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

Quote from MrPowerBallad:

just watched the video -- according to barney rubble, "something like this [transaction tax]" is coming within four years as mandated by some amendment to TARP . . . this is shaping up to be something that'll be breathing down our necks until it's voted on or someone does a study about why it will fail . . . at least the senator that brought it up (Lynch from MA) was only referring to stocks and not futures or currency.
More...

watch Frank's comments again.

He suggests starting a phase in of the tax now.
 
Quote from Wayne Gibbous:

We are all f*cked if this POS passes... :(
More...

From what Franks said in the video, transactional financial fees will be mandatory in 4 years- not an option. He wants it to start soon in small increments. Now if it was .025%, profitable traders can stomach it, but .25% will surely kill most of them.
 
<i>Let this be a lesson to those traders who vote democrat.</i>

I have heard right-wingers such as Jack Welch says he is fine with this tax.

So, unless the Republicans filibuster it, it really doesn't matter which party is in power. They are both represented by idiots. The GOP can stop this in the senate if they want to.
 
Quote from JOSEF:

<i>Let this be a lesson to those traders who vote democrat.</i>

I have heard right-wingers such as Jack Welch says he is fine with this tax.

So, unless the Republicans filibuster it, it really doesn't matter which party is in power. They are both represented by idiots. The GOP can stop this in the senate if they want to.
More...

I would like to think, and hope, there would at least be a handful of dems opposed also.

Hedge funds have given so much money to dems, you would think that would mean something.
 
The US is selling away her spot as the financial capitol of the world. Everything else is being given away. Obviously India wants a portion of it.

Just a day or two ago India's finance ministry drafted a proposal to remove their securities transaction tax.
 
Quote from seasideheights:

Forward to 5:12 in the Archived Webcast

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/hr021109.shtml


Frank talks about phasing the transaction tax in now.
More...

For some reason I am having trouble with the audio on my pc but I did watch this part of the testimony live on TV yesterday and here is my take:

Senator Lynch asked the panel of bankers their thoughts on a transaction tax on every share of stock traded (I think he mentioned a % but I don't recall the amount. Anyway most of the bankers said it might be something to look at but the guy from MSCO seemed to raise some doubts about it...

At that point Barney Frank mentioned something about Tanner's proposal from the original TARP regarding repayment of that money (should the taxpayers lose). This proposal of Tanner's calls for a 2% tax on the profits of financial services firms until the amount of the taxpayers loss was payed back:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...provision_in_Wall_Street_bailout_package.html

Frank then said something about phasing the tax in (tanner's proposal called for the tax to be levied after a period of 5 years or so). I believe that Frank was referring to phasing in this tax on the profits of financial services firms (not the transaction tax)..

Barney Frank just sponsored a piece of legislation (HR 384) basically a reform of the TARP proposal. An early amendment to this legislation was the .25% transaction tax from Defazio, etc but that got thrown out of the bill (which passed the house) and is in the Senate currently. Wouldn't Barney Frank have left that amendment in the bill if he was for this tax?

I may be wrong on this but that is my take on it,

-Guru
 
and another thing..


what the fuck is all this talk about the billions the govt will be getting in dividends on their prefered in addition to all the fuck face ceo's saying the govt will end up making money in their fucking bank investments.

then why the fuck talk about a fucking tax on trades.. jesus! I can't fucking stand a**holes.
 
Quote from risktaker:

That's entirely correct!

The idiots who bring up the UK as an example of a country with a transaction tax on stocks are just that, idiots!

Traders there pay NO tax on daytrading activities. In fact, most of the "professional" platforms have ways to 'designate' LSE transactions as all being 'CFDs' so you won't pay stamp duty.

Some brokers, however, like IB, have no way around that issue, which still leaves me puzzled.

So it appears most of the transaction tax being paid in the UK are by mom 'n pop bagholders and other entities which due to certain regulations are forced to pay. And even then, many are for *abolishing* the ripoff fee.
More...

Yep, thats right. I am starting to beleive this proposed tax has more to do with reconsolidating institutional power in the market place.

Why do you say IB has no way of implementing a swap/cfd business?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top