1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today

Quote from QQQBALL:

they always think in a straight line. They think that if we have $x Billion in trades then a .25% tax will produce ($xBillion x .0025) in tax revenues. They never allow for the market adjusting.

Beyond that - we are using after tax dollars to invest and the gains will be taxed anyway. This is just two more layers of tax; an entrance and exit tax.

This tax is the tax that potentially puts you out of business, so the tax revenue from many (most?) daytraders will eventually be ZERO.
More...

Its like children are calling the shots. Check the theme and tenor of this comment. You can just tell the fools really believe its free money.

"We are in a difficult time right now, so people are looking at every opportunity to gain some revenue to fund" new initiatives, said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee. "Because I was one of the first to suggest using this to fund [new] regulatory infrastructure, folks have come to me and said, 'That's a good idea; I've got a better one: Why don't we use it for stimulus or especially health care?'"


Free money hell yeah. Let's blow it on health care.
 
Quote from ang_99:

All this hoopla reminds me of the push to tax email.



Its like an urban legend.
More...

no its not. its the kind of tax the gov't loves - high frequency transactions with the gov't taking a slice of every deal. they tax every hour of your labor and every purchase or sales transaction. This tax also grows with inflation as the nominal value of stocks rise over time.

Also, this is the kind of tax that can be ratcheted up incrementally, from say .25% to .30%, .35%, .50%, etc and they can really jack the revs up pretty quickly. Hey, its only a 5/10,000th increase from .0025 to .0030- right?

What is the big houses get a pass along with say MF industry?

real sad.
 
Quote from jficquette:

Its like children are calling the shots. Check the theme and tenor of this comment. You can just tell the fools really believe its free money.

"We are in a difficult time right now, so people are looking at every opportunity to gain some revenue to fund" new initiatives, said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee. "Because I was one of the first to suggest using this to fund [new] regulatory infrastructure, folks have come to me and said, 'That's a good idea; I've got a better one: Why don't we use it for stimulus or especially health care?'"


Free money hell yeah. Let's blow it on health care.
More...

Yeah, zactly, like there is no offset on the other side.... not to mention the gov't is totally inefficient in its spending.
 
Quote from QQQBALL:

no its not. its the kind of tax the gov't loves - high frequency transactions with the gov't taking a slice of every deal. they tax every hour of your labor and every purchase or sales transaction. This tax also grows with inflation as the nominal value of stocks rise over time.

Also, this is the kind of tax that can be ratcheted up incementally, from say .25% to .30%, .35%, .50%, etc and they can really jack the revs up pretty quickly.

What is the big houses get a pass along with say MF industry?

real sad.
More...

Not possible, they wouldn't collect much revenue at all due to obvious volume drop off issues and wall street would be a waste land in the process. It would be set back like 20 years.

The morons that suggest this in congress don't know anything about trading and how it works. Its kind of silly actually, and funny. :p

RELAX, its not going to happen.
 
Quote from ang_99:

Not possible, they wouldn't collect much revenue at all due to obvious volume drop off issues and wall street would be a waste land in the process.

RELAX, its not going to happen.
More...

They don't care if it doesn't work. If the government actually cared for proper economic policy they wouldn't be spending $2 Trillion a year they didn't have nor would the lower 50% of wages earners pay only 3% of the taxes.
 
Quote from ang_99:

Not possible, they wouldn't collect much revenue at all due to obvious volume drop off issues and wall street would be a waste land in the process. It would be set back like 20 years.

The morons that suggest this in congress don't know anything about trading and how it works. Its kind of silly actually, and funny. :p

RELAX, its not going to happen.
More...

Maybe... If I am not mistaken, they already have it in China and GB - right?

I find nothing about our gov't silly or funny, and while I agree that it should not happen, I think of Maryland's "Millionaire Tax", which turned out to be a godsend for Florida :D .... Most of us know if you are gonna tax a specific group in a state, the group is likely to move and you will get less, not more in taxes.... Cali is experiencing an outflow of biz as well. My partner moved from Cali to a state w/o taxes. Cali now gets ZERO from him!
 
Quote from ang_99:

What does that tell you?

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2341941020090924



Kick back, drink a beer, watch some football and dont worry about the clowns in the house of rep.

:cool:
More...

Look, they are still floating crap paper at very low IR. When the bond market starts to demand risk premium, then the gov't will be forced to jack taxes further... it seems the last option is to actually cut spending, so they are going to look for disparate groups to generate large taxes - who better than the disgusting speculators and daytraders. I suspect it will be floated as a defacto gambling tax - the speculators gaming the market should pay for health care, or extended UE benefits, etc. We are borrowing 40% of the budget, before any healthcare additional costs and the reality is our creditors are going to want more assurance that we will pay them back.

I am keeping my regular business going so I don't get outta the loop in case the tax passes.
 
Quote from jficquette:

Its like children are calling the shots. Check the theme and tenor of this comment. You can just tell the fools really believe its free money.

"We are in a difficult time right now, so people are looking at every opportunity to gain some revenue to fund" new initiatives, said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee. "Because I was one of the first to suggest using this to fund [new] regulatory infrastructure, folks have come to me and said, 'That's a good idea; I've got a better one: Why don't we use it for stimulus or especially health care?'"


Free money hell yeah. Let's blow it on health care.
More...

Just wondering if anyone has contacted Mr Lynch's office regarding his pushing of the tax? I am going to do so and will let you know what (if any) response I get. Maybe we can educate him a little:)

-Guru
 
Here's a little blurb from Dean Baker commenting on the WSJ piece on the transaction tax: You can comment after the article

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/...2009&base_name=the_wsj_would_be_less_skeptica

He talks about the success of the tax in the UK. It also mentions the growing interest of democrats in congress for this tax. Is that so? I really don't think the WSJ article made it sound that way.

They mentioned Barney Frank but it sounded more like he wasn't really for it. And Stephen Lynch? If this tax is truely gaining momentum where are the big names? Hmmmm...

-Guru
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top