1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today

Quote from listedguru:

This is an absolute must read:

http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=30200&cat=topnews

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her strongest endorsement yet of a global financial transaction fee Thursday after raising the issue directly with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a conversation this week."

"Geithner was widely seen as opposing such a levy when it was proposed by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, at a meeting of G-20 finance ministers last month in Scotland. But after their phone conversation Wednesday, Pelosi told colleagues that the secretary indicated he was more open to some such fee than had been reported."


Getting greater clarity on Treasury’s position is difficult.

“She said that Geithner felt he had been misrepresented,” said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D—Mass.), who has also been open to such a fee, so long as would be imposed on a worldwide basis.

But after promising a quick response Thursday, the department waited more than three hours before saying it would have no comment beyond passing on a month-old transcript of Geithner’s remarks in Scotland Nov. 7.

Those remarks were more nuanced than a truncated but widely quoted excerpt from a Geithner television interview that appears to flatly oppose such a fee. But Treasury refused to provide more clarification of where secretary stands on the issue or whether he felt his views had been mischaracterized.

Going forward, the secretary’s support is vital to the speaker’s vision of applying the fee globally to protect American competitiveness—a concern Geithner is said to share.

Didn't Geithner come out against the tax in his interview on Fox Business today? Way too many mixed signals lately...

-Guru
More...

This is the same thing I posted above (last night) but look how Politco starts the piece this morning:

PELOSI SAYS GEITHNER OPEN TO TRANSACTION TAX -- POLITICO's David Rogers: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her strongest endorsement yet of a global financial transaction fee Thursday after raising the issue directly with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a conversation this week. Geithner was widely seen as opposing such a levy when it was proposed by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, at a meeting of G-20 finance ministers last month in Scotland. But after their phone conversation Wednesday, Pelosi told colleagues that the secretary indicated he was more open to some such fee than had been reported. Pelosi didn’t reveal her conversation with Geithner at her weekly press conference Thursday, but several sources confirmed the details to POLITICO based on her discussions of the matter in a Democratic leadership meeting this week. ... With unemployment above 10 percent and new numbers out Friday, Democrats are anxious for action going into the 2010 election cycle. ... Private industry is strongly opposed to a financial transaction fee, but prominent economists have supported the idea as a way of creating a drag on short-term markets speculation and recouping some of the huge costs imposed on government by the collapse of financial giants last year."

This is from Politico's morning money this morning. I can't believe they can say this after Geithner came out and said no to the tax on Fox Business yesterday...

-Guru
 
Quote from FightTheFuture:


Here is one example of what happens when a transaction tax is introduced.

10-14-09: Taiwan tax commission wants to introduce for a 3rd time a stock transaction tax. 1973 was the first time they introduced the tax, result: the market fell 63% within a year. In 1988 they reintroduced the tax for a second time, result: 19 consecutive losing days, down 43% in less than 3 months. Source: taiwannews.com.tw
More...

Sounds like a great shorting opportunity.
 
I want to know how they get the $170B number? Is it based on current volume? Because volume would drop 70% in this tax.

Someone has to prove that this is revenue net negative! lets say volume drops 50%...they bring in $70B...but how much do they lose out on in income & capital gains tax from all the money mangers, individuals, hedge funds, CTAs, software companies, brokers, accountants that go out of business? I have no idea what that number would be...but that is the way to prove this tax would be negative!!
 
I thought I read a more reliable source about a month ago that Geithner was even against any kind of insurance or fee as that would only encourage even more risk taking.

Supposed impartial journalists have their political beliefs so ingrained in them that they put words in the mouths of their sources. And they choose candidates for the public to vote for.
 
And this tax has nothing to do with "the drag on the government due to recent financial collapse".

The gov will make $$ on TARP.

This is a socialist agenda, same with cap & trade and public health care, they are shoving down our throats. They hate capitalism, speculators, and wall street.

Since when did we see congress go target a big functional part of the economy to shut it down because it doesn't fit in their socialists agenda??

Remember, obama re-wrote LAWS in the Chrysler deal....pretty much ignored the law and told bond holders..."too bad".

It all should be illegal and it is stealing!!
 
Quote from FightTheFuture:

I thought I read a more reliable source about a month ago that Geithner was even against any kind of insurance or fee as that would only encourage even more risk taking.

Supposed impartial journalists have their political beliefs so ingrained in them that they put words in the mouths of their sources. And they choose candidates for the public to vote for.
More...

I think Pelosi is also to blame here. I think she misconstrued Geithner's words or only heard what she wanted to hear. I'm positive he's for an insurnace type fee and against the transaction tax.

-Guru
 
Quote from FightTheFuture:

If shorting will be allowed.
More...

I wanted to write it !!!

Fightthefuture I totally agree with you on the point that a protest of the liquidity providers/pricer to be effective need to be widely follow... and that our selfinterest will be stronger... but that's GOOD !!!

Because if it's not ( really ) followed, it will have no impact... thusfar proving theirs point, they will hype it in the media as you said !!

BUT their point is fundamentaly wrong... so they will be overconfident, act faster, blow the thing faster... and we will be able to come to the business as usual faster !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top