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

Quote from Stok:

0.02% - on nominal value of $55,000 per ES contract....$22 R/T. That would still kill a lot of liquidity!!!

Stock are even more f*cked at .25%!!

It's all INSANE!!

I really don't understand why they would charge so much more for stocks if they perceive deriviates as 'pure evil.' Shouldn't they be charging more for derivatvies?

I guess it doesn't really matter. If this tax ever became law the skies the limit and good luck getting it repealed:(

-Guru
 
Quote from hoffmanw:

Nope, this simply means US transaction taxes will apply to non-US citizens also if they trade US securities elsewhere.


Can they actually tax me if I'm NOT an American citizen trading out of some European/Asian country?

I find it hard to believe...but hey, you never know:D
 
Quote from shfly:

Can they actually tax me if I'm NOT an American citizen trading out of some European/Asian country?

I find it hard to believe...but hey, you never know:D

You will be taxed once the transaction is done...no matter what broker, it has to go through the US exchanges and it will be tax immediately.
 
Quote from Stok:

You will be taxed once the transaction is done...no matter what broker, it has to go through the US exchanges and it will be tax immediately.
IBM is traded on DOZENS of global exchanges. If it's not a US exchange and the country isn't on board you can trade US issuers without the tax. All liquidity will find these venues. Bank on it.
 
Quote from hoffmanw:

Nope, this simply means US transaction taxes will apply to non-US citizens also if they trade US securities elsewhere.

Correct, but if US companies list on another exchange, the tax would not be in effect, at least my take on this. IT would be like trading the DAX.

Consused about Queen Nancy, tho...

in the link to a WSJ article concerning the jobs program shis is quoted as saying that Congress wasn't likely to back the adoption of a financial-transaction tax to pay for future jobs programs, an idea supported by unions and liberal economists but opposed by the administration. And yet today on Politico she's pushing forward.

So, which is it?

Also, since this tax has been acknowledged as a means to restrict the Wall Street Crowd, et al, couldn't this tax/bill if enacted be considered a Bill of Attainder?
 
Maybe these liberal, asshole economists got to Obama at the jobs summit and convinced him that is should be implemented, so now Geithner is forced to do an about face on the tax, even if he still opposes it. That's what it's looking like to me.
 
Quote from Xspurt:

forget it guys - there's no where to run. It will be global or there no point in introducing it.

this is what i hoped all along the only way it gets passed is globally which the chance of that happening is zero nada never will happen. this has never been done to this extreme nor will it. but domestically this had more of a chance because the control factors own the majority as of now. but globally not a chance
 
Quote from cstfx:

Correct, but if US companies list on another exchange, the tax would not be in effect, at least my take on this. IT would be like trading the DAX.

Consused about Queen Nancy, tho...

in the link to a WSJ article concerning the jobs program shis is quoted as saying that Congress wasn't likely to back the adoption of a financial-transaction tax to pay for future jobs programs, an idea supported by unions and liberal economists but opposed by the administration. And yet today on Politico she's pushing forward.

So, which is it?

Also, since this tax has been acknowledged as a means to restrict the Wall Street Crowd, et al, couldn't this tax/bill if enacted be considered a Bill of Attainder?
The constitution? LOL. They're about to mandate health insurance, I.e. Force you to associate with partied that don't want to. The constitution is dead to them. And to the guy who said switch to FX, that is not exempted as far sa I've heard.
 
Back
Top