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

[benwm]

Quote from ZeroSigma:

It would be well-timed if you sent that FT article/letter also to some of the British economists who published previously in the FT - their science funding has just been cut by 130 million GPB *more* than the 'promised' 180, so Brown is very unpopular in the academe as we speak... those 2-year 'compressed' university courses seem to be such as great idea: I'd love to see Brown's brain operated by one the fast-tracked surgeons!

Can you help me fighting the Wikipedia vigilanties..? The Wiki article (as most tax-related) is very biased in favor of the big Gov't:

"Debate

Opinions are divided between those who applaud [..] Tobin tax [..] and those who claim that the tax would also [..].

'Applaud' v. 'claim'? How unbiased is that?

As a thought for rsikit, the discussion we are having here could be less repetitive, if the first page of this thread referred to the Wikipedia entry on the Tobin tax (Debate section):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax#Debate

Anyway, my selective choice of literature survived surprisingly long, considering I put it bravely in the initial section (now it can be found in 'Arguments opposing'), which just 'happens' to be in reverse alphabetical order (*after* those supporting)... most tax-related Wiki articles seem to be generally patrolled by some sort of taxmen.

I hesitate to speculate who removed my 'good faith, but unreferenced' edits from the 'Psychopath' entry within hours (!) But we can learn from it one lesson: the entries have to be 'rock solid', i.e. with at least one reference (links to published newspaper article are fine, links to blogs will be removed). And all unreferenced stuff will be removed by the wiki patrol, that's guaranteed - but our thread here has plenty of 'publication quality' stuff... anyway, it's just a thought - Christmas boredom is coming you see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax#Debate

I've added a couple more publications in the 'Opposing section'

More required I think...

 

[andy9775]

Quote from benwm:

I've added a couple more publications in the 'Opposing section'

More required I think...

Yes but it should continue to point out main street effects since the general public wont accept a wall street argument.

I also found another research paper.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...KO5yMi&sig=AHIEtbRN5sAYzmSmUj4-T68XuT352CYrcg

 

[benwm]

Quote from andy9775:

Yes but it should continue to point out main street effects since the general public wont accept a wall street argument.

I also found another research paper.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...KO5yMi&sig=AHIEtbRN5sAYzmSmUj4-T68XuT352CYrcg

Looks good and worth adding...I'm done for now though.

I'm hoping that the fact that there are already at least three IMF Working Papers that came out against Tobin means they're already pot committed...surely if they did a 360 u turn now it would just look like they'd bowed under political pressure.

Not impossible, mind you.

 

[GreenTraderTax]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/the_quarter_percent_solution.html

strong article against the transaction tax.

Don't know this site but somegood points are made.

 

[seasideheights]

Quote from andy9775:

...

I also found another research paper.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...KO5yMi&sig=AHIEtbRN5sAYzmSmUj4-T68XuT352CYrcg [/B]

Good find.

This is exactly the type of information that needs to be mass emailed to the committee members that have defazio's bill in front of them as well as the co-sponsors of the bill.

We need a comma separated list of the email addresses to copy & paste into email programs.

 

[hippie]

Quote from drukes1234:

If we comment we're not in essence signing the petition, are we?

Better to ignore it. I accidentally "recommended" the idiot article form NY Times, no way to undo!

 

[TraDaToR]

Perhaps it has been posted before but I can't recall. There is a new mailing address on the IMF website for the TT:

"We request that comments be submitted by February 1, 2010, to allow their consideration for the study. All contributions should be sent by February 1, 2010 to IMFConsultation@imf.org"

they will make comments viewable in January to stimulate the debate. We want everybody on this site to send at least on message to the IMF.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/consult/2009/index.htm

In January, when debating will be possible, we want at least 5 messages against it for one message for it.

Post this link on every trading forum available.

 

[cstfx]

Quote from TraDaToR:

Perhaps it has been posted before but I can't recall. There is a new mailing address on the IMF website for the TT:

"We request that comments be submitted by February 1, 2010, to allow their consideration for the study. All contributions should be sent by February 1, 2010 to IMFConsultation@imf.org"

they will make comments viewable in January to stimulate the debate. We want everybody on this site to send at least on message to the IMF.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/consult/2009/index.htm

In January, when debating will be possible, we want at least 5 messages against it for one message for it.

Post this link on every trading forum available.

5 nays for every 1 yea: little biased there don't you think?

 

[TraDaToR]

Quote from cstfx:

5 nays for every 1 yea: little biased there don't you think?

Well you're right, perhaps a 3:1 ratio is better... It was just to say that we need to particpate actively in this debate.

 

[cstfx]

Ok. I thought it was THEY that wanted that ratio, which is why I saw the bias.

My bad.