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

Quote from listedguru:

The more I think about the transaction tax I think our next battle lies with the FY2011 budget (as was mentioned in the WSJ piece).

The dems are licking their chops over that $150B revenue number they keep throwing around. That perceived pot of honey can go a long ways towards wiping out the deficit (or I mean paying for new social programs). We all know the net number is nowhere near $150B (if not net negative).

I don't like the idea of the Senate being able to pass a budget bill via reconciliaton (with a simple 51 vote majority). I haven't fully confirmed this yet but I believe this is the case. I'm going to delve into this issue a little further this weekend and see what I can find out.

-Guru




This whole transaction tax bill is comical. If congress passes it, you know the banks/wall street/prop. firms will get exemptions. Who will then be left to tax? Retail traders. But these traders will be forced out of business if this passes, so where will they get the revenue from with this tax??? They won't be able to get $1 billion a year from this, let alone $150 billion.
The only way this thing would generate the type of revenue they expect would be to offer no exemptions to anyone. But you know that will never happen, so again, where would the revenue from this tax come from???
 
Quote from jksn922:

This whole transaction tax bill is comical. If congress passes it, you know the banks/wall street/prop. firms will get exemptions. Who will then be left to tax? Retail traders. But these traders will be forced out of business if this passes, so where will they get the revenue from with this tax??? They won't be able to get $1 billion a year from this tax, let alone $150 billion.
The only way this thing would generate the type of revenue they expect would be to offer no exemptions to anyone. But you know that would never happen, so again, where would the revenue from this tax come from???
what I understand is the global bill proposed at .005% won't allow exemptions and needs global agreement so that business isn't moved overseas as with the house bill it seems that since the firms would be able to move they will be exempt. Also canadas finance minister has opposed the tax, I'm just assuming but it seems that in order for Canada to accept the tax the globe has the agree and if Canada doesn't agree it shouldn't pass, seems like the bill mentioned before is just to bypass parlament and put it into effect asap should it pass on a global scale.
 
Quote from jksn922:

It is based on the transaction, not the profit. Example, if you traded one 30 year bond contract, the value of that contract is 100k. So, after that one measly trade, you are have already reached the 100k exemption for the year. On your second trade, the transaction tax begins.

That's what I thought....damn those vampire politicians. Why can't we impose a tax on these bastards?
 
Quote from andy9775:

That sounds good, I cant sign though, in Canada, but even if this tax were to pass only in the US it would affect everyone, though not as much as the US of course. There has already been a letter sent by a few congressman to the ones that support it, maybe mention that in someway? Push for them to sign on as a sign of support.

They would exempt the market makers and broker dealers. Retail investors are stuck with the tax.
 
Quote from jksn922:

Final Copenhagen Text Includes Global Transaction Tax. I wonder if this means Obama can simply bypass Congress, and push us into this global transaction tax? Unbelievable!!!



http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=...gen-text-includes-global-transaction-tax.html

This is a bullshit article by a fear-mongering author on a fear mongering website!

This has already been dispelled as bullshit this morning.

Please people, take a breath and read what it is and who says it before you post about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)
 
Quote from seasideheights:

If the DeFazio-Harkin tax had been in place in 2008, we calculate that the tax burden would have been equivalent to one-third of the total expenses of equity index funds.

http://www.ici.org/policy/markets/domestic/09_chamb_tax_spch1

That is a great read (especially the background info they link in the piece as well). It's good to know that this info is starting to get out there and hopefully will put a stop to this nonsense.

-Guru
 
Copenhagen Accord:


8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to prevent deforestation (REDD-plus), adaptation, teclmology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources amounting to 30 billion dollars for the period 2010 - 2012 as listed in appendix lll with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation, including forestry. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing states and countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries support a goal of mobilizing jointly 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including altemative sources of finance. New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries.
 
Reconciliation Process:

I did a little reading on this reconciliaton process (Clinton used this to pass the 1994 Budget). It's scary in that it only requires a straight majority (51 Votes) and debate is limited to 20 hours (with no chance of a filibuster). This process is intended to be used for deficit reduction (Byrd amendment) and or taxes, spending or debt.

It kind of sounds like they just lump everything into a super bill (reconciliaton bill) and send it to the Senate floor where it needs 51 votes to pass). I guess the good thing here is that it wouldn't be prudent for the US to pass this alone (as part of a budget process) without int'l agreement. We all know that getting int'l agreement on something like this is extremely tough so thats in our favor.

Anyway just kind of thinking out loud as to what we need to watch for in the coming year. Plenty of landmines ahead:(

-Guru
 
Just back from a night on the town in NYC. That fear mongering article with phony news from the climate summit including a financial-transaction tax was very unexpected and scary. Thanks for pointing out it's not true. All these media stories the past month have certainly been unsettling.

I decided to rush to press the new petition and post it on the WSJ article tonight too. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704247504574604053568517692.html#articleTabs=comments

Keep sending me your comments. I will have Molly do another edit and we can easily revise the new Petition.

In the meantime, please everyone sign the new petition and spread the word everywhere possible.

"A financial-transaction tax is detrimental to many industries"
http://www.rallycongress.com/greentradertax-traders-association1/

or directly at:

http://www.rallycongress.com/greent...action-tax-is-detrimental-to-many-industries/
 
Back
Top