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

[FightTheFuture]

Quote from Vienna:

Guys, maybe I am missing something: the tax proposed for futures is 0.02%, not 0.25%, correct?

That means 1 ES contract would cost 1120X$50*0.02%= $11.20 per transaction, or $22.40 per RT. This, while high, is not as catastrophic as the example given above...it would mean losing 2 ticks per trade. Right?

That's DeFazio's latest bill at 0.02% for futures and 0.25% for stocks.

Other bills have or had futures at 0.25% the past year. It is not a relief to know that futures are at 0.02% for this one bill. It did not make me feel better.

More bills on the way. The economic geniuses think they will raise hundreds of billions the higher the tax is, when the opposite will happen.

0.02%-futures or 0.25%-stocks is the teaser introductory rate. They will raise it if enacted. How about 2%? Once they get their foot in the door....

The spread and broker fees will increase by several times more than the tax as trading volume is decimated.

We want zero trans tax.

 

[Vienna]

I think I figured it out.

Originally, this was called proposition H.R.1068:
"(6) This transfer tax would be on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stock, options, and futures. A quarter percent (0.25 percent) tax on financial transactions could raise approximately $150 billion a year."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1068
see link for full text

The latest Bill is called H.R. 4191, it says

"(9) This transfer tax would be assessed on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, and futures. A quarter percent (0.25 percent) tax on financial transactions could raise approximately $150,000,000,000 a year. "

...but then it says further down
"‘(2) FUTURES- There is hereby imposed a tax on each covered transaction in a futures contract of 0.02 percent of the value of the instruments involved in such transaction."

http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4191&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:50

See here for full text.

Quote from Vienna:

Guys, maybe I am missing something: the tax proposed for futures is 0.02%, not 0.25%, correct?

That means 1 ES contract would cost 1120X$50*0.02%= $11.20 per transaction, or $22.40 per RT. This, while high, is not as catastrophic as the example given above...it would mean losing 2 ticks per trade. Right?

 

[Vienna]

See your point of course. Just wanted to figure out what the actual numbers thrown around are... am of course against the tax and contacted my congressman already some time ago.

Quote from FightTheFuture:

That's DeFazio's latest bill at 0.02% for futures and 0.25% for stocks.

Other bills have or had futures at 0.25% the past year. It is not a relief to know that futures are at 0.02% for this one bill. It did not make me feel better.



The spread and broker fees will increase by several times more than the tax as trading volume is decimated.

We want zero trans tax.

 

[loufah]

Quote from gkishot:

Is 0.02% tax not as catastrophic as 0.25% tax? Yes.
Does it have to be like this? No.

Since one of the justifications for this tax is to moderate speculation in commodities, especially oil, it's kind of odd that futures have much less of a tax than stocks. It's almost like they're encouraging institutions who hold GLD and USO, for example, to switch to futures.

 

[Liger86]

.25% or .025% or .0025%

Regardless, I told you all, maybe in another forum - first they propose something no one likes. Then to calm everyone down they propose a lower rate.

They were aiming for a lower rate then proposed anyhow.

But since they wanted .25% to begin with it makes anything lower sound like a bargain.

They are trying to spoon feed you guys.

Refuse it anyway you can.

If we trade for 2 ticks during overnight sessions after this tax we will loose money, and therefore wont trade at all during those hours. But if no tax is imposed we can scalp at night and IRS will get their share of it. To IRS something is bettter then nothing.

Scalpers need this ability.

Just imagine ES with spread of 1 point. Nuts, whos gonna trade it for .5 points profit, - no one thats who.

Remember people, we are not oposing the rate, we are against the tax itself.

p.s. if you write a letter to your congressman ship it UPS overnight early morning delivery. It will get a whole other treatment from all that regular mail.

 

[listedguru]

Quote from rc822:

Wall Street to the Rescue?

A tax on financial transactions is being considered to help pay the freight for climate change solutions.


http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/wall-street-save-world/




White House spokesman Ben Labolt said the idea is a non-starter and "off the table" as a means to aid developing countries battling climate change. But just last summer, the President mentioned the potential for a transaction tax during a news conference, where he touted it as a way to raise cash to wind down too-big-to-fail companies.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stepped up to oppose the bill, saying it would hurt the middle class while pushing economic activity overseas.
Even some environmental groups, which have advocated for a global response to climate change for years, say the tax is the wrong mechanism to fund aid. Taxing banks and investors who have little to do with the underlying problem may provide cash but does not provide a solution, said Terry Anderson, executive director of the Property and Environmental Research Center, which studies free-market solutions to environmental issues.
A true solution to the problem, Anderson said, would be a tax on carbon emissions, the greenhouse gas at the heart of the issue."

Well at least we know the tax is off the table to pay for climate change (or so they say). I also liked the quotes from the enviromental guy at the end of the piece:

"This is nothing more than a way to redistribute wealth and while it may get focused in the developing nations it does not in any way address the problem,” he said. “There can be no doubt there will be some impact, but in this case essentially taxing capital formation doesn’t seem like a way to address the problem.”

I want to know more about Obama's comments during this press conference last summer they mentioned. The article says Obama touted the tax as a way to raise cash to wind down too big to fail companies? Does anyone have a info on this?

-Guru

 

[loufah]

Quote from Liger86:

.25% or .025% or .0025%

BTW, the current section 31 assessment on stock sell transactions is .00257%. You futures traders don't see this, of course (you're assessed just $.0042 per round trip, and your broker probably covers this as part of the commission). I wonder if they could just quietly increase this by a factor of 5 or 10 and not even need to pass a bill at all.

 

[KCalhoun]

video posted yesterday:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1372185738&play=1

"Debating whether a financial transactions tax will help boost the economy or not, with Mark Walsh, "Left Jab" co-host and Chris Edwards Director of Tax Policy Studies Cato Institute. "


They talk about "behavior modification". Just what socialists and big government want. Bah.

I hope they don't pass any tax. It would wipe out intraday trading as we know it, from my understanding of what a bad tax like this would do.

 

[FightTheFuture]

Quote from listedguru:



...........I want to know more about Obama's comments during this press conference last summer they mentioned. The article says Obama touted the tax as a way to raise cash to wind down too big to fail companies? Does anyone have a info on this?

-Guru

Seems like we would remember if he said it or seems like the original source would surface in the many searches. Articles that say 0bama is for the tax most likely get it from another article they have read, wishful thinking, they are speaking for 0bama, etc. None of the pro tax authors do any research other than quoting other authors that quote Baker and Defazio, etc. They repeat the same thing over and over.

 

[listedguru]

Quote from FightTheFuture:

Seems like we would remember if he said it or seems like the original source would surface in the many searches. Articles that say 0bama is for the tax most likely get it from another article they have read, wishful thinking, they are speaking for 0bama, etc. None of the pro tax authors do any research other than quoting other authors that quote Baker and Defazio, etc. They repeat the same thing over and over.

Obama did make some comments at a speech back in July where he mentioned taxing "far out transactions." The White House never said what he meant by that but if anything it sounded like he was referring to CDO's or something crazy...

-Guru