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

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from taclander:

Is all that needs to be done is changing margin requirements. On the futures side no $500/contract margins. A minimum $2500 would be fine with me, and in reality $5000- $10,000 might actually get some of the new people to take it more serious at the outset instead of after they blow through $10,000 or $20,000 dicking around with multiple contracts before they know what the hell they are doing. Same could be applied to equities, lower leverage available.

I agree with you 100%. In fact, I think that is an innovative idea and one that definitely would work ... funny how it hasn't been presented in the past.

Quote from taclander:

In both cases, instead of blaming and screwing us little guys who make a living trading, actually enforce the regulations and make the SEC staff do their job or fire their asses. Most of the crap that happened the SEC knew was going on, but let it go either from laziness, or good payola, look the other way funny business.

Yeah, pretty digusting, aren't they?

Quote from taclander:

All another f--king tax does is give Congress more money to steal for other pet projects. It won't make it all better. It will just pick my pocket, so we can have more government employees to do the jobs of other government employees who aren't doing their job.
In other words piss off with more taxes, I pay enough all ready. I all ready pay a SEC fee when I sell securities, I pay taxes on profits. In case you can't guess, it really irritates the hell out of me when people throw out "we need to tax" this or that everytime something happens. The taxes are all ready there to pay for everything and then some. Call your Congressshithead and tell them to quit stealing your tax money. Make them act responsibly with your money, and quit picking your pockets and mine.

It's not impossible to have another revolution in America, you know ... only this time we can use information and knowledge as or weapons.

Quote from taclander:

I need to get a government job and quit working for a living.

Nah, don't do that. You wouldn't be able to look in the mirror, or even live with yourself.

Best,

 

[zdreg]

Quote from FB123:

Uhhh... no. If you think they are going to destroy the entire futures industry in the United States for the reasons that you said, you are smoking crack. For one thing, the big financial players will not allow it as it will cost them money. And as I said, even the proponents of the tax are saying that futures are treated differently, so there is pretty much nobody on your side on this argument, not even the people who want the tax. And who the heck are "they" anyways? DeFazio? The AFL-CIO? There is nobody of any consequence in government that has come out in support of this tax at all, and nobody in the entire world (other than you and couple of other people on this board) has even suggested taxing futures based on the value of the underlying contract. You are just running with nothing here. But believe what you want... I can see it's pointless to argue.

there are transaction taxes in the UK Hong Kong etc. unfortunately the timing is right for this kind of tax.

afl-cio. is powerful enough to get a bailout of their UAW members who work in the auto and auto supply industry.
they have the ear of the president.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from zdreg:

there are transaction taxes in the UK Hong Kong etc. unfortunately the timing is right for this kind of tax.

afl-cio. is powerful enough to get a bailout of their UAW members who work in the auto and auto supply industry.
they have the ear of the president. before it is over someone will claim that health insurance can be funded with a transaction tax.

 

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from zdreg:

there are transaction taxes in the UK Hong Kong etc. unfortunately the timing is right for this kind of tax.

afl-cio. is powerful enough to get a bailout of their UAW members who work in the auto and auto supply industry.
they have the ear of the president.

Yeah.

The thought of it really makes me sick. :eek:

 

[FB123]

Quote from zdreg:

there are transaction taxes in the UK Hong Kong etc. unfortunately the timing is right for this kind of tax.

afl-cio. is powerful enough to get a bailout of their UAW members who work in the auto and auto supply industry.
they have the ear of the president.

The point we were arguing wasn't whether there would be a tax or not (although I really don't think there will be). The point was that someone said that we would be taxed $250 per RT on a futures contract, and I pointed out that this could never happen. A smaller tax, possibly - but nothing that large, since it would effectively shut down the entire exchange. In any case, you have no proof that the president is listening to the AFL-CIO more than anybody else on this topic. Until someone respectable in government actually comes out in support of this, it's safe to assume that it's not happening. The United States can't unilaterally impose this type of thing anyways - it would have to be a global co-ordinated effort, or else the money would just leave and go trade somewhere else. A lot of volume that trades on US exchanges is not necessarily even traded by Americans, and those people can go trade wherever they want.

 

[skylr33]

Quote from FB123:

Uhhh... no. If you think they are going to destroy the entire futures industry in the United States for the reasons that you said, you are smoking crack. For one thing, the big financial players will not allow it as it will cost them money. And as I said, even the proponents of the tax are saying that futures are treated differently, so there is pretty much nobody on your side on this argument, not even the people who want the tax. And who the heck are "they" anyways? DeFazio? The AFL-CIO? There is nobody of any consequence in government that has come out in support of this tax at all, and nobody in the entire world (other than you and couple of other people on this board) has even suggested taxing futures based on the value of the underlying contract. You are just running with nothing here. But believe what you want... I can see it's pointless to argue.

Agreed. The AFL-CIO is comical at best. They still think their still a powerful union. lol There is no such thing anymore, just ask the UAW. This tax will never pass. Even if this cleared numerous legislative hurdles, it would never pass the Senate. The Republicans would filibuster it in a heart beat, then it would take 60 votes to break the filibuster. The banks/wall street will have enough Democratic senators paid off to ensure the filibuster doesn't get broken, and the bill get's defeated.
I wouldn't be surprised however, if fudge packer Barney Frank, and douche bag Chris Dodd try to place this type of tax into the financial regulation overhaul bill. But again, this tax will never pass, or be part of any "final" financial regulation overhaul bill.

 

[Sodajerk]

Quote from gkishot:

They don't care. They want you to "buy & hold" stocks and get yourself a real job. You are mistaking if you think they want your business. Quite the contrary.

That is the likely intent behind this. There seems to be an across the board campaign to put the brakes on financial trade volumes of certain types. Tax revenue ain't it, because, as has been pointed out, the retail side would be destroyed.

Of course, the usual loopholes would apply to GS and other big boys, who stand to expand in the process.

 

[FB123]

Quote from Sodajerk:

That is the likely intent behind this. There seems to be an across the board campaign to put the brakes on financial trade volumes of certain types. Tax revenue ain't it, because, as has been pointed out, the retail side would be destroyed.

Of course, the usual loopholes would apply to GS and other big boys, who stand to expand in the process.

What makes you think they can do that, exactly? Sooner or later the public will find out about these loopholes, because they will be obvious. Somebody will report on them, because somebody will stand to gain politically by pointing out that their opponent voted for a bill which exempted big investment houses while punishing the small trader. In today's climate with most of America having a serious hate-on for wall street, voting for a bill like that (or any type of amendment that came later) would be political suicide.

Secondly, this type of thing would reduce trading volumes and probably have a pretty negative effect on the market. In the current economic environment, do you seriously believe that they will actually do something like that? They're not all stupid like DeFazio, you know.

Finally, what makes you think that GS wants this? They need dummies to take the other sides of their trades. Less retail dummies trading = smaller position sizes & more difficult market = less profit. It's not exactly good for them either. You certainly wouldn't be able to have HFT still going on with this bill in effect, exemption or not... that would be a very obvious slap in the face of the small investor. So they will have to kill HFT, which currently makes them a bunch of money. The big players are not at all on board with this tax, and that's why it won't go anywhere.

 

[jnorty]

The people pushing the tax keep saying the main reason for it is to stop speculation and volatility. i only have one answer for that. countries who have the tax uk,hong kong and china did there mkts not drop 50-70% the same as ours? did there mkt's not scream up and down in 2008 just like ours? case closed this is
a revenue generating tax and nothing more so they need to stop the lieing and bs.

 

[rsikit]

China just lowered its tax and going to repeal it soon as are many other countries who ahd this tax and it didnt work out, google sweden and see what the result of their tax was. UK has one but also has other ways you can trade that dont have the tax, whether it be spreads, or cfd;s are which are very well regulated. We have outlawed spreads and cfd's here in the us unfortunatley