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

The Power of this thread.


Folks in this thread replied to James Pethokoukis's column in Reuters about the transaction tax.

Someone here submitted a comment talking about what has happened with China's markets after a transaction tax was implemented.

James Pethokoukis then used that very comment in another article he put out on Reuters.

Tonight, James Pethokoukis was on Larry Kudlow's show on cnbc. He again used that very example submitted by someone here as an argument against implementing the tax here.

Our voices DO make a difference.

Our viewpoints need to be heard.

Our opponents are being heard. We need to balance out the argument for the sake of our own trading careers.
 
Thanks for the info, seasideheights.

Would you happen to know a list of the countries that have tried this tax and repealed it? I know India is on the verge of repealing theirs, and I think someone mentioned Switzerland repealed something like this. I can't seem to find any good info on the net.

To me, one of the clearest arguments against this tax that even proponents would have a hard time defending is the fact that this experiment has already failed in other countries. That would be direct, empirical evidence that it's not worth pursuing and would speak louder than all the hot air around deterring undesirable behavior, generating a ton of money for the government, etc.
 
Brazil did it, .38 % tax, in 97 repealed in 01. Institutional traders traded on other exchanges. Volume dropped off by 60%

Read this in Trading and Exchanges p. 66, it cited article NYT September 7, 2001
"Brazil to Exempt Stock Trades from a Tax" Jennifer Rich
 
Why is no one proposing a quarter percent additional tax on all gambling? Gambling is addictive and adds no social value according to these people and you can’t make a living playing slots, craps, roulette, etc. It is just the traders who should pay? It’s OK to con minimum wage people into constantly throwing away a large percentage of their income on lottery tickets, but it is truly evil to buy and sell stocks.

A few people have pointed out that, in addition to volume going down so you don’t get as much from the tax as you think, but the number of job losses and lowered profits at brokerages, clearing firms, exchanges, etc. would most likely offset any remaining money you did make from the tax. We understand that, but I am not hearing it specifically laid out in articles and on TV.

Their basic premise is speculation is bad. Ok then you can’t speculate in anything like houses, classic cars, paintings, new businesses, and new inventions. You can’t say speculation is bad for financial markets but good everywhere else.
 
The guy on Kudlow supporting the tax says that such a tax would make the markets more efficient: how would forcing an investor to hold a stock UNTIL he covers his tax bite (likely to be an extra $0.25 cents (give or take) more efficient than having someone enter a trade and get out a penny later?

Tell me idiot: how is this MORE EFFICIENT?
 
Scroll down to page 5. Seems most countries have a way to avoid the tax. Many countries have removed theirs in recent years

http://www.madhyam.org.in/admin/tender/Equitable Equity.PDF

Quote from MrPowerBallad:

Thanks for the info, seasideheights.

Would you happen to know a list of the countries that have tried this tax and repealed it? I know India is on the verge of repealing theirs, and I think someone mentioned Switzerland repealed something like this. I can't seem to find any good info on the net.

To me, one of the clearest arguments against this tax that even proponents would have a hard time defending is the fact that this experiment has already failed in other countries. That would be direct, empirical evidence that it's not worth pursuing and would speak louder than all the hot air around deterring undesirable behavior, generating a ton of money for the government, etc.
More...
 
Quote from cstfx:

The guy on Kudlow supporting the tax says that such a tax would make the markets more efficient: how would forcing an investor to hold a stock UNTIL he covers his tax bite (likely to be an extra $0.25 cents (give or take) more efficient than having someone enter a trade and get out a penny later?

Tell me idiot: how is this MORE EFFICIENT?
More...
Indeed. And the other point is, the tax would apply to losing trades as well.
Not good.
 
these liberals/progressives won't be happy until every man and women in the US is a mindless, obedient automaton shoveling dirt outdoors on a highway project or breaking their back on a factory line. that is their idea of productive work. pure marxist crap.

i truly wonder if liberty and capitalism will survive this administration and congress.
 
Quote from MrPowerBallad:


To me, one of the clearest arguments against this tax that even proponents would have a hard time defending is the fact that this experiment has already failed in other countries. That would be direct, empirical evidence that it's not worth pursuing and would speak louder than all the hot air around deterring undesirable behavior, generating a ton of money for the government, etc.
More...

Please place that comment at the bottom of the story at this URL. We know Mr. Pethokoukis is personally reading them.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-peth...axes-a-bad-idea-whose-time-should-never-come/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top