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

Quote from leela:

MM's will get a windfall due to a bigger spread between bid and ask. They may also get an exemption from this tax due to their market making functions.

What many day-traders, esp the scalpers, are playing some kind of market making function, reducing hte spread between bid and ask.
More...

................................................

Congratulations !!!!


You are catching on.....


Now tell me.....

Can the marketplace exist without someone making the markets ?

This is a yes/no question....

And the MMs are who ? The very Bankers whom the govt. is going after....

If MM's have to pay .05%.....and trades the stock thousands of times per year....how many times the price of the stock ?

Do the math ....

So the govt. ends up exempting the very banks that they thought they were going to hit with the tax....They will not pay a dime...

Retail only will pay the tax....

Care to guess the impact on securities prices if there is no one present to make the market ?

Now tell me....

How many politicians does it take to put in a light bulb ?


I say let's take the whole show to those countries where the trading consortium controls the whole game....not bogus populist politicians....

Then efficiency of capital could be "for real"....
 
Quote from ksharmon:

Brown in Wonderland

By Andrew Hill

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70449316-e5ae-11de-b5d7-00144feab49a.html

Angela Merkel’s characterisation of a tax on bankers’ bonuses as “a charming idea” makes it sound as though Gordon Brown has just proposed a sleigh-ride in the Black Forest. In fact, what the British prime minister is trying to persuade his G20 partners to join is more like a bandwagon. Nicolas Sarkozy is on board; now the German chancellor is wondering whether to join the trip.

More interesting, however, is the other half of Mrs Merkel’s comment – to wit, her country’s support for the “more sustainable” idea of an international tax on financial transactions. This is a version of the Tobin tax, also raised on Thursday in a debating paper from the UK Treasury about how to balance the risks, rewards and responsibilities of the financial sector and society.

Coming the day after the raid on bankers’ incentive payments, the return of the Tobin tax proposal looks like a brutal one-two assault on the City. For electoral purposes, not only is the government tough on bonuses, it is tough on the causes of bonuses.

But a Tobin tax is one of Mr Brown’s more quixotic campaigns. As the Treasury points out in its paper, such a levy on financial transactions “must have the commitment of all the major international financial centres in order to work”. That’s true: like the misconceived bonus tax, such a levy would risk driving business away from the City, if applied only by the UK. More surprising is the Treasury’s contention that “such co-ordination may now be more likely”. What makes it think that? The US and others slapped the British premier down when he unexpectedly raised the Tobin tax idea at last month’s G20 summit in St Andrews. Apart from Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy, the consensus remains that the logistical hurdles to applying such a tax worldwide would be huge and its benefits uncertain.

The Treasury may simply be supplying the theoretical logic for a Tobin tax, following the prime minister’s embarrassment at St Andrews. The UK’s real hope may be to draw attention to more workable ideas to curb global systemic risk, such as a rescue fund supported by a levy on financial institutions. Either that, or Mr Brown and his unlikely European chums are heading off alone into a winter wonderland.
More...

Thanks for posting this. It's interesting they say the UK's real hope may be to draw attention to more workable ideas like a rescue fund supported by a levy on financial institutions. Thats makes the most sense - tax the damn instituitions. This IMHO is the most likely outcome.

-Guru
 
Quote from TraDaToR:

And this is one of the most undercovered topics... The media needs to tell the public there are other ways of taxing BANKS.
More...
........................................................................................

The public needs to understand one thing....


The Banks would be exempt from the TT tax because the MM function has to remain exempt....or else there would be no market place for stocks....Since the banks would be exempt....and since the tax is meant for banks....thus what would be the reason for a TT tax.....When the retail taxpayers would be the ones paying 100% of the tax....


It is really just this simple.....

The problem now is....the Polys blabbing away still want the public to think that they are really smart.....

Poly Ego is now the problem.....
 
dumbass response from Rep Sires (D-NJ, Hudson) to petition letter sent to Congress:

December 10, 2009

Dear Mr. xxxxxx,

Thank you for contacting me regarding a tax on the buying and selling of stocks. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, Congressman DeFazio (D-OR) introduced H.R. 1068 Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009 on February 13, 2009. The bill would require securities trading facilities to pay an excise tax on a specified percentage of the value of securities and commodities transactions sufficient to recoup the net cost of carrying out the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. By levying a small fee when stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities are bought and sold, the tax could potentially take in between $120 billion and $240 billion annually. To ensure that the law targets speculators and not pension funds or retirement investors, the tax would be refunded for tax-favored retirement accounts such as 401(k) plans and education and health savings accounts. Additionally, the tax would not apply to the first $100,000 of a trader's annual transactions. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Please know that I will keep your views on taxing stock trades in mind should the bill come to a vote in the House of Representatives.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.



Sounds like our "esteemed" colleague from Hudson Cty (home of Wall Street West) is in support of this tax, not against. You'd figure that someone who represents a district whose constituents are so heavily tied to the financial sector's fortunes would be more supportive of our view and less of DickFazio's.

Probably one of his sycophants doing the email-response thing, but still, represents the Congressman's views.
 
Quote from cstfx:

dumbass response from Rep Sires (D-NJ, Hudson) to petition letter sent to Congress:

December 10, 2009

Dear Mr. xxxxxx,

Thank you for contacting me regarding a tax on the buying and selling of stocks. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, Congressman DeFazio (D-OR) introduced H.R. 1068 Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009 on February 13, 2009. The bill would require securities trading facilities to pay an excise tax on a specified percentage of the value of securities and commodities transactions sufficient to recoup the net cost of carrying out the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. By levying a small fee when stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities are bought and sold, the tax could potentially take in between $120 billion and $240 billion annually. To ensure that the law targets speculators and not pension funds or retirement investors, the tax would be refunded for tax-favored retirement accounts such as 401(k) plans and education and health savings accounts. Additionally, the tax would not apply to the first $100,000 of a trader's annual transactions. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Please know that I will keep your views on taxing stock trades in mind should the bill come to a vote in the House of Representatives.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.



Sounds like our "esteemed" colleague from Hudson Cty (home of Wall Street West) is in support of this tax, not against. You'd figure that someone who represents a district whose constituents are so heavily tied to the financial sector's fortunes would be more supportive of our view and less of DickFazio's.

Probably one of his sycophants doing the email-response thing, but still, represents the Congressman's views.
More...

Sounds like he's mixing together both HR 1068 and HR 4191. I don't think they mention using the proceeds to pay back TARP in HR 4191.

But I agree with you he's most likely for the tax. Pretty disturbing actually being where's he's from:(

-Guru
 
Quote from cstfx:

dumbass response from Rep Sires (D-NJ, Hudson) to petition letter sent to Congress:

December 10, 2009

By levying a small fee when stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities are bought and sold, the tax could potentially take in between $120 billion and $240 billion annually.

More...

Now it's $240 Billion. Really!



I like how the media, even from the opponents, do not question DeFazio's purposefully tantalizing $150 Billion revenue number.

Up until the last 3 years, the entire securities industry pre-tax profits totaled an average $22B per year from 1998 through 2006.

Isn't $150B nearly the same amount as the total personal US savings rate? And how much of that is invested in securities?

106 M households
$51K household income
Maybe 3% savings rate the last decade, (more like 6% lately as people hold on for life)


They are going to kill an entire industry for money that does not even exist.
 
Quote from listedguru:

I have a question for the thread regarding legislation in Germany and Britain.

Merkel says she's in favor of a TT while the German development minister recently came out and said "There will therefore be no tax in the course of this term in office."

My question is - how would this become law in Germany? Does Merkel have the power to just sign this into law? Or would it have to be voted in (like in the US)?

Also what about Britain? Would it have to go through legislative channels there just like the US?

If the G20 were to vote in favor of this I think the US would still have to have Congress pass this...

Any input?

-Guru
More...

While it would have to go through legislative channels in those respective countries, bear in mind that they (as far as I know) do not have a filibuster. In other words, it is much easier to pass something to law in both the UK and Germany than here in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top