You have a point (but it doesn't invalidate my argument in its entirety).
Regarding the ET poll: No thanks. No interest in that. The result would only be that everyone here trades and everyone makes shitloads of money every day.
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
You have a point (but it doesn't invalidate my argument in its entirety).
Regarding the ET poll: No thanks. No interest in that. The result would only be that everyone here trades and everyone makes shitloads of money every day.
cramer video on trader tax
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1341084019&play=1
Look, I take an unpopular stance, but you know I think the deficit's bad and someone has to do something," the 54-year-old former hedge fund manager told CNBC host Erin Burnett on Tuesday. "If it comes down on us we probably. . . deserve it." Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/cramer_vs_furor_iNCDIFzRaCH8J9TsfEFYDP#ixzz0Y542I6Nx
on his site cramer going off on revshark about this
Furious about the Rev's view 11/27/2009 12:00 PM EST I am furious about this.. It is NOT my view.. I said i didn't want it. I said i could live with it as I live with the dividend tax, and i fought hard for that dividend tax cut. Rev you have NO RIGHT to say it is my view implying it is my tax and I adamant that you cease and desist. My comments have been misconstrued and misconstrued and you do it now on the site i created. I said I wanted the federal government to create jobs and accept taxes for that even as i want spending cuts,. How dare you do this. I have worked hard ALL My life to help people trade better and make money and i dont deserve this characterization.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1341084019&play=1
Look, I take an unpopular stance, but you know I think the deficit's bad and someone has to do something," the 54-year-old former hedge fund manager told CNBC host Erin Burnett on Tuesday. "If it comes down on us we probably. . . deserve it." Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/cramer_vs_furor_iNCDIFzRaCH8J9TsfEFYDP#ixzz0Y542I6Nx
on his site cramer going off on revshark about this
Furious about the Rev's view 11/27/2009 12:00 PM EST I am furious about this.. It is NOT my view.. I said i didn't want it. I said i could live with it as I live with the dividend tax, and i fought hard for that dividend tax cut. Rev you have NO RIGHT to say it is my view implying it is my tax and I adamant that you cease and desist. My comments have been misconstrued and misconstrued and you do it now on the site i created. I said I wanted the federal government to create jobs and accept taxes for that even as i want spending cuts,. How dare you do this. I have worked hard ALL My life to help people trade better and make money and i dont deserve this characterization.
Geither is nothing more than a mouthpiece. If the White House was seriously considering a transaction tax he would have never made any comments against it.
Once any legislation hits the house floor and we see what entities are exempt it will be all too easy for the GAO to re-calculate the proposed tax income.
Once it's known how much less the tax would generate then the opposition can leverage the impact of the tax based on extrapolation of other failed implementations to show how much less the reduced tax would generate.
That opposition will focus on the Senate and that's where this tax nonsense will die.
That is, if it ever gets that far.
Hal Uy
The 100% Trader Tax Rate
11/27/2009 12:25 PM EST
The uproar I'm hearing from fellow traders is that most of the public and politicians don't understand that it is not a tiny transaction tax but rather a tax of 100% of income for traders. We could live with a higher tax on our NET gain, but obviously we cannot tolerate an effective tax of 100%
http://www.thestreet.com/p/_columnstconver/dps/cc/columnistconversation1.html
The 100% Trader Tax Rate
11/27/2009 12:25 PM EST
The uproar I'm hearing from fellow traders is that most of the public and politicians don't understand that it is not a tiny transaction tax but rather a tax of 100% of income for traders. We could live with a higher tax on our NET gain, but obviously we cannot tolerate an effective tax of 100%
http://www.thestreet.com/p/_columnstconver/dps/cc/columnistconversation1.html
If these clueless f**ks are finally getting what's at stake here, I sure hope they(Cramer&co) don't go down the road of continuing to support a "tolerable" amount of tax. Shows just how much thought goes into what comes out of that big mouth of his. Sure happy to see him getting shitted on by everyone, he "deserves it"
Krugman Should Read the Literature on Tobin Taxes
Krugman wrote an article that appeared yesterday in the NYT defending the Tobin tax, a tax on financial transactions, as a sensible way to "deter financial speculation."
Financial speculation by itself is not a problem, is a solution, and as an economist he should know that. It's worse however: his article transparently shows that he doesn't know anything about the literature on the subject (or doesn't bother to show his knowledge on it), but speaks as if he knows it (or as if he's showing his knowledge).
The Tobin tax has been discredited on many different grounds by many economists that have spent much more time than him trying to understand it. There's plenty of experimental, theoretical and empirical evidence against taxes that work like a Tobin tax. There's some less clear evidence in favor of it too, which however tends to show that the effects are only positive in special cases (probably not found in real markets) or that the benefits are not worth the costs. Krugman could start for example by reading my article on the negative economic effects of financial transactions taxes. Besides all that, Brazil just adopted a Tobin tax and market volatility didn't fall after its introduction on October 20.
Krugman may have won a Nobel Prize in Economics for deserved contributions to international trade theory, but this has not given him 007-like license to write about things he doesn't have a clue about. What he's been doing is a disservice to the profession of economics.
http://incentives-matter.blogspot.com/2009/11/krugman-should-read-literature-on-tobin.html
the author works in the Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Texas A&M International University
Krugman wrote an article that appeared yesterday in the NYT defending the Tobin tax, a tax on financial transactions, as a sensible way to "deter financial speculation."
Financial speculation by itself is not a problem, is a solution, and as an economist he should know that. It's worse however: his article transparently shows that he doesn't know anything about the literature on the subject (or doesn't bother to show his knowledge on it), but speaks as if he knows it (or as if he's showing his knowledge).
The Tobin tax has been discredited on many different grounds by many economists that have spent much more time than him trying to understand it. There's plenty of experimental, theoretical and empirical evidence against taxes that work like a Tobin tax. There's some less clear evidence in favor of it too, which however tends to show that the effects are only positive in special cases (probably not found in real markets) or that the benefits are not worth the costs. Krugman could start for example by reading my article on the negative economic effects of financial transactions taxes. Besides all that, Brazil just adopted a Tobin tax and market volatility didn't fall after its introduction on October 20.
Krugman may have won a Nobel Prize in Economics for deserved contributions to international trade theory, but this has not given him 007-like license to write about things he doesn't have a clue about. What he's been doing is a disservice to the profession of economics.
http://incentives-matter.blogspot.com/2009/11/krugman-should-read-literature-on-tobin.html
the author works in the Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Texas A&M International University
It is apples and oranges to compare the UK to the proposal here in the US. The UK tax is filled with so many exemptions that you simply can't compare it to what's proposed here.
Heck, if we could get similar exemptions here in the US, this may not be as bad of a deal as it currently is. But that is not what is being proposed at all.