277
Senators unveil bipartisan deal on stock trading ban
(www.axios.com)
Bill dies in committee in 3, 2, 1...
Or allows their spouses to trade
Or has zero teeth
Etc
From the article:
The deal would immediately prohibit members of Congress from buying stocks and selling stocks 90 days after the bill is signed into law.
It would also ban member spouses and dependent children from trading stocks starting in March 2027. Penalties for violating the law would either be the monthly salary of a lawmaker or 10% of the value of each asset they buy or sell.
So a 10% tax?
Kickback*
Most taxes on asset sale is based on profit, subtracting the bought price from the sold price. Given the wording the tax would be on the sale price, not the profit.
So they just have to make more than 10% and they can still do it without a real barrier?
Or just make so much that the $174k salary they could be fined is a reasonable fee.
I don't think any of them become millionaires on their salary.
$170k a year is pretty good
More than pretty good, and certainly enough to accrue a million plus in assets over the span of a career.
But they sure do with their insider trading.
Sounds like zero teeth to me if the fine is just "the cost of doing business"
Spouses and dependent children only? Then it's time to call mom and dad! Also brother, sister, cousin, uncle, etc.
AFTER BEING SIGNED INTO LAW seems like a huge loophole to me. They can just trade while they're talking about it or right after it passes but hasn't been signed, etc etc.
That's how laws work. You can't generally make something illegal retroactively, otherwise you could change the law to persecute anyone you want.
How would you want them to approach it?
I dunno maybe they should be subject to more stringent rules like people at banks and such? If you can just trade your stocks right before you pass a law, what's the point of the new rule? That's part of why they're under fire in the first place isn't it? They have insider information. Saying you can't trade after the fact seems like it's too late to me. Maybe I didn't explain that well idk.
I understand your point, but that's what this law would theoritcally accomplish. It would limit representatives/senators from being able to trade stocks (a higher standard than an average citizen). While they can buy/sell stocks before the law, that's just the current state of affairs.
Regarding the timing of trades, etc. The value of their insider knowledge is really only beneficial over long periods of time. Yes they could buy/sell stock in the interim, but preventing it long term would be an actual win.
I don't disagree with you. Progress is progress. I just wish it was more.
YES, FUCK. How do we let people with some of the most insider knowledge profit off of that at the expense of the American people? Making money in the market isn't just printing money: that money comes from others who lose out because they aren't cheating.
I'll be shocked if this actually becomes law.
Being a congress member is about civil service, serving Americans. It's not about self service or family service. They should put Americans before themselves. If they can't do that, go work in the private sector.
havent they tried this a few times.. and each time its either abandoned or some loopholes are created making the endeavor pointless?
From the article:
**The big picture: **Previous efforts to get a stock trading ban passed through Congress have failed over the last few years.
- But the bipartisan backing in the Senate could tee up the bill for rare progress during an election year.
- The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will mark up the bill on July 24.
Penalties for violating the law would either be the monthly salary of a lawmaker or 10% of the value of each asset they buy or sell.
Because I'm sure no one would make more than that and just take the trade off. And then take credit for saving the tax payers money. That's definitely not the kind of thing that would happen in the Congress I know.
if this law becomes a 10% levy on politicians trading stocks, ill take that as a win
People settling like this just empowers these people to continue grifting us. We shouldn't be satisfied with the bare minimum.
I won’t be satisfied. But I’ll be happy that it’s better than before.
Same logic as I have for most climate laws.
"We have finally figured out a way to pass this law with a big enough loophole for us all to continue to partake in all of the insider trading we want through other family members or our bagmen. I mean lawyers."
Honestly though, Merkley on board is actually a great sign in my opinion.
Meh I lost some respect for Merkley when he did his publicity stunt of bringing the media and trying to get into the ICE facility unannounced to see how the kids were living under Trump but then never mentioned the detainment or living conditions again once the news cycle refreshed. Wyden on the other hand has been killing it by blasting the government on matters of privacy and surveillance for years with his position on the Intelligence Committee.
In any case, with this being a bipartisan bill, I'm sure there are healthy loopholes carved out (or plans for future amendments) in this bill.
YOU'RE RIGHT I mixed them up!
Fuck yeah my boy Ron. Fun fact I saw him in a Portland coffee shop not that long ago. If you didn't know him you'd never guess. He blends right in as an average older dude lol
Hmm. Is there any restriction on them providing information to someone else and having them trade? The article text doesn't say so.
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
277 points (99.6% liked)
News
22470 readers
4763 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS