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

Quote from FightTheFuture:

A 0.5 percent federal tax on securities trading in the U.S. could raise upwards of $353 billion per year, according to a new analysis.

http://industry.bnet.com/financial-services/10005603/securities-trading-tax-could-raise-big-bucks/

-------------------------
Now it's $353B.

Aren't there some kind of laws that would imprison these nut cases?
More...

Here is a link to a press release from Dean Baker's firm regarding the study. Here is a quote from him:

“A calibrated set of taxes applied to trades of stocks, options, credit default swaps, and other assets could raise more than $170 billion a year, even assuming large reductions in trading volume” said CEPR Co-Director Dean Baker, an author of the study. “Such a tax could have the added benefit of effectively reducing the size of financial trading relative to the economy’s level of productive activity.”

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/ftt-revenue/

It's interesting he mentions the 170b number. I guess even he knows how outlandish the 353b number is (LOL)...

-Guru
 
Quote from FightTheFuture:

I was thinking about 9/11 about an hour ago and don't they remember?

DeFazio and his tactic of 0.25 for stocks and 0.02 for futures perhaps as an attempt to cause infighting.
More...

If you live in NYC or Chitown, get all your neighbours, friends to call their elected politicians.

This will affect non-traders too! Even if you run a hamburger stand inNYC or Chicago!
 
I can't believe that we feel very alone worrying about the big apple NYC.

There was no guard up for 911 attacks and elected officials were sleeping at the gate. They never connected the dots.

We see these dots as clear as a terrorist bomb.

We need to get all of NYC and Chicago as alarmed over this threat as we are. There "tiny tax" in a Trojan Horse that will serious threaten the financial status of NYC and related tri-state communities and Chicago in the same way. These cities and towns will probably lose big notches in their credit ratings and go into a downward spiral.

By the way, how did the President's home city of Chicago win a much lower tax rate on futures of 0.02% versus securities 0.25%? Futures also enjoy lower 60/40 tax rates versus ordinary rates on short-term capital gains on securities.

How can Senator Schumer even show for re-election (think this coming year)? Do we need some Yankees to start playing the political game too? Mayor's Bloomberg and Guliani need to speak up.

It's quiet over the holidays and we need to turn up the battle to the big leagues in early January.

Is the NY Times so blinded with financial gloom and visions of publishing beyond NY tri-state borders that they can help these tax destroyers ruin their home city?
 
Quote from GreenTraderTax:


I don't think there will be an exemption for Wall Street dealers in their prop trading accounts (not dealing). That would lay off the tax on the little guy on Main Street and there would be an uproar over it. The whole selling tool of this tax is to apply it to rich Wall Street firms in the first place.
More...

I think you need to think outside the box.

The little guy whose uproar is actually to be feared by the average congressman, would be clueless and oblivious to the market maker exemption. A market maker exemption would be vital and the majority public opinion would be easily sold on it. The mainstream journalists who will pick up on it will mostly justify it as in reality, you kinda need a market maker exemption with this type of tax.

Regardless, this is all about understanding who really writes the laws — the lobbyists. Top Wall Street firms are very heavy lobbyists & contributors, and since they are being very quiet all while this issue is gaining ground, it's very apparent that they are working the exemption angle.
 
Quote from Anaconda:

I think you need to think outside the box.

The little guy whose uproar is actually to be feared by the average congressman, would be clueless and oblivious to the market maker exemption. A market maker exemption would be vital and the majority public opinion would be easily sold on it. The mainstream journalists who will pick up on it will mostly justify it as in reality, you kinda need a market maker exemption with this type of tax.

Regardless, this is all about understanding who really writes the laws — the lobbyists. Top Wall Street firms are very heavy lobbyists & contributors, and since they are being very quiet all while this issue is gaining ground, it's very apparent that they are working the exemption angle.
More...

I agree. What should be and what will happen are two different politcal-beasts. We need to watch this carefully.
 
Quote from Anaconda:

I think you need to think outside the box.

The little guy whose uproar is actually to be feared by the average congressman, would be clueless and oblivious to the market maker exemption. A market maker exemption would be vital and the majority public opinion would be easily sold on it. The mainstream journalists who will pick up on it will mostly justify it as in reality, you kinda need a market maker exemption with this type of tax.

Regardless, this is all about understanding who really writes the laws — the lobbyists. Top Wall Street firms are very heavy lobbyists & contributors, and since they are being very quiet all while this issue is gaining ground, it's very apparent that they are working the exemption angle.
More...

How about brokerages that need their active traders to stay in business? Are they doing anything?

The big question is that if broker dealers and market makers get their exemptions. how are going to get much of a revenue from this very nasty and complicated tax?
 
Quote from listedguru:

Here is a link to a press release from Dean Baker's firm regarding the study. Here is a quote from him:

“A calibrated set of taxes applied to trades of stocks, options, credit default swaps, and other assets could raise more than $170 billion a year, even assuming large reductions in trading volume” said CEPR Co-Director Dean Baker, an author of the study. “Such a tax could have the added benefit of effectively reducing the size of financial trading relative to the economy’s level of productive activity.”

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/ftt-revenue/

It's interesting he mentions the 170b number. I guess even he knows how outlandish the 353b number is (LOL)...

-Guru
More...
Much of what Baker writes, titles of articles and his responses to my comments, is written as though he is talking to a 5 year old.

In previous articles this year, Baker bragged about how the tax would take trading volume back to the 1980's.

1982, I suppose nearly all stock volume at the time was traded on the NYSE. Volume finally hits the 100M mark in one day in 1982.

All stock exchanges trade about 10B now? So the tax would would take volume down to about 1% of today's volume.

So maybe he means a negative $353B after the economic destruction. He never has stated if it would be a positive or negative number. I must ask.
 
The IMF should quickly be supplied with several (technical) stakeholder submissions outlining potential disadvantages of a TT, in any form, many of which have been well summarised here.

Charities etc. would naturally be lobbying IMF on perceived "moral" value of a TT. Traders and high-level banking authorities need to submit persuasive, technical (downside) components of a TT to the IMF, as soon as possible. I suspect banking vested interests would already be covertly involved in lobbying against the TT, at various political levels.

Does anyone know for example, which academics form the IMF pre-April working group, and how subject-informed that group is? Who are these hidden faces, what are their connections, and how can those connections be better informed?
 
Quote from andometer:

The IMF should quickly be supplied with several (technical) stakeholder submissions outlining potential disadvantages of a TT, in any form, many of which have been well summarised here.

Charities etc. would naturally be lobbying IMF on perceived "moral" value of a TT. Traders and high-level banking authorities need to submit persuasive, technical (downside) components of a TT to the IMF, as soon as possible. I suspect banking vested interests would already be covertly involved in lobbying against the TT, at various political levels.

Does anyone know for example, which academics form the IMF pre-April working group, and how subject-informed that group is? Who are these hidden faces, what are their connections, and how can those connections be better informed?
More...


This is the head of the group charged with putting the report together on the tax: John Lipsky

http://www.imf.org/external/np/omd/bios/jl.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top