1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
You gotta believe this comment from Geithner was very favorable. The "administration" does not favor? Yeah, baby! I'm not concerned about the comment "not having seen a version". What version would be any different than another other than changing the amount of the tax?
What we need is some strong statements from Congress opposing the tax, but meanwhile, you gotta like this comment.
OldTrader
What we need is some strong statements from Congress opposing the tax, but meanwhile, you gotta like this comment.
OldTrader
I agree. "Not see or heard something that is acceptable" That was his comment this time and a few weeks ago, there has been every possible tax rate and type of tax on different instruments under the sun, so he has seen a lot, and they still do not make sense, he even advocated today on a bank of or insurnace premium like he was talking about last time not a transaction tax, and just like the IMF stated they wanted, but great to hear domestically, well done on capitol hill
WSJ blog on tran tax
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/...n-main-street-or-saving-jobs-on-capitol-hill/
The move to impose a transactions tax on Wall Street â formally unveiled in the House on Tuesday â also appears to mark a significant assertion of independence by some rank-and-file Democrats, in the face of skepticism from the Obama administration.
The administration has signaled it has reservations both about the Wall Street tax and about the new infrastructure spending that it likely would pay for. But some Democrats say privately that theyâve grown impatient with the policy direction of some administration economic experts, whom they regard as out of touch with Main Street problems.
In particular, some administration officials see infrastructure spending as too slow to have the desired impact on the economy and job creation. They also have warned that a transaction tax must be coordinated with other financial centers, such as the United Kingdom, a process that could take years.
But proponents say the taxâs effective date could be set several years in the future, giving the U.S. time to work out an agreement with the U.K. and other money centers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/...n-main-street-or-saving-jobs-on-capitol-hill/
The move to impose a transactions tax on Wall Street â formally unveiled in the House on Tuesday â also appears to mark a significant assertion of independence by some rank-and-file Democrats, in the face of skepticism from the Obama administration.
The administration has signaled it has reservations both about the Wall Street tax and about the new infrastructure spending that it likely would pay for. But some Democrats say privately that theyâve grown impatient with the policy direction of some administration economic experts, whom they regard as out of touch with Main Street problems.
In particular, some administration officials see infrastructure spending as too slow to have the desired impact on the economy and job creation. They also have warned that a transaction tax must be coordinated with other financial centers, such as the United Kingdom, a process that could take years.
But proponents say the taxâs effective date could be set several years in the future, giving the U.S. time to work out an agreement with the U.K. and other money centers.
These articles keep mentioning the same old names over and over again. I'd say this thing doesn't have any momentum at all (esp with the Geithner comments, etc). Let's put a fork in it and kill it once and for all
-Guru