1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Ahem...
With 7 posts on the board, it's apparent you haven't seen what we've accomplished so far. Go back & read this thread.
You'll also see the last thing done here is ignoring the tax & not speaking out against it.
I've spent tens of thousands of dollars off the board in the fight so far. I encourage you to do the same.
On your checklist of things to do, included should be:
- Writing members of the HR who have the Defazio bill currently sitting in their committees & explaining to them why the tax is not good for their constituents.
- Replying to all online articles to ensure our viewpoint is well represented.
There's more, but you'll find that by going back in the thread.
Welcome to the thread.
Wall Street to the Rescue?
A tax on financial transactions is being considered to help pay the freight for climate change solutions.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/wall-street-save-world/
White House spokesman Ben Labolt said the idea is a non-starter and "off the table" as a means to aid developing countries battling climate change. But just last summer, the President mentioned the potential for a transaction tax during a news conference, where he touted it as a way to raise cash to wind down too-big-to-fail companies.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stepped up to oppose the bill, saying it would hurt the middle class while pushing economic activity overseas.
Even some environmental groups, which have advocated for a global response to climate change for years, say the tax is the wrong mechanism to fund aid. Taxing banks and investors who have little to do with the underlying problem may provide cash but does not provide a solution, said Terry Anderson, executive director of the Property and Environmental Research Center, which studies free-market solutions to environmental issues.
A true solution to the problem, Anderson said, would be a tax on carbon emissions, the greenhouse gas at the heart of the issue."
A tax on financial transactions is being considered to help pay the freight for climate change solutions.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/wall-street-save-world/
White House spokesman Ben Labolt said the idea is a non-starter and "off the table" as a means to aid developing countries battling climate change. But just last summer, the President mentioned the potential for a transaction tax during a news conference, where he touted it as a way to raise cash to wind down too-big-to-fail companies.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stepped up to oppose the bill, saying it would hurt the middle class while pushing economic activity overseas.
Even some environmental groups, which have advocated for a global response to climate change for years, say the tax is the wrong mechanism to fund aid. Taxing banks and investors who have little to do with the underlying problem may provide cash but does not provide a solution, said Terry Anderson, executive director of the Property and Environmental Research Center, which studies free-market solutions to environmental issues.
A true solution to the problem, Anderson said, would be a tax on carbon emissions, the greenhouse gas at the heart of the issue."
The last 10% of the above article mentions the negatives to make it "fair and balanced".
--------------------------------
The future of London:
Down, Not Out, in London
http://www.newsweek.com/id/225617
Guys, maybe I am missing something: the tax proposed for futures is 0.02%, not 0.25%, correct?
That means 1 ES contract would cost 1120X$50*0.02%= $11.20 per transaction, or $22.40 per RT. This, while high, is not as catastrophic as the example given above...it would mean losing 2 ticks per trade. Right?
wrong i believe each futures contract is 40,000 of worth or something. maybe somebody can clarify it
Quote from Vienna:
Guys, maybe I am missing something: the tax proposed for futures is 0.02%, not 0.25%, correct?
That means 1 ES contract would cost 1120X$50*0.02%= $11.20 per transaction, or $22.40 per RT. This, while high, is not as catastrophic as the example given above...it would mean losing 2 ticks per trade. Right?
Is 0.02% tax not as catastrophic as 0.25% tax? Yes.
Does it have to be like this? No.
Quote from Vienna:
Guys, maybe I am missing something: the tax proposed for futures is 0.02%, not 0.25%, correct?
That means 1 ES contract would cost 1120X$50*0.02%= $11.20 per transaction, or $22.40 per RT. This, while high, is not as catastrophic as the example given above...it would mean losing 2 ticks per trade. Right?
You can't think about it like this. First of all, the tax on stocks is ludicrously high compared to futures. Second of all, who says that once this tax is instituted that they won't raise the rates on a whim (including futures)? Your kind of thinking will only allow them to gain a foothold and then take your livelihood from you forcefully.