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

Quote from listedguru:

This link shoud work:

"Lawmakers Weigh A Wall Street Tax"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704247504574604053568517692.html

"The trading tax isn't likely to become law in the immediate future. But "there is considerable support for it" among Democrats, says Rep. George Miller (D., Calif.), who adds that the tax also is "very much" on the table for deficit reduction next year. The tax would raise an estimated $150 billion a year."

I don't like the sound of that. I believe Obama's next FY budget is due sometime in February so this will need to be monitored.

It also talks about the Senate version of the bill (Harkin's version) planning to exempt pension plans and carving out exemptions for businesses that hedge (airlines, etc).

-Guru



And with any budget bill, reconciliation can be used in the Senate, where they'll only need 51 votes for passage. Republicans won't be able to filibuster is they used this process. Something to watch for.
 
Quote from MrPowerBallad:

There's a new WSJ article on the trans tax. It concludes with the following statement:

But Mr. DeFazio's bill would tax transactions by U.S. citizens no matter where they occur. To escape the tax, he says, people would have to move their citizenship, not just their money.

I've read the bill and do not see where this language exists. Can someone please tell me what I'm missing, or is this just another misleading article?

The article also hints as exemptions for hedgers:

The tax could even hit businesses such as airlines that engage in futures and derivatives trading to hedge against commodity-price spikes. Already, there is talk of carving out exemptions for them.

Link to article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704247504574604053568517692.html

They usuallyrevise the exemptions and the rules when they amend the bill, the first draft is just the base and then all the stuff they want it to cover they will hit it up later on in the process.
 
Quote from jksn922:

And with any budget bill, reconciliation can be used in the Senate, where they'll only need 51 votes for passage. Republicans won't be able to filibuster is they used this process. Something to watch for.

In the senate I would think they will still have a tough time getting even 51 to pass this.
 
Quote from rsikit:

In the senate I would think they will still have a tough time getting even 51 to pass this.


I'm not so sure about that. I haven't heard of more than a small handful of Senate Democrats coming out against this as of right now. But many have still not made their position known yet, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.
 
The prison planet article that states the tax in the final agreement has been up since 10 est I believe and during that time I've seen the draft changed 3 times. As for Obama by passing congress he could only do that if he claimed that it was for the good of the stratosphere and there would have to be hard proof. Also the only way that he could agree to it with out issue is if congress passed something that says that in the name of climate change or bank bailouts for example, Obama would be allowed to sign in to an international agreement and it would be law without congress since they gave him direct consent to do so.
 
Quote from andy9775:

Obama would be allowed to sign in to an international agreement and it would be law without congress since they gave him direct consent to do so.

Which means Dictator Bumma can act without consent of the people.
 
Quote from Emini Maestro:

Which means Dictator Bumma can act without consent of the people.
but congress would have to allow him to do so and only for a single reason, such as I mentioned there is already a law that allows him to sign if there is a threat to the stratosphere, and according to science there is none.
 
Quote from Emini Maestro:

Which means Dictator Bumma can act without consent of the people.



Which means that I've already started the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. Defazio has said, the only way for a U.S. citizen to dodge the transaction tax, would be to move to another country and obtain citizenship there. Canada has repeatedly stated they want no part of a transaction tax. Expect to see many U.S. citizens like myself, who live near the Canadian border to jump ship if this nonsense happens.
 
Quote from jksn922:

Which means that I've already started the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. Defazio has said, the only way for a U.S. citizen to dodge the transaction tax, would be to move to another country and obtain citizenship there. Canada has repeatedly stated they want no part of a transaction tax. Expect to see many U.S. citizens like myself, who live near the Canadian border to jump ship if this nonsense happens.

Be careful though. If you look at it this way, if the US happens to do it, that would be great for those in EU who want to do this tax and they will, then Canada will weigh how much business they will take in compared to how much revenue could be from a tax. I think all countries say one thing but they all want revenue. So I think once a big country blinks like ther US then you will see countries start to follow. Canada says they are against it now but.. ...

THEY HAVE A PASSED A MOTION ON THE BOOKS TO ENACT A TOBIN TAX IN CONCERT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY M-239
Canada has shown world leadership in adopting a motion calling for an international tax on financial transactions, NDP financial institutions critic Lorne Nystrom said today. Motion M-239 was passed by Parliament last night with a vote of 164 to 83. It read: "That in the opinion of the House, the government should enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community". This was passed in 1999 , so it is on the books. Just Like Belgium has one, so if global agreement is reached they will both enact a tax


So be careful about Canada, cause what you hear aint what your gonna get.
 
The more I think about the transaction tax I think our next battle lies with the FY2011 budget (as was mentioned in the WSJ piece).

The dems are licking their chops over that $150B revenue number they keep throwing around. That perceived pot of honey can go a long ways towards wiping out the deficit (or I mean paying for new social programs). We all know the net number is nowhere near $150B (if not net negative).

I don't like the idea of the Senate being able to pass a budget bill via reconciliaton (with a simple 51 vote majority). I haven't fully confirmed this yet but I believe this is the case. I'm going to delve into this issue a little further this weekend and see what I can find out.

-Guru
 
Back
Top