# Short term traders should be taxed at 90%



## Spiderbrain (23 February 2010)

Regardless of strategy I reckon there should be a minimum 90% tax on any profit if you've held the stock less than a week. I thought the idea of the share market was to invest in a company, not to gamble on making a quick killing at other people's expense.


----------



## Trembling Hand (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Spiderbrain said:


> Regardless of strategy I reckon there should be a minimum 90% tax on any profit if you've held the stock less than a week. I thought the idea of the share market was to invest in a company, not to gamble on making a quick killing at other people's expense.




Welcome Spiderbrain.

Shame your first post is lacking any knowledge of your subject.

98% of transactions on the market are not investing. You only invest in IPO & Cap raising etc. You are not "investing". Go away and learn what a transaction on the market is. Here is a hint - time frame no matter how long is not investing its just pass the parcel from another punter.


----------



## satanoperca (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Spiderbrain said:


> Regardless of strategy I reckon there should be a minimum 90% tax on any profit if you've held the stock less than *a week*. I thought the idea of the share market was to invest in a company, not to gamble on making a quick killing at other people's expense.




Why a week? Why not a month or a year?

:holysheep:


----------



## Spiderbrain (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Trembling Hand said:


> Welcome Spiderbrain.
> 
> Shame your first post is lacking any knowledge of your subject.
> 
> 98% of transactions on the market are not investing. You only invest in IPO & Cap raising etc. You are not "investing". Go away and learn what a transaction on the market is. Here is a hint - time frame no matter how long is not investing its just pass the parcel from another punter.




I admit I don't know jack about much of but it just seems completely wrong for people to be simply gambling on the market on a daily basis like a poker player in the hope of outsmarting others who buy shares in a company because they are told it's a good investment. From the little I do know the whole market looks more like insanity to me than a way to run an economy!


----------



## Trembling Hand (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Spiderbrain said:


> I admit I don't know jack about much of but it just seems completely wrong for people to be simply gambling on the market on a daily basis like a poker player in the hope of outsmarting others who buy shares in a company because they are told it's a good investment. From the little I do know the whole market looks more like insanity to me than a way to run an economy!




More than happy to debate further but maybe the mods can cut this stuff into a more appropriate thread.

I will add though, the economy has always ran this way, since year dot. Products priced by interested parties.

Anything else is communism, maybe you would prefer that but again for another thread.


----------



## cutz (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Spiderbrain said:


> Regardless of strategy I reckon there should be a minimum 90% tax on any profit if you've held the stock less than a week. I thought the idea of the share market was to invest in a company, not to gamble on making a quick killing at other people's expense.




WTF are you on about Spiderbrain, why should a competent trader be penalized for earning an honest days work, is it because you've been previously burnt and secretly harboring a grudge ?


----------



## nulla nulla (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Spiderbrain said:


> Regardless of strategy I reckon there should be a minimum 90% tax on any profit if you've held the stock less than a week. I thought the idea of the share market was to invest in a company, not to gamble on making a quick killing at other people's expense.




Your perspective is rather narrow minded. This is an industry. It generates billions of dollars each year in turnover, not just on the buy sell transactions of the buyers and sellers but the related entities involved in each transaction. 
There is one broker involved in the buy and another broker involved in the sell. Each broker jockeying with the others to provide the most cost effective value enhanced service to the share trader. Imediately involved in each transaction is the federal government picking up gst on both sides of the transaction. Both brokers fees include a component of gst. 
Then there are the service providers with live market feeds for a small monthly fee plus the data interpretation service providers with another small monthly fee plus of course the analysts. These  experts can tell you when to buy/sell what and why (history tells us never see a boom coming or a bust until after it happens). 
And lets not forget the big US merchant banks. They lost a fortune with the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and almost went to the wall. However they were able to use the Government bail-out funds to trade their way from loss to billion dollar profits and repay the government within 12 months.
Tax! so much tax is paid on every transaction and every step of the way that there is no way any government is ever going to rein in this market.


----------



## tech/a (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



cutz said:


> WTF are you on about Spiderbrain, why should a competent trader be penalized for earning an honest days work, is it because you've been previously burnt and secretly harboring a grudge ?




Big hint.
Its Kevin 007.(Spiderbrain)
Not happy about the insulation debacle.



> From the little I do know the whole market looks more like insanity to me than a way to run an economy!




Dead giveaway--has RUDD written all over it.


----------



## cutz (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



nulla nulla said:


> This is an industry.




Exactly,

An industry where profits are taxed straight up and not hidden behind some negative gearing scam.


----------



## doctorj (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Spiderbrain said:


> Regardless of strategy I reckon there should be a minimum 90% tax on any profit if you've held the stock less than a week. I thought the idea of the share market was to invest in a company, not to gamble on making a quick killing at other people's expense.



I'll split this off in to a new thread...

I'm wondering who's expense is trading. When the short term trader enters, they're providing an exit to a seller that has set a minimum price at which they're happy to sell. When the short term trader sells, they're providing an entry to someone at a price that is equal to or less than a price they're willing to pay. In the middle, the short term trader has provided liquidity to the market. 

To understand the impact of abolishing trading, imagine a situation where there was no secondary market for securities. A rational investor would demand higher returns to compensate for the reduced liquidity and exit opportunities. Higher required returns results in two things - less financing available for the company, and the money they can get at a higher cost of capital.


----------



## Spiderbrain (23 February 2010)

Well I admit to be pretty ignorant about it all and only came in to see if there were any threads about APA (since they're wanting me to buy more) and impetuously responded to this thread. And yes I have been burnt. I have a few shares and funds that I watched collapse during the GFC, sold CBA back in March and then watched them skyrocket, bought Elders at 19.5 cents recently and watched them plummet and a few other disasters. 

You will no doubt call me stupid but the way the market can go bonkers seems completely crazy to me and short term buying and selling like playing a game of poker is just part of the craziness I think.

Anyway, glad you all think it's a productive activity. It's certainly not as bad as all the other shonky crap that goes on in the market like the CDS MBS and CDOs tied to frauds and shysters that brought the financial system to its knees.

Oh and I'm definitely not a communist! I'm not an advocate of unregulated markets either though.


----------



## cutz (23 February 2010)

Spiderbrain said:


> And yes I have been burnt. I have a few shares and funds that I watched collapse during the GFC, sold CBA back in March and then watched them skyrocket, bought Elders at 19.5 cents recently and watched them plummet and a few other disasters.




Guys like yourself stick out like sore thumbs,

Do all the wrong things then blame the markets and traders for giving you a hiding, biggest problem is you are slaves to the mainstream media.


----------



## Mr J (23 February 2010)

Spiderbrain, you obviously don't know the purpose of a market. It's not a tool for investment, it's a tool for exchange. Timeframe is irrelevant. Without these shorterm traders, the spread and commissions you pay would make investing extremely costly.



> You will no doubt call me stupid but the way the market can go bonkers seems completely crazy to me and short term buying and selling like playing a game of poker is just part of the craziness I think.




And longterm players are any better? Shorterm traders didn't cause the GFC.


----------



## doctorj (23 February 2010)

Spiderbrain said:


> Anyway, glad you all think it's a productive activity. It's certainly not as bad as all the other shonky crap that goes on in the market like the CDS MBS and CDOs tied to frauds and shysters that brought the financial system to its knees.
> 
> Oh and I'm definitely not a communist! I'm not an advocate of unregulated markets either though.



I don't think it is in itself productive, but it certainly supports productive endeavours.

What's wrong with CDS, MBS & CDO? I agree that in some instances they were poorly used, but I disagree if the inference is that they're inherently bad, useless or serve no beneficial purpose...


----------



## cutz (23 February 2010)

Spiderbrain said:


> You will no doubt call me stupid but the way the market can go bonkers seems completely crazy to me and short term buying and selling like playing a game of poker is just part of the craziness I think.




Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be a safe and legitimate form of investment ?


----------



## Julia (23 February 2010)

cutz said:


> Guys like yourself stick out like sore thumbs,
> 
> Do all the wrong things then blame the markets and traders for giving you a hiding



Exactly.
I'm just a bit surprised that anyone has actually taken the initial post seriously enough to argue about it.
Such ignorance really deserves to fester.


----------



## Soft Dough (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Trembling Hand said:


> Welcome Spiderbrain.
> 
> Shame your first post is lacking any knowledge of your subject.
> 
> 98% of transactions on the market are not investing. You only invest in IPO & Cap raising etc. You are not "investing". Go away and learn what a transaction on the market is. Here is a hint - time frame no matter how long is not investing its just pass the parcel from another punter.




Your general idea is ok, but it IS an investment,

but by investing into shares you are helping the company have access to cash, by allowing them to borrow against a higher asset value than otherwise achievable, this allows them to borrow to invest, hence adding to employment and living standards...... now if only Kevin Rudd understood this, but then again he is only a politician.

If your argument was true, then housing would not be an investment either ( and in fact it is worse than shares as the gearing by the company goes to expansion, and a fair proportion of extra gearing with housing goes to consumption )


----------



## Trembling Hand (23 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Soft Dough said:


> Your general idea is ok, but it IS an investment,
> 
> but by investing into shares you are helping the company have access to cash,




Really.

If you buy a share off me tomorrow and hold it for 10 years how is that helping the company have access to the cash you just gave me??

It is laughable that people still thing purchasing a share in a stock market transaction is used by the company.


----------



## doctorj (23 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Exactly.
> I'm just a bit surprised that anyone has actually taken the initial post seriously enough to argue about it.
> Such ignorance really deserves to fester.



I'm sure Spiderbrain's view is relatively common amongst those less familiar with financial markets.  Why not discuss it?


----------



## Client (24 February 2010)

Spiderbrain said:


> Regardless of strategy I reckon there should be a minimum 90% tax on any profit if you've held the stock less than a week. I thought the idea of the share market was to invest in a company, not to gamble on making a quick killing at other people's expense.



That was one of the reasons why Warren Buffet made his shares cost about $25,000 - to avoid speculators. Well, at least it was few years ago...


----------



## wayneL (24 February 2010)

The implication is that short term traders control the price of the share. If this is true then they are responsible for shares going up way beyond their true value as well. Roundabouts and Swings?

Short term traders may have some influence on the "noise" and/or on microcaps, but in the big picture are totally meaningless. Big price moves in established healthy companies have nothing whatsoever to do with short term traders. They will hitch a ride, but it is "investors" and institutional buying and selling that move prices on the grand scale.

OP is just chucking his toys out of the pram.


----------



## Mofra (24 February 2010)

I rarely trade what others would describe as short-term - I'm very thankful for there being ST traders though due to all the liquidity they provide the market. Don't agree with the OP at all.


----------



## Trembling Hand (24 February 2010)

Mofra said:


> I rarely trade what others would describe as short-term - I'm very thankful for there being ST traders though due to all the liquidity they provide the market. Don't agree with the OP at all.




Mofra but do you consider your trades (long term) are fundamentally different to mine (short term)?

I always find it .......... amazing, weird,... arrogant? that long term traders consider themselves doing something different to short term'ers.


----------



## Temjin (24 February 2010)

So if I operate a perfectly legitimate business and decide to "hedge" my production in the short term by buying/selling a particular future/ETFs, I have to be penalized for doing so? Great!  

Maybe ban legitimate hedging all the together, even though it has been a standard, perfectly ethical/moral, legal practice for the last few hundred years.


----------



## Mr J (24 February 2010)

Us shorterm traders are evil speculators TH. We make crazy markets, destroy companies, and cheat mums and dads out of their hard earned investment cash .

This isn't directed at you Mofra.


----------



## nunthewiser (24 February 2010)

Um............. Seeing as we "short term traders" provide such a boost to others pockets and incomes ........ Perhaps we shouldnt be taxed at all ?


----------



## Mr J (24 February 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Um............. Seeing as we "short term traders" provide such a boost to others pockets and incomes ........ Perhaps we shouldnt be taxed at all ?




If we're going to be called gamblers, maybe we should be taxed like gamblers, i.e. zero.


----------



## nunthewiser (24 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> If we're going to be called gamblers, maybe we should be taxed like gamblers, i.e. zero.




LOL call me what ya want if it means not paying tax


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (24 February 2010)

CFDs are void of tax aren't they?


----------



## nunthewiser (24 February 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> CFDs are void of tax aren't they?




Not according to MY accountant .BUT i dont purely trade CFD,s alone .. i trade actual stock too . all goes in the income/loss basket at end of year . i could be wrong and need to have it separated ........and fire my accountant


----------



## Trembling Hand (24 February 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> CFDs are void of tax aren't they?




Yes thats right *IF *you are a loser. The Tax man has a ruling that he can call your activities "gambling in nature" and therefore not able to offset the losses against income.

*BUT *if you are profitable in the same nature & activities that they call a loser a gamble you classified as "carry on a business". Howz that for setting rules to suit your desired out come?


----------



## RamonR (24 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Spiderbrain said:


> I admit I don't know jack about much of but it just seems completely wrong for people to be simply gambling on the market on a daily basis like a poker player in the hope of outsmarting others who buy shares in a company because they are told it's a good investment. From the little I do know the whole market looks more like insanity to me than a way to run an economy!




When I buy a share I don't hope that I am outsmarting anybody else.
I hope that my view of that particular company is right and it will be worth more in the future ( short or long term ).

I bet you were happy to have sold your CBA shares at the time.
You minimize the risk to yourself that you were going to loose even more money, it seems unfair to hold grudge against person who bought it just because they took on the risk and were rewarded for it.

Not that it is a sure thing they were rewarded, they might also have got spooked and sold them for even less then you got for them.

Anyway don't let some of the responses scare you away from these forums, they are jammed packed full of knowledge


----------



## Mofra (24 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Mofra but do you consider your trades (long term) are fundamentally different to mine (short term)?



In a way yes, in that the CGT discount is included in my acquisition plan, and I also believe that weighting the importance of fundamental vs tech analysis is different for shorter and longer term trades.



Trembling Hand said:


> I always find it .......... amazing, weird,... arrogant? that long term traders consider themselves doing something different to short term'ers.



Arrogant?

Don't get so precious. Different methods work for different folks - a dividend stripping strategy will be fundamentally different to a day trade working off a 15 minute chart. Doesn't mean either are wrong.


----------



## Mofra (24 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> Us shorterm traders are evil speculators TH. We make crazy markets, destroy companies, and cheat mums and dads out of their hard earned investment cash .



I would expect most longer term traders are grateful for all ST traders in the market in terms of providing liquidity & an entire information-based industry set up to service them.

I also have CBA shares tucked away as a LT hold/invetsment; comsec turn a tidy profit on transaction fees and it's not the LT traders that provide the bulk of that income.


----------



## Trembling Hand (24 February 2010)

Mofra said:


> In a way yes, in that the CGT discount is included in my acquisition plan, and I also believe that weighting the importance of fundamental vs tech analysis is different for shorter and longer term trades.
> 
> 
> Arrogant?
> ...




Mofra you haven't got what my question is about. The OP seems to think that some how holding for longer is doing something vastly different than some who hold for a short time. And therefore should be taxed differently

Do you as a long term trader think the underlying process is any different. ie you are an "investor" & I a "trader" or are we at the most basics doing the same process just different application?


----------



## matty77 (24 February 2010)

I agree we should tax anyone 90% if they make a profit and sell within 7 days. Also we should CREDIT anyone 90% if they make a loss within 7 days. Sounds like win win situation for everyone then.


----------



## skyQuake (24 February 2010)

matty77 said:


> I agree we should tax anyone 90% if they make a profit and sell within 7 days. Also we should CREDIT anyone 90% if they make a loss within 7 days. Sounds like win win situation for everyone then.




Eh? Doesn't that just mean everything is deleveraged by a factor of 10?

Make $100, pay 90% tax = $10
Lose $100, get 90% credit = -$10

The count in say $1 in brokerage

Brokers rejoice. Everyone will have to do 10x their normal size. Thats 10x the brokerage to feast upon.


----------



## matty77 (24 February 2010)

skyQuake said:


> Eh? Doesn't that just mean everything is deleveraged by a factor of 10?
> 
> Make $100, pay 90% tax = $10
> Lose $100, get 90% credit = -$10
> ...




i was being sarcastic.


----------



## Mofra (24 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Mofra you haven't got what my question is about. The OP seems to think that some how holding for longer is doing something vastly different than some who hold for a short time. And therefore should be taxed differently



I must have misinterpreted your post, apologies.
I don't believe holding for 1 week should be taxed differently to holding for 50 weeks, no. 
I _have_ held shares for 2-3 years and still termed them as a trade so have effectively obtained the CGT discount simply because my holding period was long enough, be damned if I'm handing any extra tax back though 



Trembling Hand said:


> Do you as a long term trader think the underlying process is any different. ie you are an "investor" & I a "trader" or are we at the most basics doing the same process just different application?



I think the term "investor" is far more subjective than a trader. A trader is someone I would define as someone seeking to profit upon disposal or maturity of an asset via a capital gain. An investor I would term as someone who includes ongoing income from the investment as part of (or perhaps most of) the rationale to hold. 
FTR I term myself as both.


----------



## Bushman (24 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Soft Dough said:


> but by investing into shares you are helping the company have access to cash




How so? 

The only way a company has access to new 'cash', or capital as it is more commonly called, is by one of: 
 - raising funds in equity/debt markets; 
 - 'recycling' capital by selling its underlying assets; or 
 - reinvesting cash profits made into the business rather than paying out a     dividend (i.e. DRP). 

Buying or selling a share on the secondary market is cash flow neutral to the underlying entity. Your only argument could be that by buying, you are supporting the underlying share price which will allow the company to raise equity funds at a higher WVAP. 

All you gain by purchasing a share is the proportionate right to the assets of the company and, depending on the security, the free cash flow of that entity (paid as a dividend). You will also be able to receive some tax benefit from that security if it pays franked dividends.


----------



## Bushman (24 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Bushman said:


> All you gain by purchasing a share is the proportionate right to the assets of the company and, depending on the security, the free cash flow of that entity (paid as a dividend). You will also be able to receive some tax benefit from that security if it pays franked dividends.




I should add that traders make a profit in the short-term as the market uses a process of discovery' to price these future cash flows. What is that famous quote? 'In the short-term the market is a voting system, in the long-term it is a discounting system'.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (24 February 2010)

*Re: Short-term trading strategy discussion*



Bushman said:


> How so?
> 
> The only way a company has access to new 'cash', or capital as it is more commonly called, is by one of:
> - raising funds in equity/debt markets;
> ...






You've said it yourself.. raising funds in equity/*debt* markets.

There are plenty of companies that use as security the "strength" in value of their shares. Babcock and Brown spring to mind here. One of the banking covenants revealed in the dying days of BNB was a clause in relation to BNB's share price, which would result in a call from the banking consortium  to "discuss" their banking arrangements. From my tired and imperfect memory I think the figure was about $7.50, a small number in comparison to the +$30 they traded at their highs, not small enough when the GFC came along.

Indirectly therefore the stability and strength of the share price relates to the amount that the company can borrow against in debt markets. Stability and strength comes from long-term holders and large institutions holding and continuing to hold.

When we evil short-term traders and *gasp* shorters of the stock affect the share prices we undermine the supposed "strength" of the share price. (Or at least that was the gist of the argument when they banned short selling).

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## basilio (24 February 2010)

Pretty courageous suggestion by Spiderbrain to tax  short term profits at 90%.. 

However.. I can see a point. In theory I thought stock markets were about initially financing companies and then seeing  the value of these companies rise and fall as  they became more or less successful *at actually producing a product.*

The reality ? I suspect that the main game these days is  manipulating  and trading shares particularly in smaller caps to make a profit. The question of whether there is any reality in the company  is often overlooked if one can trade and make a buck  on the daily ups and downs.

On the  bigger scene  I suggest most of the  trading in CFDs ect is  speculative gambling. As is commodity trading, currency trading and so on.

The point about all this is ? The systems that are the lynch pin of our financial stability seem to be largely driven by short term  gambling strategies.  If/when things get ugly we face horrific impacts on our banks, superannuation funds and major businesses. Is that a price we are prepared to pay for allowing almost unbridled  gambling ? 

Put aside Spiderbrains suggest of a 90% tax on profits. How about a small tax on share transactions (that went to a worthwhile fund...) to send a financial message that relentless trading was going to have a cost and thus discourage hyper speculation?  Any thoughts ?


----------



## Mr J (24 February 2010)

> On the bigger scene I suggest most of the trading in CFDs ect is speculative gambling. As is commodity trading, currency trading and so on.




Everyone is gambling. 



> How about a small tax on share transactions (that went to a worthwhile fund...) to send a financial message that relentless trading was going to have a cost and thus discourage hyper speculation? Any thoughts ?




I have a thought, but it isn't appropriate for this site.


----------



## nunthewiser (24 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> Everyone is gambling.
> 
> 
> 
> .





Not everyone 

But we already had this discussion .


----------



## joeyr46 (24 February 2010)

basilio said:


> Pretty courageous suggestion by Spiderbrain to tax  short term profits at 90%..
> 
> However.. I can see a point. In theory I thought stock markets were about initially financing companies and then seeing  the value of these companies rise and fall as  they became more or less successful *at actually producing a product.*
> 
> ...



How you can say that short term traders had any impact on banks super funds and major businesses is beyond me when they stopped people shorting banks they still tanked. Traders provide liquidity and when shorting has been stopped the shares often tank faster without anyone to buy them. Super funds buy and kid you they know what they are doing but there were plenty of analysts who saw the GFC and the bottom in march and the future moves at the moment but they are analysts not economists, and most of them have put the reasons down to debt (which short term traders did not create).
Any logic says prices can not just keep going straight up which is what most people who are complaining about the GFC seem to expect. this bear market is no different to any others just a little bit longer since the last one and IMO still a few years to go.
We could put a small tax on transactions but governments don't give money to worthwhile funds they just spend it stupidly and wastefully so why should I give them any more of my money than I already do.


----------



## Trembling Hand (24 February 2010)

basilio said:


> The reality ? I suspect that the main game these days is  manipulating  and trading shares particularly in smaller caps to make a profit. The question of whether there is any reality in the company  is often overlooked if one can trade and make a buck  on the daily ups and downs.
> 
> On the  bigger scene  I suggest most of the  trading in CFDs ect is  speculative gambling. As is commodity trading, currency trading and so on.
> 
> Any thoughts ?




Here is a thought, Or more to it some back ground. From the ADI thread today



basilio said:


> Yipee!! I'm back to where I started with ADI.
> 
> Originally jumped in at 30c I think Nov 2008 when there was a drill that was going to be the goods....
> 
> Anyway 15 months later  it all looks so much better.




Just lol when are *losers *going to put their hand up and blame themselves for THIER mistakes.


----------



## ROE (24 February 2010)

Spiderbrain said:


> Well I admit to be pretty ignorant about it all and only came in to see if there were any threads about APA (since they're wanting me to buy more) and impetuously responded to this thread. And yes I have been burnt. I have a few shares and funds that I watched collapse during the GFC, sold CBA back in March and then watched them skyrocket, bought Elders at 19.5 cents recently and watched them plummet and a few other disasters.
> 
> You will no doubt call me stupid but the way the market can go bonkers seems completely crazy to me and short term buying and selling like playing a game of poker is just part of the craziness I think.
> 
> ...




Learn to be a better investor, learn from your mistakes
everyone make mistakes just make sure you don't make the same mistakes over and over again 

Who knows 10 years from now you can make all those money back and then more.

With discipline and buy only quality company at reasonable price you WILL get a decent return.


----------



## Mr J (24 February 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Not everyone
> 
> But we already had this discussion .




Okay, true arbitrage isn't gambling :. 



			
				basilio said:
			
		

> How about a small tax on share transactions




Since when has a tax solved anything? Do you even know the consequences of such a tax? Do you know the consequences of removing shorterm traders from the market? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested the tax and whinged about the traders. Either that, or you have an axe to grind. The mob and their pitchforks will be the end of me .


----------



## nulla nulla (24 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Exactly.
> I'm just a bit surprised that anyone has actually taken the initial post seriously enough to argue about it.
> Such ignorance really deserves to fester.




I agree with Julia. Why are we wasting time and space with this crock. Since when did the members of the ASF feel the need to justify their existance and individual perspectives, on various forms of trading the markets, to someone that obviously has not taken the time and effort to learn something before trying to deal with it?


----------



## newbie trader (24 February 2010)

Spider,

Until you learn that there is no one else to blame but yourself when trading then I don't think you should participate. Like the old time saying you need to learn from your failures and see where you went wrong (keep a trading diary). Over time you will improve if you can accept this and then you will no longer need to blame others. I'm 18 and i've been helping my parents trade since i was around 16...I think I would have been more mature and accepting than you at age 16.

N.T


----------

