You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/12/official-new-bank-fees-raise-tens-billions-feds
The Obama administration has already rejected imposing a straight fee on bank transactions for ordinary customers. It has also ruled out levies on executive compensation.
In the first case, officials determined consumers would have the transaction tax passed directly onto them. In the second case, the administration determined big banks could re-jigger compensation packages to avoid any new tax, depriving Treasury of revenue and doing nothing to penalize sizable compensation packages or bonuses.
The most likely scenario, the official said, is a tax on transactions larger investment banks make to increase their profits through the use of derivatives or other products.
"Think of this as a tax on risk-taking by big banks," the official said.
The administration's goal is to impose a fee on the risk-oriented transactions in ways that would neither affect smaller banks or discourage bigger banks from lending.
"Mom and pop banks pay for the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) insurance. That's valuable to their customers and that is priced into their business model," the official said.
The tax on high-risk transactions, the administration will argue, is a means to raise funds to replenish unpaid Trouble Asset Relief Program funds.
*** So, I guess that Obama does support a financial transaction tax on large banks. This is not a good thing, because you know it would only be a matter of time before these douche bag, money hungry Democrats place the tax on everyday retail traders as well. And I actually thought we made some good progress today regarding the transaction tax, but after reading this, I'm not so sure!
The Obama administration has already rejected imposing a straight fee on bank transactions for ordinary customers. It has also ruled out levies on executive compensation.
In the first case, officials determined consumers would have the transaction tax passed directly onto them. In the second case, the administration determined big banks could re-jigger compensation packages to avoid any new tax, depriving Treasury of revenue and doing nothing to penalize sizable compensation packages or bonuses.
The most likely scenario, the official said, is a tax on transactions larger investment banks make to increase their profits through the use of derivatives or other products.
"Think of this as a tax on risk-taking by big banks," the official said.
The administration's goal is to impose a fee on the risk-oriented transactions in ways that would neither affect smaller banks or discourage bigger banks from lending.
"Mom and pop banks pay for the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) insurance. That's valuable to their customers and that is priced into their business model," the official said.
The tax on high-risk transactions, the administration will argue, is a means to raise funds to replenish unpaid Trouble Asset Relief Program funds.
*** So, I guess that Obama does support a financial transaction tax on large banks. This is not a good thing, because you know it would only be a matter of time before these douche bag, money hungry Democrats place the tax on everyday retail traders as well. And I actually thought we made some good progress today regarding the transaction tax, but after reading this, I'm not so sure!
Still safe here. The media and pundits continue to mix up the terms tax versus levy. Tax is more understood and easier to use. Plus it calms populists more. Plus they may save the levy part for the new FDIC plan.
The bottom line expected here is that the administration is cooking a tax/levy on banks and not traders. They will find their culprit - high risk transactions - and tax them. They have the benefit of hindsight on the UK banker bonus tax mess but there will still be huge unintended consequences on this new "bank tax." Picture this. Buffett wants a huge derivative trade and Goldman takes the other side of the trade. Goldman pays a huge tax and Buffett gets off tax-free. Goldman must price that tax into the trade and it's effectively passed on. Our same market maker argument but on steroids.
Table the financial transaction tax on investors first and next tackle bad thinking on these other taxes. Thumbed in iPhone
The bottom line expected here is that the administration is cooking a tax/levy on banks and not traders. They will find their culprit - high risk transactions - and tax them. They have the benefit of hindsight on the UK banker bonus tax mess but there will still be huge unintended consequences on this new "bank tax." Picture this. Buffett wants a huge derivative trade and Goldman takes the other side of the trade. Goldman pays a huge tax and Buffett gets off tax-free. Goldman must price that tax into the trade and it's effectively passed on. Our same market maker argument but on steroids.
Table the financial transaction tax on investors first and next tackle bad thinking on these other taxes. Thumbed in iPhone
correct robert The media is misnaming this bank tax and keeps calling it a transaction tax. what is very hopeful for retail day traders is obama doesn't seem to want any tax on the everyday guy and that includes millions of retail investors who trade 3-10 times a month. i 100% support a tax on the banks and brokers who caused this.
Quote from rc822:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/12/official-new-bank-fees-raise-tens-billions-feds
The Obama administration has already rejected imposing a straight fee on bank transactions for ordinary customers. It has also ruled out levies on executive compensation.
In the first case, officials determined consumers would have the transaction tax passed directly onto them. In the second case, the administration determined big banks could re-jigger compensation packages to avoid any new tax, depriving Treasury of revenue and doing nothing to penalize sizable compensation packages or bonuses.
The most likely scenario, the official said, is a tax on transactions larger investment banks make to increase their profits through the use of derivatives or other products.
"Think of this as a tax on risk-taking by big banks," the official said.
The administration's goal is to impose a fee on the risk-oriented transactions in ways that would neither affect smaller banks or discourage bigger banks from lending.
"Mom and pop banks pay for the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) insurance. That's valuable to their customers and that is priced into their business model," the official said.
The tax on high-risk transactions, the administration will argue, is a means to raise funds to replenish unpaid Trouble Asset Relief Program funds.
*** So, I guess that Obama does support a financial transaction tax on large banks. This is not a good thing, because you know it would only be a matter of time before these douche bag, money hungry Democrats place the tax on everyday retail traders as well. And I actually thought we made some good progress today regarding the transaction tax, but after reading this, I'm not so sure!
These quotes from Obama back in July might shed some light on what their looking at:
"Obama Proposes New Transaction Fees for Financial Firms' Riskiest Investments"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124831738512274811.html
"President Barack Obama said for the first time that the government might assess new fees against financial companies engaging in what he labeled "far-out transactions," in order to protect taxpayers from future bailouts."
"Mr. Obama on Wednesday compared the possible fees to the assessments that more than 8,000 banks pay the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to guarantee deposits. He didn't describe what sorts of transactions might trigger the fees, though the way he described it suggests the proposal could cover exotic instruments such as credit derivatives that some believe played a key role in escalating the financial crisis. He also indicated that the fees might be levied against transactions the government wants to discourage."
"So if you guys want to do them, then you got to put something into the kitty to make sure that if you screw up, it's not taxpayer dollars that have to pay for it," Mr. Obama said in response to a question at a press conference. "It's dollars coming out of your profits."
"Administration officials declined to elaborate on Mr. Obama's remarks regarding the fees. It is unclear if there is a concrete proposal pending, or what the details would be."
-Guru
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_bank_fees
The administration's plan raises a series of questions.
Among them: How will the fee be assessed? Administration officials already have ruled out a fee on financial transactions. Also, will banks be required to pay for the billions of dollars in assistance the federal government gave General Motors, Chrysler LLC and AIG?
Obama To Announce New Big Bank Fees Thursday:
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/12/obama-to-announce-new-big-bank-fees-thursday/
"President Obama will announce new fees on "high risk" transactions carried out by big banks as part of a complicated White House effort to recoup bailout funds, address simmering anger over bank bonuses and simultaneously shield consumers from the bank levies."
"Under discussion since August, the fees are designed to discourage the edgier risk-taking investments such as derivatives, mortgage-backed securities or collateralized debt obligations that bigger banks used to pad their profits before the financial meltdown."
-Guru
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/12/obama-to-announce-new-big-bank-fees-thursday/
"President Obama will announce new fees on "high risk" transactions carried out by big banks as part of a complicated White House effort to recoup bailout funds, address simmering anger over bank bonuses and simultaneously shield consumers from the bank levies."
"Under discussion since August, the fees are designed to discourage the edgier risk-taking investments such as derivatives, mortgage-backed securities or collateralized debt obligations that bigger banks used to pad their profits before the financial meltdown."
-Guru
Quote from listedguru:
Obama To Announce New Big Bank Fees Thursday:
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/12/obama-to-announce-new-big-bank-fees-thursday/
"President Obama will announce new fees on "high risk" transactions carried out by big banks as part of a complicated White House effort to recoup bailout funds, address simmering anger over bank bonuses and simultaneously shield consumers from the bank levies."
"Under discussion since August, the fees are designed to discourage the edgier risk-taking investments such as derivatives, mortgage-backed securities or collateralized debt obligations that bigger banks used to pad their profits before the financial meltdown."
-Guru
Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said he doubted the new bank fees would not harm consumers or stockholders, warning fees will reduce bank "profits, the value of their stocks and that means the value of 401Ks (holding big bank stocks)."
Quote from Robert A. Green:
Still safe here. The media and pundits continue to mix up the terms tax versus levy.
... Goldman pays a huge tax and Buffett gets off tax-free. Goldman must price that tax into the trade and it's effectively passed on. Our same market maker argument but on steroids.
How does that make us "safe" ?
"High-risk transactions" could run the gammit of speculation. Any "tax" levied on investment banks gets passed down to customers --- namely downstream brokerages that we trade through !
Quote from Robert A. Green:
Germany is divided on the issue and only France can be counted on for a Yes vote. Thatâs certainly not enough. No major country will vote yes on a financial-transaction tax unless the entire world embraces it too, as they donât want to lose all that financial transaction business.
Finally, hopefully Main Street economies around the world will recover and banks will loosen up credit. If there continues to be a âTale of Two Citiesâ between Main Street and Wall Streets there will continue to be populist anger breeding grounds for bringing a financial-transaction tax back to life.
We are not out of the woods yet, but I see a clear path to victory for our cause. Keep fighting!
Agree on this.