You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Obama at end of speaking to business leaders: 'Everyone benefits from getting away from short-term gratification and looking for steady long-term growth' 'How do we stop frothy speculation from building up' I'm probably paranoid but applied to the markets this equals preferably long-term investing only equals something like transtax might be ok... I'm paranoid.
DeFazio comes off as such a fucktard. He points to 1931, as if the same circumstances apply as today. He also speaks disparagingly of active traders as "churners" -- as if people should buy and hold for 20yrs, even if it means riding through the massive destruction in wealth over the last year and a half. With his bill, if I were even to do just 2 RT trades of $100k each per month, I would end up paying a staggering $6k/yr in fees. I REALLY hope this bill is DOA in committee.Quote from seasideheights:
defazio interview on fox business news from March 4.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/video-se...man-sounds-off-on-taxing-trades.htm#q=defazio
Quote from HotTip:
DeFazio comes off as such a fucktard. He points to 1931, as if the same circumstances apply as today. He also speaks disparagingly of active traders as "churners" -- as if people should buy and hold for 20yrs, even if it means riding through the massive destruction in wealth over the last year and a half. With his bill, if I were even to do just 2 RT trades of $100k each per month, I would end up paying a staggering $6k/yr in fees. I REALLY hope this bill is DOA in committee.
Didn't he start pushing for this in 2000? Maybe he bought the top of the tech bubble and failed to bail. He really hates short term traders. It almost seems he blames them for the market corrections.
What about mutual funds that have high turnover rates and trade million of dollars worth of securities?
To buy 10 Million worth of stock and then to sell 10 million, would cost $50,000. Their trading costs would go through the roof.
Do you think that they are going to absorb these cost? Not Likely! They will probably jack up management fees on funds that long term investors hold in their personal accounts/401Ks.
The buy and hold guys need to think about how this tax could reach them.
To buy 10 Million worth of stock and then to sell 10 million, would cost $50,000. Their trading costs would go through the roof.
Do you think that they are going to absorb these cost? Not Likely! They will probably jack up management fees on funds that long term investors hold in their personal accounts/401Ks.
The buy and hold guys need to think about how this tax could reach them.
Quote from HotTip:
I REALLY hope this bill is DOA in committee.
It almost certainly will be. DeFasio has no pull, and this bill isn't exactly teeming with co-sponsors.
IMO, people should be focusing more on HR 676, which has a SLIGHTLY better chance of passing since it's a health care bill in a year when health care is high on the president's agenda. Yes this exact same bill has been submitted twice before and failed, but that was when Bush was president. See section 211 of this bill for the actual language (very vague compared to HR 1068). Luckily, Obama seems less inclined toward single-payer coverage now than he was in the past.
Also, people concerned about a transaction tax might want to closely monitor whatever Barney (Rubble) Frank comes up with in his financial overhaul effort in the next few months. If you saw the congressional hearing someone posted several pages back, the guy seems pretty comfortable with this tax, and his forthcoming financial overhaul legislation is at the request of the president.
Finally, if you're stressed about this tax, you can always look at the fact that it was included in the TARP bill and then pulled out before the bill passed. So someone knows the tax is a bad idea.
I got this reply for Congressman Bilbray. Encouraging, however the Republicans are way outnumbered.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding investments. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
In the last century, the stock market has been a symbol of America's economy. When it went up, our economy prospered, when it went down, our economy faltered. Still, for most of the last century most Americans had little direct investment in the stock market, but over the last two decades this fact has changed dramatically. Today, more than ever before, the average American has a direct stake in the market. Whether it has been through direct purchases of stock or through retirement funds like IRA's or 401k's, the stock market has become an invaluable tool for individuals and businesses to save for retirement.
Over the last year, we have seen our economy struggle and hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into our financial markets in an effort to stabilize these assets. In a proposal to pay for the costs of these bailouts, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) introduced H.R. 1068, the Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act, on February 13, 2009. This bill would impose a tax of up to .25 percent on all security transactions as a mechanism to pay for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and other bailouts. While well intentioned as an effort to protect the taxpayer, I strongly believe that this bill will do more harm than good. With American's long term financial health increasingly tied to the stock market it is ill advised to place a tax on investment that will hurt our middle class even as their retirement accounts are disappearing. If this bill comes before the House of Representatives in its current form, I will oppose it.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any questions, please call me or my office at (202) 225-0508.
Sincerely,
Brian Bilbray
Member of Congress
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding investments. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
In the last century, the stock market has been a symbol of America's economy. When it went up, our economy prospered, when it went down, our economy faltered. Still, for most of the last century most Americans had little direct investment in the stock market, but over the last two decades this fact has changed dramatically. Today, more than ever before, the average American has a direct stake in the market. Whether it has been through direct purchases of stock or through retirement funds like IRA's or 401k's, the stock market has become an invaluable tool for individuals and businesses to save for retirement.
Over the last year, we have seen our economy struggle and hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into our financial markets in an effort to stabilize these assets. In a proposal to pay for the costs of these bailouts, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) introduced H.R. 1068, the Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act, on February 13, 2009. This bill would impose a tax of up to .25 percent on all security transactions as a mechanism to pay for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and other bailouts. While well intentioned as an effort to protect the taxpayer, I strongly believe that this bill will do more harm than good. With American's long term financial health increasingly tied to the stock market it is ill advised to place a tax on investment that will hurt our middle class even as their retirement accounts are disappearing. If this bill comes before the House of Representatives in its current form, I will oppose it.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any questions, please call me or my office at (202) 225-0508.
Sincerely,
Brian Bilbray
Member of Congress
Quote from MrPowerBallad:
It almost certainly will be. DeFasio has no pull, and this bill isn't exactly teeming with co-sponsors.
IMO, people should be focusing more on HR 676, which has a SLIGHTLY better chance of passing since it's a health care bill in a year when health care is high on the president's agenda. Yes this exact same bill has been submitted twice before and failed, but that was when Bush was president. See section 211 of this bill for the actual language (very vague compared to HR 1068). Luckily, Obama seems less inclined toward single-payer coverage now than he was in the past.
Also, people concerned about a transaction tax might want to closely monitor whatever Barney (Rubble) Frank comes up with in his financial overhaul effort in the next few months. If you saw the congressional hearing someone posted several pages back, the guy seems pretty comfortable with this tax, and his forthcoming financial overhaul legislation is at the request of the president.
Finally, if you're stressed about this tax, you can always look at the fact that it was included in the TARP bill and then pulled out before the bill passed. So someone knows the tax is a bad idea.
Well what no has asked him yet or pointed out is that he first offered this tax in 2000. There was no TARP then.
Someone needs to ask him why he offered it in 2000. I wouldn't be surprised if he had lost a lot of money daytrading back in 1999 and just is out for revenge. I would love for someone to ask him if he use to daytrade.
John
Quote from jficquette:
Well what no has asked him yet or pointed out is that he first offered this tax in 2000. There was no TARP then.
Someone needs to ask him why he offered it in 2000. I wouldn't be surprised if he had lost a lot of money daytrading back in 1999 and just is out for revenge. I would love for someone to ask him if he use to daytrade.
John
Or he may be a long term investor blaming day traders for his losses whenever the market drops like many others do on this site.
One site said he used to be a bicycle repairman.
He certainly wasn't cut out for that and had to take a toilet dive and be a politician.