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

Quote from andy9775:

This may have been posted but,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574579903734883292.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter
More...

It was posted already, but thanks for the contribution.

Upon 2nd reading of it, a VERRRRRRRRRY interesting tidbit pops out.

Look at the names of the co-authors.

Here's one of them.

"Mr. Sauter is managing director and chief investment officer of Vanguard Group Inc."

How about that.... The pro-tax crowd has been using Vanguard's Bogle to pump the tax. Well, now we don't have the retired Vanguard founder, we have the CURRENT Chief Investment Officer of Vanguard writing AGAINST the tax.

There's another argument against Bogle's support. His company's own Chief Investment Officer disagrees with him.

Thanks for the post Andy. That would have been missed otherwise.
 
Quote from seasideheights:

It was posted already, but thanks for the contribution.

Upon 2nd reading of it, a VERRRRRRRRRY interesting tidbit pops out.

Look at the names of the co-authors.

Here's one of them.

"Mr. Sauter is managing director and chief investment officer of Vanguard Group Inc."

How about that.... The pro-tax crowd has been using Vanguard's Bogle to pump the tax. Well, now we don't have the retired Vanguard founder, we have the CURRENT Chief Investment Officer of Vanguard writing AGAINST the tax.

There's another argument against Bogle's support. His company's own Chief Investment Officer disagrees with him.

Thanks for the post Andy. That would have been missed otherwise.
More...
No worries and I too felt that, who the authors were gave significant credit to the story.
 
Quote from jksn922:

City of London reacted with skepticism to the UK Treasury's call for discussions on the issue of implementing a transaction tax, questioning whether the government was using the threat of the levy as a negotiating tactic to drive wider regulation reform.



http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=...904574593753956162742.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
More...




Aww!!! I see it won't show the entire article. Allow me.

The U.K. Treasury last week published a discussion paper entitled "Risk, reward, and responsibility: the financial sector and society," which set out the government's stance on how the financial sector might contribute to the potential costs of any risks it poses to taxpayers.
In it, the Treasury put forward a number of proposals, including different types of insurance funds paid by banks to help fund bailouts, and a financial transaction tax, or Tobin tax.
Jonathan McMahon, a director at regulatory consulting firm Promontory, said that the Treasury might be using the threat of a Tobin tax to push action on regulation elsewhere in the industry.
"I do wonder if this is really a negotiating tactic, the threat being that if a financial institution is unhappy about new liquidity and capital rules, then it could be far worse if regulators feel compelled to implement more drastic measures like a transaction tax," he said. "I wouldn't expect this to happen, though."
Richard Reid, director of research at the International Centre for Financial Regulation, said: "Maybe the Treasury hopes that the threat of such a tax will encourage progress elsewhere in the regulatory debate."
Robin Johnson, partner at law firm Eversheds, said that such a tax would be unworkable unless all governments agreed to implement it to the same degree. He said: "Otherwise, it is a pie in the sky idea. Regulators must realize this."
The Treasury said in the paper that any proposals for such a levy, "must have the commitment of all the major international financial centres in order to work", but said, "such co-ordination may now be more likely."
A number of European nations have expressed interest in the proposals, with Germany, France, and Austria having set out support for the measure. However, the U.S. remains against such a tax.
The International Monetary Fund is due to report to the G20 on how the financial sector should make a contribution next year towards paying for government intervention with a preliminary report due in April, and the final report due in June.
A spokesman for the Treasury confirmed that the U.K. would not act on any policy related to a transaction tax until after the final report, by which point a general election will have been held in the U.K.
The Labor government, which has been a prominent backer of a transaction tax, is trailing the opposition Conservative party by about eight percentage points in the latest polls.
 
fantastic letter in the FT

What a great letter.

Anyone know how we could write this david bebbington fellow and tell him thanks?

all the article lists is this

David Beddington,
London EC3, UK
 
Quote from libertad:

HR 4191: Probably Dangerous and Destructive, But Perhaps Merely Useless

Clifford Asness

Aaron Brown

Michael Mendelson

AQR Capital Management, LLC


I had trouble reading this, so here is a place to find a clean copy

http://wealth.net/2009/12/cliff-asness-voices-in-on-the-transaction-tax/

BTW, this is my favorite section:

All of that seems pretty unwelcome and not at all what the Bill’s sponsors intend, so maybe they will not and add a UK-style dealer exemption. Perhaps they also will close off other ways to avoid paying the tax. In that case, investors either pay it or substantially stop trading. If, for some reason, investors are willing to keep on trading a lot and pay a lot of tax, then one thing has to happen – stock prices will fall, a lot. Why? Because the transaction tax imposes a tax on the value of the assets, it gets paid out of the cash flows from the underlying securities.

(It may also be found here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/HR 4191.pdf)
More...
 
terrible oregon letter

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_1e849a94-e94b-11de-8230-001cc4c03286.html





Herb Sparks suggestion that the bulk of the revenue generated by a stock transaction tax proposed by Rep. Peter DeFazio would come from small, individual investors and that the tax would be greater than a typical commission is not correct (Letters, Dec. 10 "DeFazio's new tax hits ordinary taxpayers, not Wall Street").

First, 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts are exempt from the tax, along with the first $100,000 traded outside of such accounts. And second, the tax on a $500 purchase of stock beyond those limits would be only $1.25.

This is much less than the typical commission for even deep-discount brokers (TD Ameritrade charges $9.99 per trade). The vast majority of the tax would be paid by big Wall Street firms which use high-speed, high-volume trading to bet on short-term price changes. This would be a way to charge some of the costs of the bailout of the financial system to the speculators who helped cause the asset bubble that has brought the economy to its knees. The United Kingdom, another major financial center, has such a tax.

Investments in the United States are already enormously tax advantaged, with a capital gains tax rate far below what many workers pay on ordinary earned income. It is high time we begin to reduce this disparity.

Brian Collins, Corvallis
 
Quote from ksharmon:

terrible oregon letter

...First, 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts are exempt from the tax, along with the first $100,000 traded outside of such accounts. And second, the tax on a $500 purchase of stock beyond those limits would be only $1.25.
...
More...

So, if I buy a futures contract, I'll have to pay $1.25? If yes, this is not an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top