Reconciliation Is The Best Way To Get A Tax On Big Banks
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...qHzzpgjvSyHKTk_fQ&sig2=Ti89FVVPpE_DoQe8x5_G5w
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...qHzzpgjvSyHKTk_fQ&sig2=Ti89FVVPpE_DoQe8x5_G5w
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Quote from rc822:
The Democrats run around saying how outraged the American people are at these banks. Well, now's the time to put up or shut up. If the public is soooooooooo angry, then it would be political suicide for Democrats not to pass this bank tax. If they choose not to, then it will be another nail in their coffins come Nov. 2nd. In addition, Obama wants to complete an unpopular health care bill, pass Cap & Trade, and Illegal Immigration legislation -(which would give amnesty to every one of them here illegally). So, if the Democrats fail on this bank tax proposal, which has great support from the American people, and then pass proposals which America is clearly against, like health care, Cap & Trade, and Illegal Immigration, it will be like the "Enola Gay" dropping another atomic bomb, this one landing squarely on the Democratic Party.
As long as they don't ever use reconciliation to pass a transaction tax (highly unlikely, IMHO - maybe not even possible) then whatever, lol...
-Guru
All the editorials I see favoring this tax are by clueless idiots who put all financial people into the same category that they call "bankers". They make no distinction between those who actually caused the crisis and those who did not. Who caused the crisis? Lots of people:
1. Main street mortgage brokers eager to make commissions who qualified anyone with a pulse for mortgages that were going to be sold off to suckers.
2. Wall street bond dealers that securitized the mortgages they knew (or should have known) were dodgy.
3. Wall street ratings agencies that slapped AAA ratings on dodgy mortgage bonds using models that assumed house prices never go down.
4. The Federal Reserve, for keeping rates so low that it encouraged excessive speculation in the housing markets.
5. Congress, which pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standards for the mortgages they purchased. Also Congress passed laws that pressured banks into lending to people who couldn't really afford their homes.
6. Millions of people who were willing to pay too damn much for their houses. Did it ever occur to them that if they had to borrow the down payment they couldn't really afford the house? Did they make sure they could afford the maximum payment after all rate resets?
Here is a list of those NOT responsible:
1. Stock traders.
2. Option traders.
3. Futures traders.
4. Forex traders.
But of course it's the people in the latter category that Congress wants to tax.
Joe Klein admits he can't remember what a put or call is. But he wants to tax people who use them. I'll sell puts on a stocks I want to buy -- he says I should be taxed for that. I have a biotech stock that faces a binary event where it may go up another 15% or crash. So I bought puts (as insurance) and sold covered calls at a price I'm willing to sell the stock to pay part of the price of the puts. Joe Klein says I should be taxed for doing this. I sell covered calls on stocks in my IRA to earn a little extra income. Again, Joe Klein (who can't remember what a call is) wants to tax me for this wicked practice.
There are two types of politicians I can't stand. Clueless liberals and war mongering neocons. Unfortunately those are the only types of politicians we ever get.
1. Main street mortgage brokers eager to make commissions who qualified anyone with a pulse for mortgages that were going to be sold off to suckers.
2. Wall street bond dealers that securitized the mortgages they knew (or should have known) were dodgy.
3. Wall street ratings agencies that slapped AAA ratings on dodgy mortgage bonds using models that assumed house prices never go down.
4. The Federal Reserve, for keeping rates so low that it encouraged excessive speculation in the housing markets.
5. Congress, which pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standards for the mortgages they purchased. Also Congress passed laws that pressured banks into lending to people who couldn't really afford their homes.
6. Millions of people who were willing to pay too damn much for their houses. Did it ever occur to them that if they had to borrow the down payment they couldn't really afford the house? Did they make sure they could afford the maximum payment after all rate resets?
Here is a list of those NOT responsible:
1. Stock traders.
2. Option traders.
3. Futures traders.
4. Forex traders.
But of course it's the people in the latter category that Congress wants to tax.
Joe Klein admits he can't remember what a put or call is. But he wants to tax people who use them. I'll sell puts on a stocks I want to buy -- he says I should be taxed for that. I have a biotech stock that faces a binary event where it may go up another 15% or crash. So I bought puts (as insurance) and sold covered calls at a price I'm willing to sell the stock to pay part of the price of the puts. Joe Klein says I should be taxed for doing this. I sell covered calls on stocks in my IRA to earn a little extra income. Again, Joe Klein (who can't remember what a call is) wants to tax me for this wicked practice.
There are two types of politicians I can't stand. Clueless liberals and war mongering neocons. Unfortunately those are the only types of politicians we ever get.
Politics and the bank tax, and will Congress approve of this Presidential budget item?
Pundits are forecasting the Senate may say not to the Presidentâs proposal for a âfinancial crisis responsibility feeâ (bank tax) as part of the Presidentâs 2011 budget out in February 2010. I disagree and believe the bank tax will be enacted, perhaps in a somewhat modified form.
The first break down of political sides should be the Democrats in the House and Senate voting âYesâ to support the President. Democrats are already trying to pile on and win some thunder (and sausage fund raising) with bank bonus tax bills too â and those should not pass.
But, will Republican Congressmen rush out their standard party-line against no new taxes, including this bank tax on Wall Street? Some have already, but others may show some refrain. Will New York State Congressman speak out against singling-out Wall Street for this significant bank tax increase? Some may, but others like Senator Schumer (D-NY) probably will not. This may explain why Schumer has been so silent in the public view lately, as he was probably in the loop on these developments. Same for Senator Dodd (D-CT) and this explains his recent retirement announcement even more.
Most Republicans have been very vocal against the TARP bailouts all along and also against Wall Street wheeling and dealing too.
The left-progressive populist movement wanted a wider financial-transaction tax â the Congressman DeFazio (D-OR) and Senator Harkin (D-IO) bills that our Traders Association is fighting with petitions- and the left wants to appeal to the more important political voting ground of Main Street versus (tiny yet rich) Wall Street in the Tale of Two Cities.
The Tea Party populist movement supports the Republican platform on no more: big government spending, tax increases, more regulation and intrusion.
This is a tricky political battle because itâs confusing which side Democrat or Republican better represents populist-anger on Main Street. Both want to appeal to those voters and there are many.
The Presidentâs bank tax proposal is partially intended to suck the wind out of populist sails â by charging 100 billion of new taxes to Wall Street - bringing politics back towards the center, where he must operate from as President now. Lingering populist anger is also destructive to the recovery and governing.
Are Republicans going to take this bait now and rush to defend Wall Street, who is almost non-defensible in the publicâs view at this point considering the overall environment on these issues?
If Republicans force a Presidential budget veto vote over the bank tax issue along, they will set themselves up for only losing choices in my view. On the one hand, defend Wall Street - and huge bonuses paid to executives rather than giving that fee money to TARP-lending taxpayers â which could serve to lose more Main Street votes. Or, on the other hand, support the bank tax and be hypocritical on their overall no new tax pledge.
I think Congress will approve the Presidentâs budget on the bank tax and the President will use his political capital to see to it that they do. The President has declared Wall Street versus Main Street economic issues to be his prerogative and he will not let Congressional sausage-making process mess up the economy and finance the way it has with health care. The President is right! Plus, I expect the President to table the financial-transaction tax bills and new bonus tax bills too. Secretary Geithner and the President were clear on these being bad ideas and you can take their consistent no-drama Obama style to the bank.
Wall Street will continue to protest about the bank tax and there will be some deal making I presume. Perhaps to take it a little easier on other Washington attacks against Wall Street including financial reform, the Financial Crisis Commission, other Congressional hearings, white-collar criminal financial service investigations and enforcement actions, other regulations, other tax bills, and more.
This whole saga seems to be coming to a head in the U.S., just a short time after coming to a head in the UK with the banker bonus tax. Most of all, we donât want a nasty financial-transaction tax on traders and investors!
Funny, some CNBC anchors like Erin Burnett, who previously gave credence to a wider financial-transaction tax against traders, couldnât wait to protest about the Wall Street tax. Are these anchors partisan towards big money Wall Street and big corporations versus the little trader â and their viewers? How can they explain their logic in supporting a financial-transaction tax on the little guy and not on Wall Street? I guess there are politics, sponsors and lax Chinese Walls in the journalism business too.
Pundits are forecasting the Senate may say not to the Presidentâs proposal for a âfinancial crisis responsibility feeâ (bank tax) as part of the Presidentâs 2011 budget out in February 2010. I disagree and believe the bank tax will be enacted, perhaps in a somewhat modified form.
The first break down of political sides should be the Democrats in the House and Senate voting âYesâ to support the President. Democrats are already trying to pile on and win some thunder (and sausage fund raising) with bank bonus tax bills too â and those should not pass.
But, will Republican Congressmen rush out their standard party-line against no new taxes, including this bank tax on Wall Street? Some have already, but others may show some refrain. Will New York State Congressman speak out against singling-out Wall Street for this significant bank tax increase? Some may, but others like Senator Schumer (D-NY) probably will not. This may explain why Schumer has been so silent in the public view lately, as he was probably in the loop on these developments. Same for Senator Dodd (D-CT) and this explains his recent retirement announcement even more.
Most Republicans have been very vocal against the TARP bailouts all along and also against Wall Street wheeling and dealing too.
The left-progressive populist movement wanted a wider financial-transaction tax â the Congressman DeFazio (D-OR) and Senator Harkin (D-IO) bills that our Traders Association is fighting with petitions- and the left wants to appeal to the more important political voting ground of Main Street versus (tiny yet rich) Wall Street in the Tale of Two Cities.
The Tea Party populist movement supports the Republican platform on no more: big government spending, tax increases, more regulation and intrusion.
This is a tricky political battle because itâs confusing which side Democrat or Republican better represents populist-anger on Main Street. Both want to appeal to those voters and there are many.
The Presidentâs bank tax proposal is partially intended to suck the wind out of populist sails â by charging 100 billion of new taxes to Wall Street - bringing politics back towards the center, where he must operate from as President now. Lingering populist anger is also destructive to the recovery and governing.
Are Republicans going to take this bait now and rush to defend Wall Street, who is almost non-defensible in the publicâs view at this point considering the overall environment on these issues?
If Republicans force a Presidential budget veto vote over the bank tax issue along, they will set themselves up for only losing choices in my view. On the one hand, defend Wall Street - and huge bonuses paid to executives rather than giving that fee money to TARP-lending taxpayers â which could serve to lose more Main Street votes. Or, on the other hand, support the bank tax and be hypocritical on their overall no new tax pledge.
I think Congress will approve the Presidentâs budget on the bank tax and the President will use his political capital to see to it that they do. The President has declared Wall Street versus Main Street economic issues to be his prerogative and he will not let Congressional sausage-making process mess up the economy and finance the way it has with health care. The President is right! Plus, I expect the President to table the financial-transaction tax bills and new bonus tax bills too. Secretary Geithner and the President were clear on these being bad ideas and you can take their consistent no-drama Obama style to the bank.
Wall Street will continue to protest about the bank tax and there will be some deal making I presume. Perhaps to take it a little easier on other Washington attacks against Wall Street including financial reform, the Financial Crisis Commission, other Congressional hearings, white-collar criminal financial service investigations and enforcement actions, other regulations, other tax bills, and more.
This whole saga seems to be coming to a head in the U.S., just a short time after coming to a head in the UK with the banker bonus tax. Most of all, we donât want a nasty financial-transaction tax on traders and investors!
Funny, some CNBC anchors like Erin Burnett, who previously gave credence to a wider financial-transaction tax against traders, couldnât wait to protest about the Wall Street tax. Are these anchors partisan towards big money Wall Street and big corporations versus the little trader â and their viewers? How can they explain their logic in supporting a financial-transaction tax on the little guy and not on Wall Street? I guess there are politics, sponsors and lax Chinese Walls in the journalism business too.
From James Pethokoukis' Reuter's blog:
"Latest on Obama bank tax"
The U.S. bank tax isnât dead on arrival, amazingly. Congress, particularly the Senate, has been a graveyard for punitive financial reform. And banks are betting the new levy will suffer a similar fate. Donât count it. A clever design, along with a determined White House push, means Wall Street may have to pay up. A few more points:
â Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley get hurt the most
â Tax is likely to be permanent despite WH claim
â Republicans may not be as opposed as what you might think. Watch Grassley and Snowe.
â Could be paired with a tax cut bill.
âpart of broad WH political push to run against Wall Street to help 2010 Dems
-Guru
"Latest on Obama bank tax"
The U.S. bank tax isnât dead on arrival, amazingly. Congress, particularly the Senate, has been a graveyard for punitive financial reform. And banks are betting the new levy will suffer a similar fate. Donât count it. A clever design, along with a determined White House push, means Wall Street may have to pay up. A few more points:
â Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley get hurt the most
â Tax is likely to be permanent despite WH claim
â Republicans may not be as opposed as what you might think. Watch Grassley and Snowe.
â Could be paired with a tax cut bill.
âpart of broad WH political push to run against Wall Street to help 2010 Dems
-Guru
Good points, especially the last one. Obama and the Democrats will press like hell to pass this bank tax because they think it will help them in the Nov. elections. I'm thinking some sort of bank tax will pass, although it will probably be a watered down version of what Obama has proposed. At least this way, the Democrats can claim a political victory, and try to show voters that they stuck it to Wall Street. Of course, this doesn't change the overall prospects for Democrats in November.
I'm sure they would prefer that, but even Obama knows the transaction tax wouldn't generate significant revenue, because of the reasons you mention above. ie: broker/dealer/market maker exemptions. Plus, the Obama administration has stated they don't want this new bank fee to be passed on to consumers and investors, which include online traders. Will the banks be forced to pay the type of fees being reported today? Very unlikely. As I said before, the fees would more than likely be watered down significantly so that it could pass through Congress. This whole thing is mainly a political ploy by Democrats to show disgruntled voters that they are going after Wall Street/Bankers. Democrats talk tough about this, trying to get voter momentum back on their side before the Nov. elections, but in the end, Wall Street/Bankers will probably get their way, and pay much less, if anything at all.
If Congress is unable to pass this bank fee proposal, then there's no way a financial transaction tax proposal would ever pass. If they did pass a tax on traders, and exemptions were granted to the broker dealers/market makers, then where would the revenue from the tax come from??? The small time day traders would be forced out of business, and all the big players get exempted from it, so good luck generating any sort of revenue. This is one of the reasons why Obama has not endorsed the idea of a transaction tax on traders/investors. Even he knows that idea is simply not feasible.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/the-story-behind-the-obama-bank-tax/
behind the scenes in the white house on how they choose the bank tax over a financial transaction tax and other options. Secretary Geithner knew much o this since August and when he said they did not support a FTT in Nov at the G20, he meant it.
behind the scenes in the white house on how they choose the bank tax over a financial transaction tax and other options. Secretary Geithner knew much o this since August and when he said they did not support a FTT in Nov at the G20, he meant it.
Lobby Britain and other G20 countries? What brilliant new idea will Brown come up with now?
They're tying themselves in knots.
Divide and conquer. That's the ticket.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...ectors/banking_and_finance/article6988902.ece
They're tying themselves in knots.
Divide and conquer. That's the ticket.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...ectors/banking_and_finance/article6988902.ece