decide such things and make you chair of it. Forget Venezuelan, we're going fucking Soviet here. Rally up the bankers, toss them in jail! Ah darn it, I can't go any further without violating Godwin's law.

8/1/2011 2:50:42 PM

However, I don't think any Republican would disagree with repealing all the tax breaks and rebates passed by the Democrats and called it "stimulus", with rebates for electric cars and corporate tax rebates for alternative energy.


[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/1/2011 3:12:25 PM

I'm not sure what that is supposed to demonstrate, other than that the "rich have gotten richer."


ANYHOO: #1 has so far been panned. What about #2 & #3 on my list? This thread is not about increasing taxes, per se (that's been done a million times), but about *how* we're taxing. COME AT MY TAX DEDUCTION CRITIQUES, BRAH!



[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 3:18:25 PM

LS: do you understand how to read a graph, and what a "percentage point" is?

8/1/2011 3:23:35 PM

Boone, I wasn't addressing you. I love your idea of eliminating tax deductions. It is absurd to have Bill Gates writing off the interest on his multi-million dollar homes. While all this would be a tax increase, as a libertarian I completely support them. While I would prefer tax rates be reduced at the same time, even just a little bit, I would be willing to accept just the elimination.

But don't stop there. Employees (or employers) should be forced to estimate every service they provide their employees and pay taxes on it. Municipal and all government bonds should lose their tax-free status. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits should be taxed. If we are going to have a tax system, then by God every dollar anyone ever sees should be taxed.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/1/2011 3:24:15 PM

Quote :

"We have so far talked about taxing 94% of income. Income comes from both capital and labor. Rich people own capital. Those who do not own much capital but manage to produce lots of income with their labor can build capital and eventually enter the ranks of the rich. Whether it's the good or the bad kind of rich, I cannot say."

Correction: income did come from capital and labor. Sometimes, it still does. But, for the Rothchilds and bank CEOs of the world, they produce little, but they take a lot. They get free money and are allowed to profit from it. Military contractors build war machines and destroy buildings, but do they improve anyone's life? No - all while maintaining the facade of "protecting national security."

You act as if the distinction between "good" and "bad" income is arbitrary, but it isn't. Some individuals in this country get paid for providing value; other individuals get rich by literally destroying wealth. Bureaucrats are faced with the dilemma between job security and actually getting work done. Accountants are there to navigate the massive tax code, and lawyers are there to navigate through the ever-increasing number of laws and regulations.

You know what the great part about our system is, though? We don't have to violently overthrow our oppressors. With ample public support, we could change policies. The only problem is inspiring large numbers of Americans to stop buying into the dog and pony show perpetuated by 24/7 cable news and start recognizing that the entire financial system is unjust by design.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 3:28:27 PM

LS I'm just curious: what do you imagine to be demonstrating by posting that graph? Please give me a bit of insight.

8/1/2011 3:28:29 PM

I just want to put LoneShark's graph next to a graph showing wealth, not income.

Income:


Wealth:


But of course, fraction of taxes paid does not directly correlate with fraction of income taken in. So here is the effective tax rates



So beyond the 10% mark, mostly everyone is paying about the same tax rate.

Now, I should qualify that the top 1% takes in 21.3% of the income as of 2006. So while they pay the same effective tax rate as the rest of the rich, there is a lot of income out there that is not paying a significant fraction to taxes. Hope that makes sense.

So maybe if LoneShark wanted to make a coherent point, he could have noted that tax income from the top 1% could not constitute more than 21.3% of GDP, and could never even approach that really. But the top 1% plus the next 19% constitute 61.4%, and they can be taxed more heavily without hitting increasing poverty.

8/1/2011 3:42:36 PM

Quote :

"You act as if the distinction between "good" and "bad" income is arbitrary, but it isn't. Some individuals in this country get paid for providing value; other individuals get rich by literally destroying wealth. Bureaucrats are faced with the dilemma between job security and actually getting work done. Accountants are there to navigate the massive tax code, and lawyers are there to navigate through the ever-increasing number of laws and regulations."

We're finding common ground. I honestly haven't been able to figure out a way to distinguish "good" from "bad" income, although I firmly believe the two exist. It's at the core of my belief system. Elaborate on the distinction, please. No sarcasm.

-----

INDEPENDENT OF THAT, what about capital gains and the mortgage deduction? Inquiring minds want to know.

8/1/2011 3:42:38 PM

People are all the time getting the good/bad wrong. I know there is such a meaningful distinction, but ti's not easy.

Many of you probably think that short sellers destroy value. And that would be because you have no Earthly clue what you're talking about.

Now, some people do make money destroying value, but almost every case of this involves deception of some kind. Really. Economics only "works" when people have information, and as information is hoarded, intentionally made scarce, or misrepresented, then the likes of financial bubbles start rearing their head. I've been convinced that some High Frequency Trading (HFT) destroys value, but it's not because HFT itself is a negative value proposition. The basic idea of HFT creates value, BUT, the way it was implemented is that computer programs got to "peak" at orders placed by humans, and then could go bid the price in the other direction in milliseconds before the order hit the floor. That is deception, it is taking advantage of other human beings by getting privileged access to their data and using it in a directly parasitic manner that transfers wealth from them to you. Not only that, but you reduce the liquidity of markets by making the spread between sell and buy price higher as an externality. This is the same functional effect as identity theft. HFT based on making money off market moves, however, has positive externalities.

8/1/2011 3:54:04 PM

Quote :

"We're finding common ground. I honestly haven't been able to figure out a way to distinguish "good" from "bad" income, although I firmly believe the two exist. It's at the core of my belief system. Elaborate on the distinction, please. No sarcasm. "

Well, good vs. bad is kind of a "dumbing down" of the argument, so we should probably stray away from that. Income is always good for the person receiving it, but we have to consider at what cost that income comes. Depending on the industry, that varies.

We can look at the war in Iraq as an example. The American people were conned into believing that Iraq was a national security risk, and were also told that we could go to war for free by lowering taxes. It sounds stupid now, and it was stupid then, but it happened and now we have to handle it. Many of the contractors involved were offered no-bid contracts. But, even if they weren't, the war was started on false pretenses. So, in that case, the military contractors may have been doing a good job, but the purpose for which they were laboring was rooted in dishonesty and deception, which places that income in the "bad" category.

The banking system, I believe, is a very egregious transfer of wealth. I realize that I've probably investigated the issue more than most, but it still shocks me that more people don't recognize what's going on.

Please note that when I talk about bankers, I'm not talking about the guy you see manning the desk down at Wachovia. I'm talking about the guys sitting in NYC somewhere, calling up Ben Bernanke and having some funds wired down to the corporate account. The Fed's discount window is a free money pinata right now. Primary dealers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_dealers - check out that list of banks) can go to the Fed discount window and borrow at .25%. Ask yourself - if you could borrow at a rate of .25%, would you?

In any case, these bank CEOs are still getting billion dollar bonuses. Hopefully, you can see how this income is not generated through honest means. Usually, these are the same banks that would have failed without a bailout and are now not loaning out money on a consumer level.

Quote :

"INDEPENDENT OF THAT, what about capital gains and the mortgage deduction? Inquiring minds want to know."

Ideally, we'd have a tax system that made these concepts obsolete. I believe a VAT would accomplish that. If someone buys a home, puts a lot of time/money into improving it, and has it valuated at +100,000, why should the owner need to pay taxes on that? He already paid taxes on all the stuff he bought to improve the home, and he spent a lot of his own time doing it.

HFT traders are a bit of a different beast, and I'm not sure I'd say that they're destroying wealth. I think they're more of a product of this warped system we have right now where no one really knows what is and isn't a legit price, so they're kind of just playing the game. Things are very unstable, money can shift fast, and I think they're doing whatever they can to follow the tides on that.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 4:13:37 PM

Quote :

"LS I'm just curious: what do you imagine to be demonstrating by posting that graph? Please give me a bit of insight."

That tax rates don't matter as much as what income is taxed. My outrage is reserved for the rich like Warren Buffett who pay almost no taxes whatever the tax rates happen to be.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/1/2011 4:14:23 PM

Quote :

"Well, good vs. bad is kind of a "dumbing down" of the argument, so we should probably stray away from that. Income is always good for the person receiving it, but we have to consider at what cost that income comes. Depending on the industry, that varies."

"Good" has a high economic multiplier. You're going to sacrifice objectivity if you try to define it more specifically.

Quote :

"HFT traders are a bit of a different beast, and I'm not sure I'd say that they're destroying wealth. I think they're more of a product of this warped system we have right now where no one really knows what is and isn't a legit price, so they're kind of just playing the game. Things are very unstable, money can shift fast, and I think they're doing whatever they can to follow the tides on that."

Everything single thing you wrote here is assuming that HFT is doing this sort of vanilla trading of just buying low and selling high based off predictions from market movements.

That's not what I'm talking about! What I'm talking about is almost exactly tantamount to theft. I am talking about privileged information being used to sour deals between other market participants who validly are investing and trading. There is investing, there is trading, and then there is "fuck you, I'm going to use your data that I acquired behind your back to screw you!" Two out of these 3 create value.

8/1/2011 4:23:53 PM

Quote :

""fuck you, I'm going to use your data that I acquired behind your back to screw you!" Two out of these 3 create value."

Well, as more accurate prices are a good thing, then trading on illicitly acquired but accurate information is good for society. I admit trading on false information (which tends to spread that false information to others who watch you trading) does make society worse off, so while attempts to corner a market in such a way always fails, usually ruining anyone that attempts it, the attempt does harm society at large.

8/1/2011 6:04:28 PM

Quote :

"I appreciate the credit, but actually, it's the same thought that millions of people have."

and this is why were fucked.

8/1/2011 7:35:03 PM

Quote :

"The new word for "spending" through tax deductions."

it's a very old term

8/1/2011 8:20:41 PM