1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Cant we all just get alongWelcome to the thread Scott.
This thread was originally set up to be a rapid response notification system to traders to immediately get our viewpoint out to anyone in the media or Government who brings up the idea of the transaction tax.
There's far too many people in the general public who want to attack Wall Street & would love to see this tax become law. This is reflected in the supportive online replies in comment sections following articles in national papers such as the NY Times to blogs focussed on non-traders. This thread is designed to flood those comment sections with OUR viewpoint to counterbalance the pro-tax view. As you can see, we've been doing this for quite a while & will continue to as the idea continues to float around as the Government increasingly needs more & more revenue in the coming years.
There's always a fine line when mentioning this tax. For those who are unaware of it, it could actually plant the seed in their heads that it's not a bad idea. For those that ARE aware of it AND mention it, it's essential to shoot the idea down to them immediately.
The latest example of backfiring in the online replies was with Erin Burnett on CNBC. She came out on Street Signs with an entire segment on the tax & said multiple times that it was a "tantalizing idea" (her words) and continued to say how such a small tax wouldn't be a big deal. Well, the encouragement from folks on this thread went out to email her. People did. and did. and did. Unfortunately, several weeks later she came out with yet ANOTHER full segment on the tax because she said she received such a big response from the first segment. Everytime this idea is brought up, it makes our situation worse as the anti wall street general public salivates over the idea. You mentioned in your post about talking to the media about the tax. Erin Burnett may be one to NOT talk to about it. She's only fanning the flames of the idea.
We had a lot of successes though. Replies to an online story by James Pethokoukis from Reuters, returned us a second story quoting some of the replies sent from folks here as well as a repeating of those quotes on Kudlow's show in a transaction tax debate segment. We've also had enough people write Charles Schumer that a reply from him was sent to one of the folks here with his anti-tax viewpoint. We also helped ignite the online petition that you may have seen that was sent to Congress signed by thousands of traders. More will be done going forward as conditions warrant.
Thanks for stopping by here and, again, GREAT job in getting the trader's viewpoint right to Tim Geithner in your follow up question at Buttonwood.
Have a great weekend.
Hey Scott:
Outstanding question and follow-up at the Economist event.
My recommendation would be to appear on CNBC...so far those they have picked to oppose this tax have been undereducated on the negative consequences of this tax. An appearance on CNBC would be beneficial in that they have a wide viewership.
I would also welcome any suggestion from you as to how we may be able to further the opposition to this tax.
OldTrader
There's a comment section at the end of this article that could use some posts. Look at comment #1. That's what we're fighting.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/transaction-tax-is-floated-on-capitol-hill/
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/transaction-tax-is-floated-on-capitol-hill/
When posting about opposition to this tax lets keep it to what it can really do to main street, I am talking about the harm it can inflict. When I post to comments section on articles or when I write congressman or senators, I focus on the true harm. The tax on is indeed on mainstreet like the gentleman who asked the question to Geitner said. I do not focus how it will put us as traders out of buisness but do focus on job losses on big firms, and all back office support of the firms ranging from the traders the back office, the support as it flows down the line as well as different outside companies who will lose business based on these firms going under as well. Also I like to point out while traders are being villified by the media it was not infact traders who caused this crisis. I try to focus blame where it belongs on teh originators of the mortgage backed securities as well as exotic derivatives.
I also tell them a story of my retired grandfather during this crisis, whom was a bus driver for 40 years and retired. He was frugal in his years and saved and put into retirement and saved in his personal accounts so he can have a decent life for his family when he retires. He sacrificed his whole life to save. I told them how he lost money as well during this crisis. But also he has made money in years before and has paid his capital gains taxes. We had to sell alot of his portfolio last year and then get back in when things calmed down. Now if they had the .25% tax when we sold out for a loss why should a man in his 90s have to pay another 5-10k in transaction taxes on top of the loss he already took and then have to pay it again to get back into the market. Haven't these elderly people lost enough, they need their money for retirement to support their life, their medicines that they nedd to buy etc. But this tax will directly effect the livelhood of these people. He has had to rebalance a few times over the [ast few years, and maybe would have paid close to 50k in this transaction taxes. Thats a killer for the people they are trying to protect, but now they are trying to kill the livelhood of people on mainstreet with this tax. So I rty to focus on real examples of where it will hurt mainstreet, becuase they keep harping on how it wont be felt by mainstreet. My 2 cents.
I also tell them a story of my retired grandfather during this crisis, whom was a bus driver for 40 years and retired. He was frugal in his years and saved and put into retirement and saved in his personal accounts so he can have a decent life for his family when he retires. He sacrificed his whole life to save. I told them how he lost money as well during this crisis. But also he has made money in years before and has paid his capital gains taxes. We had to sell alot of his portfolio last year and then get back in when things calmed down. Now if they had the .25% tax when we sold out for a loss why should a man in his 90s have to pay another 5-10k in transaction taxes on top of the loss he already took and then have to pay it again to get back into the market. Haven't these elderly people lost enough, they need their money for retirement to support their life, their medicines that they nedd to buy etc. But this tax will directly effect the livelhood of these people. He has had to rebalance a few times over the [ast few years, and maybe would have paid close to 50k in this transaction taxes. Thats a killer for the people they are trying to protect, but now they are trying to kill the livelhood of people on mainstreet with this tax. So I rty to focus on real examples of where it will hurt mainstreet, becuase they keep harping on how it wont be felt by mainstreet. My 2 cents.
Not sure what you mean exactly GKI, if you mean has it been done in history sure it was done for a long while after ww2.
If you are talking about modern history, I would say no. I think no matter how they tax even if they just tax the businesses on their transactions and not the customer it will flow down so we will have to pay for the increased overhead. But if I am wrong here or not talking about the same thing as you are asking explain to me a little more in depth of what you mean and I will try to see and do my best to answer.
If you are talking about modern history, I would say no. I think no matter how they tax even if they just tax the businesses on their transactions and not the customer it will flow down so we will have to pay for the increased overhead. But if I am wrong here or not talking about the same thing as you are asking explain to me a little more in depth of what you mean and I will try to see and do my best to answer.
The transaction tax ( even if we call it "a tax") is not like any other tax. Normally the taxes are levied on profits from businesses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#Corporation_tax
This one is not charged on profits but it actually increases the overhead cost of the trading business since it is charged on every business transactions with the purpose to suppress the traders business activity. This tax is more like a tool of punishment ( that stops short of outright ban ) .
So I wonder if there were any examples in the history of taxation when the tax was used to increase the overhead cost of a business? What business was that and how was it taxed?
P.S: In my post overhead cost of a business is pretax expenditure.