1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Yes, its no different than any negotiation process. Seller always high balls. It up to the Buyer to figure things out ;o)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a3JfW7SXZIDY
France and Brazil Seek Financial Tax to Aid Environment
They seem to think that you can just tax financial transactions to reduce unemployment, climate changes, environment, budget deficit and you name it.
Even the unions in the US and Europe are proposing a minimal tax of 0.05 to 0.1 % yet some gov officials want as much as 0.25% per side.
When did unions become smarter than governments? What a dreadful world.
France and Brazil Seek Financial Tax to Aid Environment
They seem to think that you can just tax financial transactions to reduce unemployment, climate changes, environment, budget deficit and you name it.
Even the unions in the US and Europe are proposing a minimal tax of 0.05 to 0.1 % yet some gov officials want as much as 0.25% per side.
When did unions become smarter than governments? What a dreadful world.
Here's a good read from the Denver Post bashing the tax:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_13875881
-Guru
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_13875881
-Guru
Hey Guru, hope you had happy thanksgiving. Good article.
We can all email the author of the article above, flood him with good responses to his well written article and ask him to send it to the rep in Colorado Ed Perlmutter who is sponsoring this tax. At the least the Denver Post journalist can give him an earful!
E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Thats a great idea. Thanks for the suggestion. I had a wonderful Turkey Day (hope everyone else did also
-Guru
A few things:
I do not have cable nor a dish nor do I want any more useless distractions and misinformation. So I don't really know this Cramer character nor Erin Burnett. I guess they both work for CNBC. So it's not surprising that Cramer stirred up some ratings as well as Burnett by being pro tax. Two totally self-absorbed people thinking only about themselves.
OldTrader, good posts. 50 cent spread is right. I saw a preview of a study that found 53 cent spread in 1986. Dean Baker says the tax would shrink trading activity back to the 1980's. I saw an article that said in 1992, trading volume was 3% of what it is now. So going back to the 1980's volume means they won't raise chump change with this tax on trades, not even including the huge loss in income tax from jobs lost, reduced capital gains, etc.
I think it's most important when responding to express the importance of how such a tax would substantially reduce the yields of millions of average investors much more than the tax itself, even with DeFazio's proposed $100K annual exemption or even if retirement accounts were entirely exempt. The increased spreads and increased broker fees would take a few percent off the annual yield. The fact that their lifetime gains would be 50% more without the tax should pique their interest. I don't think most people want to hear about the struggles and importance of a despised trader. It's something they don't understand. It's hard enough to inform investors how it will cost them, if they actually are investors and not welfare geniuses.
I do not have cable nor a dish nor do I want any more useless distractions and misinformation. So I don't really know this Cramer character nor Erin Burnett. I guess they both work for CNBC. So it's not surprising that Cramer stirred up some ratings as well as Burnett by being pro tax. Two totally self-absorbed people thinking only about themselves.
OldTrader, good posts. 50 cent spread is right. I saw a preview of a study that found 53 cent spread in 1986. Dean Baker says the tax would shrink trading activity back to the 1980's. I saw an article that said in 1992, trading volume was 3% of what it is now. So going back to the 1980's volume means they won't raise chump change with this tax on trades, not even including the huge loss in income tax from jobs lost, reduced capital gains, etc.
I think it's most important when responding to express the importance of how such a tax would substantially reduce the yields of millions of average investors much more than the tax itself, even with DeFazio's proposed $100K annual exemption or even if retirement accounts were entirely exempt. The increased spreads and increased broker fees would take a few percent off the annual yield. The fact that their lifetime gains would be 50% more without the tax should pique their interest. I don't think most people want to hear about the struggles and importance of a despised trader. It's something they don't understand. It's hard enough to inform investors how it will cost them, if they actually are investors and not welfare geniuses.
Please put your naivety aside if you expect to ever understand how things really work. This is not about what is right or wrong, this is just business.
The major bracket firms/banks will get their exemptions via market maker status, just like in the UK.
Frankly, even I do not give a sh8t about most brokerages & vendors, being that they are mostly scumbags. That put aside, the markets will not be hurt anywhere near as much as you think. Institutions will still invest, while passing down the costs to the public. Trading still goes on in UK, doesn't it?
You're obviously unaware of how markets worked decades ago. Maybe you should learn about commissions & technological restrictions back in those days because small investors could only buy & sell on a weekly basis due to astronomical commissions and slow execution.
You may need to work on your reading comprehension and re-read the post that you quoted of mine. This IS NOT about tax revenue. That's just the silly excuse which apparently most of you keep falling for.