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

I don't see how any transaction tax would pass the Senate, as there are Democrats that won't support it. I don't even think there would be enough support from Dems. in the House to include a trans. tax in any final bill they draft, as there's no way the Conservative Blue Dog Dems. would go along. They have already given in to the wicked witch-bitch Pelosi on Cap & Trade, and Healthcare, and with the entire House of Reps. up for grabs in 2010, the conservative Dems. will oppose any type of taxes, including a tax on financial transactions. Even Barney Frank has come out and stated his concerns over implementing such a tax, as the amounts of capital that will flee our markets would be staggering. I believe he mentioned that he's more supportive of levying fees on the banks as an alternative to any trans. tax.
In any event, I'll still contact my congressional reps. and tell them just how bad of an idea this is.
 
Quote from listedguru:

In the end of the above piece it says this:

* A transaction tax on over-the-counter trades in unregulated "dark markets" (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Thomas Ferraro and Donna Smith; editing by Philip Barbara and Todd Eastham)...

That doesn't sound like a tax on stocks to me? Hmmm...Interesting. Even Defazio mentions other methods they are looking at for funding the bill.

-Guru
More...


One minute some congressman is saying the tax would only cover stock trades, then another says it would only cover OTC unregulated derivatives, and then another says it would cover everything. Typical politicians.
 
Quote from Jks787s:

Even Barney Frank has come out and stated his concerns over implementing such a tax, as the amounts of capital that will flee our markets would be staggering.
More...

I think this misses the point. Politicians are talking about passing this in nearly every country. Capital won't have any place to flee to. Better to stop it right here.

OldTrader
 
Quote from OldTrader:

I think this misses the point. Politicians are talking about passing this in nearly every country. Capital won't have any place to flee to. Better to stop it right here.

OldTrader
More...

I agree we need to stop it here as well. A lot of countries have been talking about it but nevertheless there are plenty who would not mind being the financial hub , the Swiss are one who do not favor this, Sweden etc so there could be some new and safe places for our capital to flee.
 
Here is some info on Defazio's new transaction tax proposal from Politico:

And the anti-Wall Street sentiment is such that progressives are pressing for a new fee on securities transactions to help pay for “Main Street” job creation.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told POLITICO that he expects to file the proposal this week after making refinements to shield public employee pension funds and small investors, defined as persons trading less than $100,000 a year.

“That takes care of all the hot-button issues, and that just leaves the huge firms and the huge traders,” DeFazio said. Companies that move their transactions into exchanges overseas would still be vulnerable: “We’re going to make it [so that] any U.S. entity which trades is responsible for the tax. So if you say you’re just going to trade in Hong Kong to avoid the tax, no, you owe the money.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29647.html

Well I guess we're all considered 'huge traders' in his mind:(

-Guru
 
The bill still looks like crap. Doesnt protect 401k, IRA'S , insurance polices etc. All these detaols make the bill sound worse then eht first. Say basicall 100k, so there limiting customers to 1 or 2 trades a years? This is pretty ridiculous , I dont think its got to much of a shot.
 
Check this out: Both Frank and Rangel don't sound too keen on a transaction tax proposal:

From the Congressional Quarterly Today:


http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...&topicId=100007424&docId=l:1076519501&start=7


John B. Larson, D-Conn., chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, suggested paying for the bill by including a measure he wrote (HR 3153) that would impose a 0.25 percent tax on transactions involving certain unregulated derivatives and other financial products.

"Rangel and Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., downplayed the idea. "I'll have to check with my mayor and see what is going on back home," said Rangel, whose city depends on jobs in the financial services industry."

"Frank said the tax could put U.S. companies at a disadvantage. "You couldn't even begin to do that unless it was internationally harmonized," he said. "

"Additionally, the regulatory overhaul for the financial industry that lawmakers are debating would cover many of those trades, potentially shrinking the base for the transaction tax."
 
Rangel is the main person for this , since he is the chairman of the committee that can pass this tax or not, House ways and means are the ones that can pass tax legislation like this. So thats who we want behind it. Frank always used the international harmony to downplay it. He knows there are countries who want this but not enough to get international harmony!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top