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

Quote from FightTheFuture:

You are still keeping your stress levels up. That's real good for you. Not.

Not to encourage you to not rest and recover by making more posts, but your posts have been excellent.


Logically I cannot see this trans tax passing, yet emotionally I fear that it will. The effort is not for nothing when this dies down, because the tax proposals will be back sometime and the knowledge gained will be here to refer to.
More...

thanks. Late nights reading the google alerts and this fight takes a toll. I exercise daily and eat well but under these conditions it's easier to fall under the weather. I wanted to relax a little with the bank fee plan, but of course as in tennis when you are serving for the set your opponent always turns up the heat. I still think we won't have a FTT. The momentum has gone from progressive populists to Tea Party populists and Main Street and the regular guy don't want new taxes.

Our biggest threat all along was populism because logically we know the FTT is not a good idea. Our leadership knows that too.
 
Here is a new piece in Traders magazine:

"Commentary: Rest in Peace"
-Why Dr Tobn's big idea should remain buried

http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/paul-krugman-james-tobin-transaction-tax-104922-1.html?pg=1

"Thanks to all the socially useless short-term trading, IBM today has a penny-wide spread, meaning that the little guy's round-trip transaction costs including spreads are about $21. Now add the tax bill of $164, plus increased commissions (since without market makers, retail rebates would go away), and finally add significantly increased spreads (again due to the lack of market making), and I estimate the round-trip cost of 500 shares of IBM would be approximately $300, more than 14 times what it costs today."

"Another way to put the cost in perspective is to view it through the prism of Regulation NMS. As part of the National Market System reforms, exchange fees were capped at 0.3 cents per share in 2007. At 25 basis points, the Tobin Tax on IBM would be a whopping 33 cents per share, more than 110 times the cap the SEC put on the transaction."

-Guru
 
I just received the same reply from Senator Schumer that someone else did today too and just posted. I sent my Petition a month ago and other Congressman replied much faster. I am guessing that Senator Schumer remained very quiet on this whole controversy of the FTT and Wall Street, while he tried to appease his constituency (Wall Street), progressive forces in the Democratic party, and because he got an early heads-up on the White House and Treasury’s big-bank fee. Only after the bank fee was announced, and there was some debate in the media, and even after Scott Brown won the MA Senate seat last night (turning the populist forces in a different direction), did Senator Schumer send out these email replies all at once it appears. He seemed to be holding his position until he saw the “whites of their eyes” or Tea Party tea leaves.

I interpret this reply email from Senator Schumer as follows. That Senator Schumer is solidly against the FTT, as it would hurt New York's economy and middle-class investors all around the country (Main Street including in New York). He specifically highlighted retirement plan investors. After all, many Americans had their retirement plans decimated after the Wall Street debacle and he may feel some responsibility for that too - my own words not his of course. Protecting middle-class investors from the FTT is Scretary Geithner's stated position as well.

With Senator Schumer saying a clear no to the FTT at this juncture, I highly doubt that a FTT could see any light of day. Senator Schumer is known as a great vote counter, a major fund raiser for the Democrats and he usually gets his ducks in order with other leaders before committing himself on positions. That probably includes Chairman of Ways and Means Charlie Rangel (D-NY). The Chicago leaders like Senator Dick Durbin and even Emmanuel probably have this all worked out already and the FTT is probably dead in the water.

The President is already being embraced on the global stage with the bank fee plan and the IMF seems to be enforcing that. This ship has sailed in my view. Only Republicans can call the ship back into port and they are not going to reconstitute a FTT either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: senator@schumer.senate.gov [mailto:senator@schumer.senate.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:56 AM
To: rgreen@greencompany.com
Subject: A message from Senator Charles E. Schumer


Dear Mr. Green:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the financial transaction tax proposed by Rep. Peter DeFazio. I share your concerns about the timing of this legislation and the disproportionate impact it could have on New York's economy.

As proposed, the tax would be levied at a rate of 0.25 percent on the sale and purchase of stocks, options, and futures. While I understand and appreciate the frustrations many Americans have with Wall Street, I fear that this legislation has the potential to harm economic recovery efforts by deterring capital investment. I am particularly concerned about the burden a transaction tax would put on the investments of middle-class Americans, such as pension plans, which are already struggling to meet funding requirements, as well as other retirement investments, such as 401(k)s and IRAs. According to the most recent Retirement Confidence Survey, the number of workers who believe they have enough money to retire comfortably is the lowest in over a decade. Congress must take great care not to harm the solvency of retirement plans.

Again, thank your contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other, matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
 
Quote from Robert A. Green:

I just received the same reply from Senator Schumer that someone else did today too and just posted. I sent my Petition a month ago and other Congressman replied much faster. I am guessing that Senator Schumer remained very quiet on this whole controversy of the FTT and Wall Street, while he tried to appease his constituency (Wall Street), progressive forces in the Democratic party, and because he got an early heads-up on the White House and Treasury’s big-bank fee. Only after the bank fee was announced, and there was some debate in the media, and even after Scott Brown won the MA Senate seat last night (turning the populist forces in a different direction), did Senator Schumer send out these email replies all at once it appears. He seemed to be holding his position until he saw the “whites of their eyes” or Tea Party tea leaves.

I interpret this reply email from Senator Schumer as follows. That Senator Schumer is solidly against the FTT, as it would hurt New York's economy and middle-class investors all around the country (Main Street including in New York). He specifically highlighted retirement plan investors. After all, many Americans had their retirement plans decimated after the Wall Street debacle and he may feel some responsibility for that too - my own words not his of course. Protecting middle-class investors from the FTT is Scretary Geithner's stated position as well.

With Senator Schumer saying a clear no to the FTT at this juncture, I highly doubt that a FTT could see any light of day. Senator Schumer is known as a great vote counter, a major fund raiser for the Democrats and he usually gets his ducks in order with other leaders before committing himself on positions. That probably includes Chairman of Ways and Means Charlie Rangel (D-NY). The Chicago leaders like Senator Dick Durbin and even Emmanuel probably have this all worked out already and the FTT is probably dead in the water.

The President is already being embraced on the global stage with the bank fee plan and the IMF seems to be enforcing that. This ship has sailed in my view. Only Republicans can call the ship back into port and they are not going to reconstitute a FTT either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: senator@schumer.senate.gov [mailto:senator@schumer.senate.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:56 AM
To: rgreen@greencompany.com
Subject: A message from Senator Charles E. Schumer


Dear Mr. Green:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the financial transaction tax proposed by Rep. Peter DeFazio. I share your concerns about the timing of this legislation and the disproportionate impact it could have on New York's economy.

As proposed, the tax would be levied at a rate of 0.25 percent on the sale and purchase of stocks, options, and futures. While I understand and appreciate the frustrations many Americans have with Wall Street, I fear that this legislation has the potential to harm economic recovery efforts by deterring capital investment. I am particularly concerned about the burden a transaction tax would put on the investments of middle-class Americans, such as pension plans, which are already struggling to meet funding requirements, as well as other retirement investments, such as 401(k)s and IRAs. According to the most recent Retirement Confidence Survey, the number of workers who believe they have enough money to retire comfortably is the lowest in over a decade. Congress must take great care not to harm the solvency of retirement plans.

Again, thank your contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other, matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
More...

The only thing that concerns me from Schumers email is he really talks about retirment accounts protections, which gives him a nice out to vote for these bills once retirments are fully exempted. Schumer pplays this game real well and the fact that he didnt say I oppose this legislation and if it comes to a vote I will vote against this legislation. That has been the saying I have received from other senators saying specifically they will vote against the legislation if it came up for a vote. Schumer is a little weasel so I would like to think he would do whats best for his state but you cannot count on him.
 
Quote from listedguru:

Here is a new piece in Traders magazine:

"Commentary: Rest in Peace"
-Why Dr Tobn's big idea should remain buried

http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/paul-krugman-james-tobin-transaction-tax-104922-1.html?pg=1

"Thanks to all the socially useless short-term trading, IBM today has a penny-wide spread, meaning that the little guy's round-trip transaction costs including spreads are about $21. Now add the tax bill of $164, plus increased commissions (since without market makers, retail rebates would go away), and finally add significantly increased spreads (again due to the lack of market making), and I estimate the round-trip cost of 500 shares of IBM would be approximately $300, more than 14 times what it costs today."

"Another way to put the cost in perspective is to view it through the prism of Regulation NMS. As part of the National Market System reforms, exchange fees were capped at 0.3 cents per share in 2007. At 25 basis points, the Tobin Tax on IBM would be a whopping 33 cents per share, more than 110 times the cap the SEC put on the transaction."

-Guru
More...

I like this too. I've been thinking for days - every time a proponent of FTT makes the case that a FTT can rein in wasted excessive business and financial transactions – I think what's your point? More transactions and more business are good for an economy not bad. It feeds jobs for brokers and an entire financial services industry. As long as you don't go backwards and people are making money and going forwards, what's wrong with more business? How does restraint on business help?

They always compare trading to a casino and I don't like that comparison. But look at a casino analogy here. If they put a large FTT on gambling transactions, so people don't bet as much that would close half the casinos in Las Vegas; which then reaches the tipping point for failure. Las Vegas might then dry up in the dessert. With half the casinos, they probably can’t draw all the collateral entertainment and real estate development etc. Where’s the logic in a tax to kill off business?

This whole concept of tying up risk for the long-term and discouraging business and transactions is Un-American and it makes no sense. Here’s a restaurant analogy too. Why not charge more for a meal because you don't have volume to bring down costs, and seat 5 tables a night, versus letting 25 families eat well - and surviving - on the same overhead, and with a better bottom line feeding more families?.

These FTT advocates all sound like others in the world who want people to turn back the clock to another time. Like non-civil law or It's a Wonderful Life the movie, or a Norman Rockwell painting. Get with it people. We have super fast computers on iphones now, we have apps, we have super fast access and services, it is what it is. Don't turn back the clock on technology and innovation in financial services and business. Progress feeds families and advancement-obstructionists put people out of work.
 
Quote from listedguru:

"White House, Democratic lawmakers cut deal on deficit commission"

Faced with growing alarm over the nation's soaring debt, the White House and congressional Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday to create an independent budget commission and to put its recommendations for fiscal solvency to a vote in Congress by the end of this year.

Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- that threaten to drive the nation's debt to levels not seen since World War II.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011903310_pf.html

We need to keep an eye on this. Let's hope they don't try and sneak in a FTT...

-Guru
More...



I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but could this article be wrong on the number of votes the Republicans need to derail any proposal on this commission?
As the article states, the panel would have 18 members, six members appointed by congressional Democrats, and six members appointed by congressional Republicans. Then Obama would appoint the remaining six members, of which only four could be Democrats. So, if I add everything up, that's a total of ten seats on the commission for Democrats, and eight for the Republicans. If this is the case, as stated in the article, the commission would need fourteen votes to pass anything. If that fourteen vote threshold is true, then wouldn't the commission need a total of four Republican votes in order to pass anything??? The article states that the commission would only need two Republican votes to move forward with any legislation. I think that is wrong, as the math doesn't add up. I think they would need four Republicans. Maybe the author made an error on this? Or me?

***Or, the only thing I can think of is that Obama could appoint two Independents out of the remaining lot that should be for Republicans, which would mean the the GOP would only have six members instead of eight.. Maybe that's why they say the panel would only need two Republican votes to go forward.
In any event, I suppose this is moot because you won't find any Republicans that would agree to a FTT, or any type of tax on this commission.
 
keep in mind that Obama and his cohorts believe that your income belongs to the government. any money they let u spend they are doing you a favor. they don't believe in free markets. making a living from trading is considered to be immoral. they believe in a nanny state which controls your behavior. bottom line the transaction tax is coming unless you fight to delay the legislative process. unless there is a big change as a result of the 2010 congressional elections. the transaction tax will happen.
 
Quote from rc822:

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but could this article be wrong on the number of votes the Republicans need to derail any proposal on this commission?
As the article states, the panel would have 18 members, six members appointed by congressional Democrats, and six members appointed by congressional Republicans. Then Obama would appoint the remaining six members, of which only four could be Democrats. So, if I add everything up, that's a total of ten seats on the commission for Democrats, and eight for the Republicans. If this is the case, as stated in the article, the commission would need fourteen votes to pass anything. If that fourteen vote threshold is true, then wouldn't the commission need a total of four Republican votes in order to pass anything??? The article states that the commission would only need two Republican votes to move forward with any legislation. I think that is wrong, as the math doesn't add up. I think they would need four Republicans. Maybe the author made an error on this? Or me?

***Or, the only thing I can think of is that Obama could appoint two Independents out of the remaining lot that should be for Republicans, which would mean the the GOP would only have six members instead of eight.. Maybe that's why they say the panel would only need two Republican votes to go forward.
In any event, I suppose this is moot because you won't find any Republicans that would agree to a FTT, or any type of tax on this commission.
More...

Yeah I read a couple of other pieces about this proposed commission and it sounds like a joke. They mentioned needing super majorities in both the house and senate to pass any recommendations that came out of the commission (if they ever did). Sounds like a lot of fluff to me:)

There is this commission that Obama would initiate and their is also a bill in the Senate from Senators Gregg and Conrad. Their bill does have 34 co sponsors but I read it doesn't have the votes for passage.

Here is a link to the Conrad Gregg bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2853

-Guru



-Guru
 
Quote from zdreg:

keep in mind that Obama and his cohorts believe that your income belongs to the government. any money they let u spend they are doing you a favor. they don't believe in free markets. making a living from trading is considered to be immoral. they believe in a nanny state which controls your behavior. bottom line the transaction tax is coming unless you fight to delay the legislative process. unless there is a big change as a result of the 2010 congressional elections. the transaction tax will happen.
More...

There will be a big change coming as a result of the 2010 mid term elections and there is no way a TT is going to happen:)

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