Now I question what Geithners stand truly is on this tax. Maybe this is some sort of indication that the U.S. will agree to support a Tobin Tax at the next G-20? I'm thinking maybe Geithner told her this, so they won't bother trying to pass a transaction tax right now for a jobs bill, because they are going to form an agreement with to enact a tax at the next meeting of the G-20. I hope that I'm wrong.
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Now I question what Geithners stand truly is on this tax. Maybe this is some sort of indication that the U.S. will agree to support a Tobin Tax at the next G-20? I'm thinking maybe Geithner told her this, so they won't bother trying to pass a transaction tax right now for a jobs bill, because they are going to form an agreement with to enact a tax at the next meeting of the G-20. I hope that I'm wrong.
Geithner is for the fee and against the tax plain and simple . . . don't be a victim to shoddy reporting.
Because the industry is a sophisticated group with highly compensated lobbyists who pick the time and place -- the legislative "choke points" -- as their field of battle.
Countywide gave Chris Dodd (D) CT a sweat heart mortgage. In fact, I think, more than one of them. In the whorehouse that is capital hill "persuading" committee chairman is how it is done. The kill it, dilute it and/or shape it before it hits the floor. And if that, for whatever reason, is unsuccessful they do their late inning heavy lifting in the dark of night in the House/Senate conference committee.
They are not ineffectual whiners who think crying on each others' shoulders while wringing their hands has a legislative effect. They will bring their fire power to the battle if and when they perceive their interests are at risk.
Everyone at ET seems to think this is a serious battle. The fact is it may become one -- although I doubt it even with the populist nonsense that abounds-- but it currently is not.
What is truly disturbing is that only a few posters and posts out of the 500+ pages of posts seem to have a grasp of the political process. The amount of masterbation that has occurred in this thread is truly astonishing. Grow up guys and learn how it REALLY works.
Countywide gave Chris Dodd (D) CT a sweat heart mortgage. In fact, I think, more than one of them. In the whorehouse that is capital hill "persuading" committee chairman is how it is done. The kill it, dilute it and/or shape it before it hits the floor. And if that, for whatever reason, is unsuccessful they do their late inning heavy lifting in the dark of night in the House/Senate conference committee.
They are not ineffectual whiners who think crying on each others' shoulders while wringing their hands has a legislative effect. They will bring their fire power to the battle if and when they perceive their interests are at risk.
Everyone at ET seems to think this is a serious battle. The fact is it may become one -- although I doubt it even with the populist nonsense that abounds-- but it currently is not.
What is truly disturbing is that only a few posters and posts out of the 500+ pages of posts seem to have a grasp of the political process. The amount of masterbation that has occurred in this thread is truly astonishing. Grow up guys and learn how it REALLY works.
Pelosi first expressed her support for the transaction tax way back when TARP was first passed. I saw it on an interview on TV. She's definitely pro-transaction tax. Nothing to be confused about there.
What happens internationally is important, because if an international consensus builds, then I think Pelosi will push harder than she is at this time. Right now she's just sitting back to see which way the wind blows.
OldTrader
What if this "trader tax" is really a setup for something else? The government has been spending a boatload of money. It has a lot of entitlements coming due. I don't have to repeat the rest, you all know what I mean with regards to that.
This got me thinking, what if this is a cover for something even bigger? Don't get me wrong, this damn tax is big. But what if the real target was a much larger pie? Say...the consumer?
Many countries have a value-added-tax (VAT). There has been talk here of introducing such a thing to replace the income tax. Government those is the original hog. It wants to be able to siphon off from any angle it can find.
Congress would love to enact this thing. Consumption would take a hit, but it wouldn't exactly dissapear. Introducing it outright would generate a lot of heat. They need a whipping boy or shield to deflect this.
Hence this damn "Make Wall Street yadda yadda yadda tax". It's basically the politicians saying "look we know you're pissed, but hey we made sure those bastards on Wall Street paid first and dearly! See!" This is also coupled with higher marginal tax rates. Remember, they need to create a "distraction."
We're a fat juicy target for them. The masses, from what I've read on other boards on other sites are ignorant of markets. To them, a day trader is no different than a robber. They don't see the impact of a drop in liquidity would do.
And they also don't realize that they are being played. That the state, with all it's promises, is simply building more elaborate chains to shackle the average person.
Once you enact a tax on financial transactions, then why not other things? The politician will quickly delude themselves into thinking that they now have the moral high ground to go after other types of "transactions." Stocks, futures...autos, cereal, etc? It's all the same to the statist beast.
Lastly, I might add, this American VAT may also set the stage for something international in nature. But first they need to get the US and other major economies along for the ride. There's now talk of a EU-wide tax, for example. Whose to say that there would be a tax (however sold "small") to fix climate change?
This got me thinking, what if this is a cover for something even bigger? Don't get me wrong, this damn tax is big. But what if the real target was a much larger pie? Say...the consumer?
Many countries have a value-added-tax (VAT). There has been talk here of introducing such a thing to replace the income tax. Government those is the original hog. It wants to be able to siphon off from any angle it can find.
Congress would love to enact this thing. Consumption would take a hit, but it wouldn't exactly dissapear. Introducing it outright would generate a lot of heat. They need a whipping boy or shield to deflect this.
Hence this damn "Make Wall Street yadda yadda yadda tax". It's basically the politicians saying "look we know you're pissed, but hey we made sure those bastards on Wall Street paid first and dearly! See!" This is also coupled with higher marginal tax rates. Remember, they need to create a "distraction."
We're a fat juicy target for them. The masses, from what I've read on other boards on other sites are ignorant of markets. To them, a day trader is no different than a robber. They don't see the impact of a drop in liquidity would do.
And they also don't realize that they are being played. That the state, with all it's promises, is simply building more elaborate chains to shackle the average person.
Once you enact a tax on financial transactions, then why not other things? The politician will quickly delude themselves into thinking that they now have the moral high ground to go after other types of "transactions." Stocks, futures...autos, cereal, etc? It's all the same to the statist beast.
Lastly, I might add, this American VAT may also set the stage for something international in nature. But first they need to get the US and other major economies along for the ride. There's now talk of a EU-wide tax, for example. Whose to say that there would be a tax (however sold "small") to fix climate change?
My Ooops! thread on Climate Change is really about this point. Global agreement on climate is a precursor to global tax agreements that leads to global governance. But credit to them, they keep telling us this is the New World Order they want and it's too late to stop it now.
Look at the EU. Who elected the new leaders? Certainly not the citizens!
This is designed to imply a consensus in support of the Tobin tax. Which cannot be further from the truth - just google this:
tobin tax volatility "result in" site:Edu
and see page after page of research documenting in fact an *increase* in volatility as a result of reduced liquidity.
I wouldn't worry about this legion of economists. Decision makers would not fall for such obvious appeals to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) - they know a logical fallacy when they see one. And the good thing is that at least WSJ dismissed these boffins as 'liberal', and even picked up on my exact wording of the 'labour union funding' of the allegedly 'independent' think tanks such as Economic Policy Institute.
The worst thing about the pseudoscience of economics is the 'normative' bit. It is just pure and simple ideology dressed up in scientific garb to intimidate the gullible public. Whereas I bet that none of the above 200 economists would know a GARCH from a GARP. Industry-funded research should be avoided like plague (and I know wherof I speak), but I suspect decision makers know it already well.
In the little piece I send to every high-impact article author I can find, I just point out the unjustly high burden placed on Wall Street by deFaxio tax rate, 100 times higher than the average tax burden imposed on Main Street bussinesses by the current levels of sales taxes. But given that I program-trade as well, that makes me biased as well. I suppose only the university-funded non-trading researchers can objectively predict the outcome of this tax. So google the words above and see for yourself...
"not lend support to the conjecture that a Tobin tax on foreign exchange transactions would result in less volatility in global currency markets."
"and that this would result in transactions being taken offshore"
"Assuming a minimal tax rate of 0.01% would still result in a volume decline by a third"
"transactions tax increases volatility through a reduction in the volume"
"the question is what causes that volatility, and whether a Tobin tax reduces it:
"that a Tobin tax on foreign exchange transactions may, in fact, lead to an increase in the volatility of exchange rates which is exactly the opposite to the"
"therefore result in lower market depth as measured by the liquidity offered "
"reduce the liquidity of financial markets and might increase price volatility. ."
"Transaction taxes like these often result in reduced liquidity"
"We find that the return volatility significantly increased. We also find that because the volume decreased considerably, the increase in the tax
revenue is relatively small compared to the increased level of the tax rate."
and so on...
Nothing Transaction tax related, but Strauss-Kahn hates Sarkozy because of a recent sex scandal:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4972855.ece
Apparently, from today in "Le Monde"( didn't find an english article). Strauss-Kahn took apart Sarko in the toilets at a meeting and told him:"I'm bored of those allegations about my privacy. I know it comes from the Elysée. You'd better call your boys back or I sue you. I'm not afraid of you".
Just posting for the laugh.
Apparently, from today in "Le Monde"( didn't find an english article). Strauss-Kahn took apart Sarko in the toilets at a meeting and told him:"I'm bored of those allegations about my privacy. I know it comes from the Elysée. You'd better call your boys back or I sue you. I'm not afraid of you".
Just posting for the laugh.