You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
I know this is very hard to say, but it seems like you follow this pretty well. What are the chances you thnk this sucker passes?Quote from rsikit:
Not sure yet, his first bill had 13 co sponsors but has been sitting with out action for almost a year, this bill so far as I have read in the news has 5 co sponsors
also something that I really don't get is why rather than raise taxes on each individual transaction which would decrease volume significantly and kill tons of jobs why wouldn't they just raises taxes on the net, say increase the cap gains rate to 20% and add say 10% to short term trades.
There the margins for making money will still be there, volume won't drop off as much, and jobs will remain.
I remember learning about this in economics 101 about reasons to apply the tax to the net net, versus the services / processes in the middle
There the margins for making money will still be there, volume won't drop off as much, and jobs will remain.
I remember learning about this in economics 101 about reasons to apply the tax to the net net, versus the services / processes in the middle
Well I really do not know and we know there are a lot of conspiracy theories here. But in my opinion I do not think it will. First it has to pass the house and we have no idea if it will or not, there are still a lot of people against it. Only a few out of the house are for it right now. Remember this bill sat around all year with out a look. Even when asked this past week Charles Rangel, the head of the house ways and means committee said it was on the table, he said every idea was on the table. Then he said no one has talked to him or discussed it with him in his committee, and his committee is where tax law is written. So have to read between the lines. Also it was never discussed this whole year as the bill has been in that committee the whole year. Defazio and a few of his co sponsors have brought this up year after year for almost 10 years now. He gets so much air time on it now because of the crisis. Geithner said we the administration does not support the day by day transaction tax, he spoke for the administration on the at the g20 meeting, it wasn't his own speech. At the g20 he speaks for the administration. Some articles bring up that in fact Obama mentioned and is for this tax in a speech over the summer. He said he would like a financial stability fee on banks, which is what Geithner has stated at the g20, the insurance fee in case the banks destabilize again. Which is what the IMF is most focused on as well. The IMF will study the feasability of Tobin, but they already show their cards when they denounced the tobin and were for a insurance premium. Not just the Chief of the IMF but John Lipsky, the director at the IMF who is actually doing the report on it. So, since we know US owns the IMF, we have to get a glimpse of what the administration wants and we have. Now if this somehow passes the house, it will die in the senate. We know repubs vote party line, and we have gotten letters from several Democratic senators who oppose this.
All we need are a few and that's done, I am sure there are more. There are to many financial service friends in the senate, to many people in districts in NY ,Chicago etc... that have to much to lose. So the senate vote is pretty much a non issue. I am not sure about the house. I have just received letters back from senators I wrote to at this point. So I cannot speak of the house, but from what we can see, all lip service aside, there are only a few co sponsors, and we know its always the same people that are talking in favor of the tax. So far no one who counts. The articles tend to blow these things out of proportion. I have been heavily following it this year and take yesterday for example, the hill broke that story. Well that's the same story that's been around with the same bill for the past 2 weeks. The hill was slow, it had nothing new or no one new that supported it. It just got it more air time. Which we do not want. Defazio loves the airtime, because last year no one knew who the hell he was and now he is trying to be a hero. He does not care his seat on congress is safe in Oregon if you look, he is never challenged. Its always Defazio, Dean Baker or someone from His Center, John Larson, Clyburn, or Ed Perlmutter. Those are the same few always talking about this. Usually if its some sort of think tank it is left, or very left leaning think tank just like those people I just mentioned. SO there is my take, I am not into outlandish theories, that gives to much credit to the brains of these people. I just look at it in black and white and read between the lines. Like I said I have been following this here and abroad everyday for the past year so you get used to either the rhetoric, or whats really being said. Its up to you on how you see it. So far its been very predictable of whats happening and who shows support and why. My 2 cents
All we need are a few and that's done, I am sure there are more. There are to many financial service friends in the senate, to many people in districts in NY ,Chicago etc... that have to much to lose. So the senate vote is pretty much a non issue. I am not sure about the house. I have just received letters back from senators I wrote to at this point. So I cannot speak of the house, but from what we can see, all lip service aside, there are only a few co sponsors, and we know its always the same people that are talking in favor of the tax. So far no one who counts. The articles tend to blow these things out of proportion. I have been heavily following it this year and take yesterday for example, the hill broke that story. Well that's the same story that's been around with the same bill for the past 2 weeks. The hill was slow, it had nothing new or no one new that supported it. It just got it more air time. Which we do not want. Defazio loves the airtime, because last year no one knew who the hell he was and now he is trying to be a hero. He does not care his seat on congress is safe in Oregon if you look, he is never challenged. Its always Defazio, Dean Baker or someone from His Center, John Larson, Clyburn, or Ed Perlmutter. Those are the same few always talking about this. Usually if its some sort of think tank it is left, or very left leaning think tank just like those people I just mentioned. SO there is my take, I am not into outlandish theories, that gives to much credit to the brains of these people. I just look at it in black and white and read between the lines. Like I said I have been following this here and abroad everyday for the past year so you get used to either the rhetoric, or whats really being said. Its up to you on how you see it. So far its been very predictable of whats happening and who shows support and why. My 2 cents
Quote from TTrader77:
Contact Congress To Not Enact a Financial-Transaction Tax.
Traders, please join us by speaking out to defend your job and business from the government's tax axe.
Kindly click the Rally Congress link below to read and sign the petition.
http://www.rallycongress.com/greentradertax-traders-association1/
Done. Only 5th one from CT to send it. Not worried this would ever become law, but someone should start a separate thread with this. Way to go Green Tax guys, Thanks!!
Whats needed is not rants from a small population of full time daytraders, but rather a media blitz that targets ordinary people WHO DO invest in the equity markets.
Let's face it. People for this tax will argue that "its those daytraders that are screwing up the markets" which we all know is a bunch of bs.
Rather, whats needed is to simply show in real terms to the average investor that they are going to get hit with a huge liquidity tax hit for investing.
So you go for the lowest common denominator and choose a popular stock like Microsoft or Google and say "Imagine you want to invest $50,000 in Microsoft. With this new tax, you will be charged a WHOPPING $125 up front plus your $10 commission to start"
Purchase:
$50,000 * 0.25% = $125 tax
Commissions = $10
Total purchase fees: $135
Then, you tell them "This is only for the purchase price. You will also have to pay another $135 when you sell".
Sell:
$50,000 * 0.25% = $125
Commissions = $10
Total sell fees: $135
Then you say "Wall Street is a place where everybody should be able to participate without being discriminated against."
Total fees $270
Fees as of percent of trade = 5.4%
"How is this going to affect YOU as an investor when you are already 5.4% down on your investment?"
That should get things stirred up.
Let's face it. People for this tax will argue that "its those daytraders that are screwing up the markets" which we all know is a bunch of bs.
Rather, whats needed is to simply show in real terms to the average investor that they are going to get hit with a huge liquidity tax hit for investing.
So you go for the lowest common denominator and choose a popular stock like Microsoft or Google and say "Imagine you want to invest $50,000 in Microsoft. With this new tax, you will be charged a WHOPPING $125 up front plus your $10 commission to start"
Purchase:
$50,000 * 0.25% = $125 tax
Commissions = $10
Total purchase fees: $135
Then, you tell them "This is only for the purchase price. You will also have to pay another $135 when you sell".
Sell:
$50,000 * 0.25% = $125
Commissions = $10
Total sell fees: $135
Then you say "Wall Street is a place where everybody should be able to participate without being discriminated against."
Total fees $270
Fees as of percent of trade = 5.4%
"How is this going to affect YOU as an investor when you are already 5.4% down on your investment?"
That should get things stirred up.