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

All fat cats are trying to deflect tax and blame and turn anger on bankers and traders. What about celeb fat cats and most of all government fat cats with their jumbo jets, armies of staff and most of all golden-parachute defined benefit pensions that provide cadillac fixed pay for life. Private workers are stuck with defined contribution plans and 401ks were decimated by the meltdown. A FTT kicks the little guy while down and the government worker is shielded from the FTT on defined benefit pensions. Private workers pay FTT twice; first for themselves and then a second time for the gov worker, with he private worker having to pay more taxes to cover the gov workers FTT on transactions within their pension funds.

Private workers are having to fund federal and state government holes in unfunded defined benefit plans. Plus government workers are usually exempt from taxes on their pension income too. Lots of federal contractors cheat on taxes - white house said so last week. This tale of two cities between government fat cat workers and regular working people is the real gulf. We can't let big spending celebs and gov workers deflect blame and tax to middle class retirement investors.
 
Quote from Moneyball:

Again, I think it's pretty much pointless to rant and rave about how this tax will effect us traders. As soon as they hear that, they tune out our message. The same goes for trying to argue (using math) that this tax isn't small, etc. They don't care if it puts us out of business, they associate us with Wall St. and being part of the problem.

IMO, instead of focusing on how this would be detrimental to small traders, or how we provide liquidity and didn't cause the crisis, we need to focus on how this would be detrimental to the entire middle class. Either the big guys will be exempt, or they will pass on any additional costs to us, their customers. Either way, the middle class gets hurt, not "Wall St". That message is our best chance to get more people on our side.
 
Good points but I still think we should make our appeal on straight forward truth that it destroys our small business trading industry and we are not the rightful target. The public is so far not buying that wall street banks will pass on the bank fee to investors. I don't think the public expects FTT exemptions for trading in banks. You are right people who are convinced that day trading speculation is useless and wasteful will be hard to sway over. If we are bashful about defending ourselves in a straight up manner that shows self doubt and weakness in my view. But I also think your points are good and respect that view too. We always stress how the FTT hurts investors, middle class, retirerees and farmers too.
 
Quote from rsikit:

Everyone on this thread fighting for the sake of your livelihood , trading. I suggest you put ZDREG on ignore. His comments are never helpful and plain negative and unoriginal. I appreciate everyone doing there best and put your voice forward to fight this transaction tax.
___________________

"i suggest you read it carefully before making off the cuff remarks." zdreg

it never fails that people with short fuses react the way u do.
very good to excellent traders adapt as long as there a game to be played.

remember Obama and his ilk only tolerate the existence of wall street. his goal is to make wall street a tool of the gov't under his command. he does not believe in markets, check buffet's remarks about day trading in berkshire.
He knows the direction of the wind.

I suggest that everybody fight the good battle but assume the worst.
Change your style of living right know. Spend only on absolute necessities. Deny yourself any luxury and save the maximum possible. consider moving to less an expensive area etc.
the tide may eventually swing back and then you will act accordingly.

I understand fully if this advice is attacked ignored. it is human nature.
.

focus on your trading now as u have never done before. upgrade your skills now. the window is still open.
 
Sure, but the public won't care if it destroys us, as long as they think it will take down the big guys as well. We need to show them that this will not hurt the big guys nearly as much as it's being sold to them as doing.

If they aren't buying that they will pass the fees on to us, we need to do a better job explaining that to them (without freaking out and becoming combative). The consumer ALWAYS pays when costs/fees go up, we can give dozens of examples. If they don't think that the big guys will get an exemption, then we need to show them that volume will dry up and the amount raised will be no where near the projections, just as it has with other countries that have tried this (many of which have since repealed it). Costs will also skyrocket as spreads would widen immensely.

For the people that think they won't be affected because of exemptions for $100K, mutual funds and retirement accounts, we need to show them how they will be paying a major cost indirectly. I don't think most people understand that just because they won't directly pay a tax if they buy or sell a mutual fund, they will still be greatly impacted because the mutual fund manager will be paying this tax every time they buy and sell, and it will greatly eat into their returns. Likewise in retirement accounts- they won't pay the taxes directly, but the mutual funds that most of them hold will still have lower returns, and if they do trade stocks, they will be paying indirectly via much wider spreads if the MM's don't get an exemption. They will all be paying via increased taxes in the future to fund shortages in pension plans due to the lower returns. Etc.

I don't care about showing weakness to be honest- the fact of the matter is, we are weak if you compare us to the Madonna's of the world. Do you really think it makes sense to threaten her with a boycott? Who is going to win, a group of celebrities that support this, or a bunch of small time traders on ET? Now, if we can get a couple of celebrities to support our side of the argument, I think that would be great. I just don't think it makes sense to pick a fight with them ourselves. We really can't win in the public eye (even if we're right). Telling them that they should donate money, stop cheating on their taxes or using jumbo jets, etc., isn't going to lead to anything productive IMO.
 
Tommorrow could be a day where things heat up or cool on the debate about ftt. The g7 meeting tomorrow where supposedly the tax will be discussed by the UK and the US wants to discuss our own bank levy that Obama introduced last week. This could be a time where Obama can put this talk to bed by actually saying no. Not just Geithner but others in the administration or atleat Obama thru a spokesperson or something! By the way Lord Myners is the City Minister in London.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/24/banking-bonuses-lord-myners-greed


Myners is hosting a G7 summit tomorrowto consider a possible levy on financial _transactions that has been promoted by the prime minister.

The Downing Street meeting will aim to find a way to "shift the burden of _financial sector support from the public to the _private sector".

"There are several options – among them a global insurance levy, the use of innovative contingent capital instruments already developed in the UK, and a global transactions tax," Myners said.
 
Quote from rsikit:

Tommorrow could be a day where things heat up or cool on the debate about ftt. The g7 meeting tomorrow where supposedly the tax will be discussed by the UK and the US wants to discuss our own bank levy that Obama introduced last week. This could be a time where Obama can put this talk to bed by actually saying no. Not just Geithner but others in the administration or atleat Obama thru a spokesperson or something! By the way Lord Myners is the City Minister in London.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/24/banking-bonuses-lord-myners-greed


Myners is hosting a G7 summit tomorrowto consider a possible levy on financial _transactions that has been promoted by the prime minister.

The Downing Street meeting will aim to find a way to "shift the burden of _financial sector support from the public to the _private sector".

"There are several options – among them a global insurance levy, the use of innovative contingent capital instruments already developed in the UK, and a global transactions tax," Myners said.
The ridiculous thing is that the FTT just shifts the burden from the public back to the public.
 
From: Nigel Stanley <NStanley@TUC.ORG.UK
Subject: [new-pol-econ] Financial Transactions Tax – urgent call for support
Reply-To: new-political-economy-network@googlegroups.com
Trade Unions Congress

The TUC is involved with a high profile campaign for a financial transactions tax with a wide coalition of development, poverty and faith groups which is due to be launched in a few weeks time with some celebrity fairydust.

Importantly this is a real international campaign with a similar group coming together in the USA and working with existing coalitions in Europe.

One initiative that is taking place in the run-up to the launch is a letter to G20 leaders signed by a worldwide group of economists. The idea is to get some attention just before Davos.

I would very much welcome signatures from this group – and just as importantly - help with getting further signatures from colleagues. I am sure that you are members of other lists or know people who could sign.

I’ve put the list of those signing already (which includes members of this group) at the end of this email so that you can see there are some substantial figures on board.

The letter follows:

Dear G20
As economists from across the world, we call on you to implement a financial transaction
tax (FTT).

This tax is an idea that has come of age. The financial crisis has shown us the dangers of
unregulated finance, and the link between the financial sector and society has been
broken. It is time to fix this link and for the financial sector to give something back to
society.

Even at very low rates of 0.05% or less, this tax could raise hundreds of billions of
dollars annually and calm excessive speculation. The UK already levies a tax on share
transactions of 0.5%, or ten times this rate, without unduly impacting on the
competitiveness of the City of London.

This money is urgently needed. The crises of poverty and of climate change require an
historic transfer of billions of dollars from the rich world to the poor world, and this tax
would offer a clear way to help fund this.

Given the automation of payments, this tax is technically feasible. It is morally right. We
call on you to implement it as a matter of urgency.

Yours.


The campaign that is shortly to be launched will say that the proceeds of the tax should be split 50/50 between domestic and development/climate change, but this letter text has already gathered signatures both here and overseas.

I’d be very grateful if you would let me know if you will sign – and help spread the word (or go viral as we comms people say).

Timing is tight. We haven’t finally decided when it will be published, but a deadline of next Thursday Jan 28 would be a good bet, though we’re happy to receive further signatures later as we may be able to include them.

Nigel Stanley
Head of Campaigns and Communications

U.K.
> Prof. Sudhir Anand
> Professor of Economics, University of Oxford, visiting Professor,
> Harvard University
>
> Prof. Sir Tony Atkinson
> Professor of Economics, Cambridge University
>
> Emilios Avgouleas
> Professor, Law faculty, Manchester University (specialising in
> economic regulation and financial crises)
>
> Robert Chambers
> Research Associate, Institute of Development Studies
>
> Prof. Christopher Cramer
> Professor of the Political Economy of Development
> SOAS
>>
> Christopher Edwards
> Senior Fellow, University of East Anglia
>
> Geoff Harcourt
> Emeritus Reader in the History of Economic Theory, Cambridge;
> Emeritus Fellow, Jesus College, Cambridge;
> Professor Emeritus, Adelaide
>
> George Irvin
> Professor of Economics
> Univ of London, SOAS
>
> Rhys Jenkins
> Professor
> School of International Development
> University of East Anglia
>

> Dr Deborah Johnston
>> Dept of Economics, SOAS, UK
>
> Dennis Leech
> Professor of Economics
> University of Warwick
>>
> Julie Litchfield
> Senior Lecturer in Economics
>
> Judith Mehta
> Research Coordinator,
> ESRC Centre for Competition Policy,
> University of East Anglia, Norwich,
>
> Dr Lyla Metha
> Research Fellow, Institute of Developmemt Studies
>
> Machiko Nissanke
> Professor of Economics, SOAS
>
> Wendy Olsen
> Senior Lecturer in Socio-Economic Research,
> Univ. of Manchester
>
> Adrian Salbuchi
>>
> Malcolm Sawyer
> Professor of Economics, Leeds University
>
> Hubert Schmitz
> Professorial Fellow, Institute of Developmemnent Studies
>
> Rick van der Ploeg
> Professor of Economics
> University of Oxford
>
> Roberto Veneziani
> Senior Lecturer, Queen Mary University
>
> Philip J. Whyman
> Professor of Economics, University of Lancashire

>Edward Fullbrook
Real-World Economics Review

> USA

> Dean Baker
> Co-director, Centre for Economic and Policy Research, Washington D.C.
>
> STEPHANIE GRIFFITH JONES
> Financial Markets Program Director at the Initiative for Policy
> Dialogue at Columbia University
>
> ILENE GRABEL
> Professor of International Economics and Co-Director, Josef Korbel
> School of International Studies, University of Denver
>>
> Thomas Palley
> Schwartz Economic Growth Fellow
> New America Foundation
>
> Robert Pollin
> Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Co-director of
> the Political Economy Research Institute
>
> DANI RODRICK
> Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard
>
> Prof. Jeffrey Sachs
> Director, Earth Institute, Columbia University
>
> PETER SINGER
> Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics
>
> Rudi von Arnin
> Assistant Professor of Economics | University of Utah
>
> Yavuz Yasar
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Economics, University of Denver
>
> Canada
> Dr. C.P. Barrington – Leigh
> Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
>>
> Robert Chernomas
> Professor, Department of Economics
> University of Manitoba
>
> Mel Cross
> President, Atlantic Canada Economics association
>
> Henryk Flakierski
> Professor of Economics and Social Science (emeritus), York
> University, Toronto,
>
> Dr. Ricardo Grinspun
> Professor of Economics, York University, Toronto
>
> Terry Heaps
> Professor, retired
> Department of Economics
> Simon Fraser University
> British Columbia
>
> Gerry Helleiner
> Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, Distinguished Research
> Fellow, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto.
>
> Roderick Hill
> Andrew Jackson
> Chief Economist, Canadian Labour Congress , Canadian Centre for
> Policy Alternatives; School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University
>>
> Prof. Sir Richard Jolly
> Honorary Professor and Research Associate, co-director of the UN
> Intellectual History Project, former Assistant Secretary General of
> the UN.
>
> Stephen M. Law
> Ex-president, Atlantic Canada Economics Association, Canada
>
> Louis Lefeber
> Professor of Economics, York University
>
> Joan McFarland
> Professor of Economics, St. Thomas University
>
> Dr Rob Moir
> Dr Anthony Myatt
> Professor of Economics, University of New Brunswick
>
> Mel Watkins
> Professor Emeritus of Economics
> University of Toronto
> Toronto,
 
Back
Top