Forgotten pundits on: free migration of workers; tax on financial transactions

[Aimless]

Sorry about the massive thread-bombing, but I have questions and you guys are some of the best people I know when it comes to answers and tips

I have two questions, that are unrelated to each other:

1. What're your thoughts on the free migration of workers into and out of your country (eg. from a selfish perspective, from a national perspective and from a global perspective)? If it's too much of a bother to write out your opinions in detail then I hope you can at least point me towards some good analyses so that I can get a better idea of the problems

2. Taxes on financial transactions--yea or nay?





Please note that I'm not trying to start a debate, although you're welcome to hijack the thread for that purpose. I'm just wondering what the opinions are on this forum, as a first step towards getting started on my own education

peace

[wiggin]

Uhm, those two points are totally different and deserve different threads.

First point: I recently saw an analysis claiming that if everyone who wanted to move to the US was able to, the US population would increase by about 150 million (largest chunk being Asian). Now, obviously allowing completely free migration from a standstill would be a poor idea, but significantly relaxed immigration controls would probably have net positive effects on the US economy - it would dramatically increase economic growth, slow down some of our structural budget issues by making the population significantly younger, and probably have net positive international opinion changes by dramatically increased foreign remittances (which are already quite large). There are short-term downsides, of course, and the flow can't become so big that the US can't assimilate the newcomers (from both an economic and a cultural perspective), but taking in an extra few million immigrants a year isn't so crazy.

Now, I'm not entirely convinced that significantly dropping immigration restrictions (like the ridiculously low number of H1-B visas every year) is going to somehow increase our 'competitiveness' - as one writer put it, if the most technologically advanced nation in the world with the largest number of best universities, a fifth of world economic production, etc. can't be competitive, then a few immigrants won't help. But certainly the influx of entrepreneurial immigrants will help keep our edge to an extent; more importantly, if we continue to be a place that the best and brightest 'seek out' above other alternatives, it won't necessarily be the raw numbers we need but just the cream of the crop. But the demographic and economic advantages of large-scale immigration would still exist either way.

[']['ear]

Wrong forum!

[Nessus]

Wrong forum!

It's okay ']['ear, we actually let the brown people post here, that way we can observe their various follies

[Dreadnaught]

Generally agreed with Wiggin on immigration. Then again, I come from a society built around large-scale immigration and I do recognize that is not exactly common everywhere. And that the effects of immigration that I enjoy may well be discomfiting or undesirable to some, or just not a fit for certain places.

As for financial transactions, it seems clear that taxing financial transactions will only discourage people from making them as often as they might. If you tax me for withdrawing money from a bank, investing in a company or buying an oil contract for my building, I'm just doing to do it less. Many financial transaction tax ideas floating around seem to take a basic view that financial transactions are somehow nefarious or destructive to society; they have a net benefit for society and shouldn't be leeched-on for cash.

[GGT]

Ah, but not all financial transactions are the same. Using an ATM to withdraw cash, even at an ATM not owned or operated by my bank, is NOT the same thing as my broker charging a flat fee based on my portfolio value, or a transaction fee for every trade when I sell stocks.

Even without "taxes" there are fees that translate to a penalty for use. If I were a small business owner, I probably wouldn't accept any kind of card, debit or credit. It would make me happier to simply price things for what they cost, without having to add on the "subsidy" for bank card users. If they object, it'd be easy to refer them to the ATM next door. (In America, we have an ATM about every 500 fucking yards.)

OR, I'd give (what looks like) a discount to anyone who paid cash, and pass on the real costs of credit/debit cards to the users.

There are probably accountants and tax collectors who love ATMs and all those digital records of "financial transactions". From that end, any financial transaction is seen as a taxable source. Or that merchants and workers might "fudge" cash transactions.

I don't mind paying legitimate service taxes, I just don't like the fees the banks add on for the purpose of converting my good credit into cash, and how they pass that on to merchants. It's double dipping.

[Flixy]

GGT: cash costs money too (getting change, depositing money, etc., it all isn't for free for a business). Plus extra risks of being robbed. Businesses over here usually like debit cards for that reason, and (generally) don't charge extra for it.

[Dreadnaught]

Ah, but not all financial transactions are the same. Using an ATM to withdraw cash, even at an ATM not owned or operated by my bank, is NOT the same thing as my broker charging a flat fee based on my portfolio value, or a transaction fee for every trade when I sell stocks.

Even without "taxes" there are fees that translate to a penalty for use. If I were a small business owner, I probably wouldn't accept any kind of card, debit or credit. It would make me happier to simply price things for what they cost, without having to add on the "subsidy" for bank card users. If they object, it'd be easy to refer them to the ATM next door. (In America, we have an ATM about every 500 fucking yards.)

OR, I'd give (what looks like) a discount to anyone who paid cash, and pass on the real costs of credit/debit cards to the users.

There are probably accountants and tax collectors who love ATMs and all those digital records of "financial transactions". From that end, any financial transaction is seen as a taxable source. Or that merchants and workers might "fudge" cash transactions.

I don't mind paying legitimate service taxes, I just don't like the fees the banks add on for the purpose of converting my good credit into cash, and how they pass that on to merchants. It's double dipping.

They aren't all the same, but they often serve a basic similar purpose of exchanging liquid assets. Cash, stocks, homes, promisory notes, etc. Is you withdrawing the cash you own from an ATM much different than withdrawing the liquidity from stocks that you own?

Both involve redeeming an intangible asset that is being held for you by an institution.

[GGT]

Sure, I've heard all that before. But they never add on the costs of identity theft with bogus cards, do they? No, they just pay some obscure insurer against that kind of thing, and pass it on to both the paying customer as well as the merchant. The percentages add up, they do cost something, cards are not "free".

Cash is King. My bank has a free coin counter/changer. Free checking, and no-fee cashiers checks. As they should, for the honor of holding my cash with a promise, while they trade it for loans and other profits that I won't realize.

[GGT]

They aren't all the same, but they often serve a basic similar purpose of exchanging liquid assets. Cash, stocks, homes, promisory notes, etc. Is you withdrawing the cash you own from an ATM much different than withdrawing the liquidity from stocks that you own?

Both involve redeeming an intangible asset that is being held for you by an institution.

I also have an account connected to my investment portfolio. It's used like a credit card for the merchant, but I'm reimbursed any "transaction fee". Those are liquid assets, it's NOT the same as my mortgage or an equity "loan". You're confusing tangible and intangible, simply because it's held by an institution.

[Dreadnaught]

You do realize you are taxed for taking money out of your investment portfolio, right? And that those tax rates are set to double at the end of this year?

[wiggin]

Dread - might not be true. If it's in a tax-protected account, yes, but investment groups like Schwab have 'bank accounts' as well that can be tied to credit cards - essentially a place to park cash before investing. They aren't taxed any differently than normal accounts, though I don't know GGT's particular setup and the interest tends to be ridiculously low. Schwab had a very popular 2% cashback credit card until recently that merely required an open account (with something like $5); they use it as a loss leader as well as a side credit card business.

[GGT]

You do realize you are taxed for taking money out of your investment portfolio, right? And that those tax rates are set to double at the end of this year?

No, I am not "taxed" for withdrawing liquid assets. I am "taxed" on gains.

I used to pay long term capital gains before the Bush tax cuts, so it's not such a big deal to me to go from 15% to 30%. Really, it's not. I mean, if they're going to tax income, then income is income. It might be "earned" but it certainly wasn't something I labored or worked for. I might be one of those weirdos who thinks stock transactions like that should be "taxed" differently than actual labor.

I just wish there was an secondary market where workers and laborers could stash their income cash and watch it grow, without having to risk it in the gambling casino our markets have become.

[GGT]

Dread - might not be true. If it's in a tax-protected account, yes, but investment groups like Schwab have 'bank accounts' as well that can be tied to credit cards - essentially a place to park cash before investing. They aren't taxed any differently than normal accounts, though I don't know GGT's particular setup and the interest tends to be ridiculously low. Schwab had a very popular 2% cashback credit card until recently that merely required an open account (with something like $5); they use it as a loss leader as well as a side credit card business.

Something like that, yeah. It's cash set aside to invest, but can also be used as cash to spend. It's not taxed. It has some stupid earned interest if it sits, that offsets any charges if used as credit. I get some cash-back-credit but it's really just a tax scheme. It's not for small accounts, which means yay, I get special treatment for having money to make money, as long as they can find a way to make some money from my money.

What a scheme.

[']['ear]

There are probably accountants and tax collectors who love ATMs and all those digital records of "financial transactions".

Federal agents in back helicopters. Think Enemy of the State, where Will Smith plays, well, Will Smith, and Gene Hackman plays Gene Hackman.