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

Quote from rsikit:

You beat me to it GURU:) I was just typing about the article to you:)
More...

Yeah I remember Frank talking about that provision when he was grilling the bankers, etc. I really don't think he's for it (not an outright transaction tax anyway). I think he's thinking more along the lines of a tax on banks (or a one time fee, etc). At least thats what it sounds like to me. Even that line from Volcker doesn't sound like it's really feasible. And we know where Larry Summers stands. In the end I think we'll be okay.

Like you say hopefully they will just kill this and move on (then we can sleep at night:)

-Guru
 
Exactly just get this crap over with already. Day by day now, first they need to pass a regulation reform bill without this provisiion then the healthcare bill without this provision. It seems they just want money any way possible. So they are getting things together next week for the house to vote on the regulation bill, lets hope its not in there. Its in Franks Committee. I always use this website as well, www.futuresindustry.org

It has news each day about goings on in the futures industry and stocks and currencies, regulation wise. They are a lobby of sorts but the biggest one in the industry. Check them out
FIA’s regular members represent 90% of the customer business conducted on U.S. futures markets and, with their affiliates, a significant portion of the U.S. customer business executed on non-U.S. markets.
Approximately 50% of FIA’s revenues come from regular member dues.

The principal objectives of the FIA are to:

Represent industry views before Congress
Seek regulatory relief for exchanges and intermediaries in the U.S. and abroad
Promote global futures business regardless of location
Assure that the financial integrity of the markets, clearinghouses, and clearing members is always considered
Educate and inform market participants, the press, regulators, and legislative bodies


I look at it for new regulation and what not but have not seen anything of a worry or mention about the tax yet in the past few months I have looked at it, I look each day. Its also just good to read regardless:)
 
Here is a link to the article in the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125512957855977163.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

The only reason congress is looking at this is for it's (falsely) perceived revenue producing potential. I think thats the best angle for us to attack this. We need to stress the point that this won't produce anywhere near the revenue thats being talked about. In the end it would probably be a net negative reveunue producer overall. If you read the article everyone has these grand ideas about what to do with this great windfall.

Maybe if congress actually commissioned a study of a potential transaction tax like Volcker mentions then the lunacy of this ill advised tax would come to light. I really believe that Main St. would be outraged once they found out this is basically a huge retirement and 401K tax.



-Guru
 
I will be writing to Congress committees and reps in Chicago and NY to main financial centers, even though they arent my reps it doesnt matter this thing affects us all.
 
This is what you get when you put douche bag Democrats in charge. I could see the House passing something like this, but it would never pass the Senate, even thought the Dems. have the "so called" 60 votes. I know the Republicans would immediately filibuster this, and I highly doubt there would be anywhere close to 60 votes to kill the filibuster, as there are many anti-tax, moderate conservative Democrats in the Senate. But if this ends up as a one time fee imposed on the banks, etc... instead of a permanent transactions tax on investors, then it might pass through Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top