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
Just my random thoughts:Quote from listedguru:
Defazio's bill is HR 4191
http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=532
He is claiming the middle class is exempt from the tax. Here is his example of that:
The Middle Class is Exempt:
To ensure the tax is appropriately targeted to speculators and has no impact on the average investor and pension funds, the tax will be refunded for:
1) tax-favored retirement accounts,
2) education savings accounts,
3) health savings accounts,
4) mutual funds and,
5) the first $100,000 of transactions annually that are not already exempted.
For example, a 60 year old couple with $500,000 in retirement funds, another $100,000 in Health Savings Accounts, $400,000 in mutual funds that cashed out any of it, would not pay any transaction taxes. If they also hold $200,000 in IBM stock, they still donât pay any transaction taxes. If they sold half of their IBM stock in a year, they still donât owe any taxes. If they sold all $200,000 of their IBM stock in a year, they would owe $250. This couple is generally held harmless by the tax, just like 99% of taxpayers who donât speculate in financial markets.
-Guru
- With all the exemptions it still raises $150 billion. They're pulling this number out of some unnamed orifice.
- They don't know the definition of the word "no". $100K really isn't that much, it still has an impact on the average investor.
- As someone else already mentioned, when a mutual fund manager makes a stock trade who do they think pays that tax? I'm guessing that's gonna get passed on as "management fees"...
- I wonder if they're considering the reduction in capital gains taxes that will almost certainly come with the reduction in volume?
Quote from jksn922:
I want to see the looks on their faces when their proposals are quickly flushed down the shitter, just like all of Defazio's previous ones regarding a transaction tax.
I want to see the looks on their faces when their political careers are flushed down the shitter next Nov.
Quote from listedguru:
Defazio's bill is HR 4191
http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=532
He is claiming the middle class is exempt from the tax. Here is his example of that:
The Middle Class is Exempt:
To ensure the tax is appropriately targeted to speculators and has no impact on the average investor and pension funds, the tax will be refunded for:
1) tax-favored retirement accounts,
2) education savings accounts,
3) health savings accounts,
4) mutual funds and,
5) the first $100,000 of transactions annually that are not already exempted.
For example, a 60 year old couple with $500,000 in retirement funds, another $100,000 in Health Savings Accounts, $400,000 in mutual funds that cashed out any of it, would not pay any transaction taxes. If they also hold $200,000 in IBM stock, they still donât pay any transaction taxes. If they sold half of their IBM stock in a year, they still donât owe any taxes. If they sold all $200,000 of their IBM stock in a year, they would owe $250. This couple is generally held harmless by the tax, just like 99% of taxpayers who donât speculate in financial markets.
-Guru
Here is the perfect look into a liberal, socialist mind...and the spin they do! Tax and spend, rinse and repeat. They want to kill all free enterprise, free markets and capitalism. The mutual fund mangers pay this tax and pass along with dramatically lowered performance due to this tax and the BIG liquidity drop in the markets....of course they can't even think that way. Oh yeah, and u can only trade once or twice a year!! Insane!!
And, I guarantee that this will be net revenue negative. Cavoto was on fox earlier talking about that there have NEVER been any tax increase in history that brought in more revenue. The demand falls and the gubernment gets less.
And lastly, this Country was not founded on liberalism nor socialism and we need to stop the whole process!! If these clowns don't like what this country was founded on...they need to move..go north, south or east...just GTFO of the USA!!
WSJ 12/04/09 âTARP Cash Targeted in Jobs Pushâ
In endorsing the use of TARP money, Nancy Pelosi said, "Congress wasn't likely to back the adoption of a financial transaction tax to pay for future jobs programs."
Be careful here, I view Pelosiâs statement as a potential Trojan Horse trap. I feel like we are playing chess with a leader who is scrambling and flip-flopping (perhaps, responding to our side too). First, her statement sounds like what we want to hear, no financial-transaction tax. But, look closer and her move may be a Trojan Horse.
Just earlier today, Pelosi flip-flopped to say the transaction tax had âa great deal of meritâ which set up her move nicely tonight. First, she threatens this tax and then trades it in for use of TARP funds instead â which is what she really wants and thinks she has a better chance of getting. Earlier for weeks, she said we needed to wait for international consensus, which position she will probably fall back on if she wins use of TARP. Itâs a merry go round.
As I said earlier today - which is now edited on my blog at http://www.greencompany.com/blog/index.php - if the Democrats are allowed to use TARP (repaid and unused) funds for a jobs bill, I fear the banks may still be held accountable to pay back TARP a second time down the road. Stronger banks have fully repaid TARP and (perceived) weaker banks like Bank of America just announced they are paying it back in full soon too. Thatâs great news!
I think Secretary Geithner should view House Leader Pelosiâs move as scrambling from weakness. At first, Pelosi followed Geithnerâs lead, along with other Congressional leadership, on the posture that the U.S. was not prepared to back a transaction tax because it would surely hurt our financial markets and economy, while foreign money-centers took over U.S. financial market business. The idea was to wait for global consensus. Leader Pelosi doesnât have the votes for a financial-transaction tax in the House and doubtfully in the Senate, plus the Obama administration with Secretary Geithner will say no too.
So, I think Secretary Geithner will remain on message and seek to close out TARP, by returning the money to taxpayers, paying down the deficit. President Obama has promised taxpayers, Chinese creditors, the IMF and G20 that he is serious about deficit reduction and he certainly needs to be.
Either way, this is a good trade-off to win or loose. We win with no financial-transaction tax and no unintended use of TARP (hanging over banks heads). And losing isnât bad either; itâs no financial-transaction tax and some usage of TARP for a jobs bill. Then we just need to remind people that banks did pay back TARP and not to try and ask traders and banks to pay twice with a financial-transaction tax down the road.
Of course, the scramblers will keep pressing at every possible point for a financial-transaction tax and we have to diligently play this game of chess with them. Keep watching and hammering home our points and we will win.
In endorsing the use of TARP money, Nancy Pelosi said, "Congress wasn't likely to back the adoption of a financial transaction tax to pay for future jobs programs."
Be careful here, I view Pelosiâs statement as a potential Trojan Horse trap. I feel like we are playing chess with a leader who is scrambling and flip-flopping (perhaps, responding to our side too). First, her statement sounds like what we want to hear, no financial-transaction tax. But, look closer and her move may be a Trojan Horse.
Just earlier today, Pelosi flip-flopped to say the transaction tax had âa great deal of meritâ which set up her move nicely tonight. First, she threatens this tax and then trades it in for use of TARP funds instead â which is what she really wants and thinks she has a better chance of getting. Earlier for weeks, she said we needed to wait for international consensus, which position she will probably fall back on if she wins use of TARP. Itâs a merry go round.
As I said earlier today - which is now edited on my blog at http://www.greencompany.com/blog/index.php - if the Democrats are allowed to use TARP (repaid and unused) funds for a jobs bill, I fear the banks may still be held accountable to pay back TARP a second time down the road. Stronger banks have fully repaid TARP and (perceived) weaker banks like Bank of America just announced they are paying it back in full soon too. Thatâs great news!
I think Secretary Geithner should view House Leader Pelosiâs move as scrambling from weakness. At first, Pelosi followed Geithnerâs lead, along with other Congressional leadership, on the posture that the U.S. was not prepared to back a transaction tax because it would surely hurt our financial markets and economy, while foreign money-centers took over U.S. financial market business. The idea was to wait for global consensus. Leader Pelosi doesnât have the votes for a financial-transaction tax in the House and doubtfully in the Senate, plus the Obama administration with Secretary Geithner will say no too.
So, I think Secretary Geithner will remain on message and seek to close out TARP, by returning the money to taxpayers, paying down the deficit. President Obama has promised taxpayers, Chinese creditors, the IMF and G20 that he is serious about deficit reduction and he certainly needs to be.
Either way, this is a good trade-off to win or loose. We win with no financial-transaction tax and no unintended use of TARP (hanging over banks heads). And losing isnât bad either; itâs no financial-transaction tax and some usage of TARP for a jobs bill. Then we just need to remind people that banks did pay back TARP and not to try and ask traders and banks to pay twice with a financial-transaction tax down the road.
Of course, the scramblers will keep pressing at every possible point for a financial-transaction tax and we have to diligently play this game of chess with them. Keep watching and hammering home our points and we will win.
What needs to be said...is that 70-90% of the volume...aka liquidity, is done by short term traders...whether the marker makers, program trading, arb trading, prop trading or the little guys at home in their underwear. This tax puts all of them out of business...I am mean short term as in the daytraders but also maybe trading just a few times a week or a month. This tax destroys all that. That point needs to be hammered into all the puppets in DC.
Quote from GreenTraderTax:
WSJ 12/04/09 âTARP Cash Targeted in Jobs Pushâ
In endorsing the use of TARP money, Nancy Pelosi said, "Congress wasn't likely to back the adoption of a financial transaction tax to pay for future jobs programs."
Be careful here, I view Pelosiâs statement as a potential Trojan Horse trap. I feel like we are playing chess with a leader who is scrambling and flip-flopping (perhaps, responding to our side too). First, her statement sounds like what we want to hear, no financial-transaction tax. But, look closer and her move may be a Trojan Horse.
Just earlier today, Pelosi flip-flopped to say the transaction tax had âa great deal of meritâ which set up her move nicely tonight. First, she threatens this tax and then trades it in for use of TARP funds instead â which is what she really wants and thinks she has a better chance of getting. Earlier for weeks, she said we needed to wait for international consensus, which position she will probably fall back on if she wins use of TARP. Itâs a merry go round.
As I said earlier today - which is now edited on my blog at http://www.greencompany.com/blog/index.php - if the Democrats are allowed to use TARP (repaid and unused) funds for a jobs bill, I fear the banks may still be held accountable to pay back TARP a second time down the road. Stronger banks have fully repaid TARP and (perceived) weaker banks like Bank of America just announced they are paying it back in full soon too. Thatâs great news!
I think Secretary Geithner should view House Leader Pelosiâs move as scrambling from weakness. At first, Pelosi followed Geithnerâs lead, along with other Congressional leadership, on the posture that the U.S. was not prepared to back a transaction tax because it would surely hurt our financial markets and economy, while foreign money-centers took over U.S. financial market business. The idea was to wait for global consensus. Leader Pelosi doesnât have the votes for a financial-transaction tax in the House and doubtfully in the Senate, plus the Obama administration with Secretary Geithner will say no too.
So, I think Secretary Geithner will remain on message and seek to close out TARP, by returning the money to taxpayers, paying down the deficit. President Obama has promised taxpayers, Chinese creditors, the IMF and G20 that he is serious about deficit reduction and he certainly needs to be.
Either way, this is a good trade-off to win or loose. We win with no financial-transaction tax and no unintended use of TARP (hanging over banks heads). And losing isnât bad either; itâs no financial-transaction tax and some usage of TARP for a jobs bill. Then we just need to remind people that banks did pay back TARP and not to try and ask traders and banks to pay twice with a financial-transaction tax down the road.
Of course, the scramblers will keep pressing at every possible point for a financial-transaction tax and we have to diligently play this game of chess with them. Keep watching and hammering home our points and we will win.
Great post.
Quote from Stok:
I agree...and Nov 2010 CANNOT get here quick enough!
Where is the Republican party? WTF are they? They should be jumping up and down on every freaking radio and television program out there. Michael Steel is a spineless snail. Useless, almost all of them. The reaction to this is a joke. Maybe they know something we don't, like the fix is in and this is getting done no matter what.
This whole thing is just too coordinated. Cramer? Now Geitner? And CNBC in toto?
Quote from DirkDigler:
Just my random thoughts:
- With all the exemptions it still raises $150 billion. They're pulling this number out of some unnamed orifice.
- They don't know the definition of the word "no". $100K really isn't that much, it still has an impact on the average investor.
- As someone else already mentioned, when a mutual fund manager makes a stock trade who do they think pays that tax? I'm guessing that's gonna get passed on as "management fees"...
- I wonder if they're considering the reduction in capital gains taxes that will almost certainly come with the reduction in volume?
That article said mutuals are exempted. Except guess what? They're not, because the MARKET is going to be pricing this crap in, as in volatility, illiquidity, and capital flight. Get out the popcorn. These idiots just don't know how to stop pissing down their own legs.
Quote from rsikit:
We need for them to differentiate on the word fee and tax, and Pelosi seems to be set on taxes for jobs while geithner seems to want a fee or tax to fund future crisis, whatever this is doesnt sound great!
There's been a lot of mixed signals the past couple days, but it's fairly obvious this has to do more with shoddy reporting than anything else. The people that have been following this thread have read literally everything that's been written about this tax, and we can piece together what's going on better than most these reporters and bloggers. Geihtner was very clear in his message today on Fox: a trans tax is not the way to go, and an insurance type fee will be enacted into law. Pelosi is for an insurance fee and is okay with the international form of the tax. Her conversation with Geihtner undoubtedly had to do with pushing the insurance fee, but unfortunately the shoddy Politco reporting used "fee" and "tax" synonymously.