No surprises for us in the State of the Union speech.
It's been a good week.
It's been a good week.
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Sarkozy has approved Obama's plans from what I know and is open to global implementation. Lagarde also made some good comments about the insurance levy but said it wasn't adapted in France since french government already recouped funds from bank bailouts. I haven't heard the word Transaction tax from them since Obama's announcement. I hope it remains this way.
There is one thing that concerns me...(and im no expert on american politics). What if the Senate or congress vetoes Obama's bank levy? (is that possible?) What if he then would support the transaction tax instead?
New York (CNN)
Tax Wall St. to create jobs on Main St.
Leo Hindery, Jr. is chair of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation. He is the former chief executive of AT&T Broadband and other major media and telecom companies.
cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/27/hindery.tax.wall.street/
----------------------------------------
Another securities expert, not, with a plan for a "New America".
Tax Wall St. to create jobs on Main St.
Leo Hindery, Jr. is chair of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation. He is the former chief executive of AT&T Broadband and other major media and telecom companies.
cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/27/hindery.tax.wall.street/
----------------------------------------
Another securities expert, not, with a plan for a "New America".
Update: This same journalist sent follow up questions after the President's State of the Union address.
Bob -
A follow-up question for you. Last night, the President called on the Senate to pass the House jobs bill in his state of the union address. As we've discussed, that bill is financed in part by the transactions tax. Does this increase the odds of a transaction tax succeeding in some form, or would it have to be stripped from the bill if it is to pass the Senate? Your thoughts? Thanks again,
My quick reply -
I thought of the same thing during the speech and I think the financial transaction tax (FTT) will be stripped out of any jobs bill. It's counter-productive and odd to cause traders and others in the financial-services industry to be fired as an unintended (or intended for some) consequence of passing a financial-transaction tax - all for the stated purposes of creating new jobs in a "jobs bill." This is the main point of our Petitions at http://www.rallycongress.com/greentradertax-traders-association1/ .
The President was also very firm in the State of the Union address about 'not having passed one dime of new taxes on the middle class' and this FTT tax would fall mostly on the middle class as concluded by Secretary Geithner. The government's piggy-back seems to be unused and repaid TARP funds and the President's chosen means for paying back TARP is his administration's bank fee plan, not a FTT (financial transaction tax).
---------------
Bob â I misspoke. H.R. 4191, the bill with the transaction tax, is not the one that got approval from the House. Obama was referring to a different bill last night. Sorry for the mistake!
Reply: Regarding the follow up clarification about HR 4191 - The Senate can work up their own version of a jobs bill and include HR 4191 too I presume.
Bob -
A follow-up question for you. Last night, the President called on the Senate to pass the House jobs bill in his state of the union address. As we've discussed, that bill is financed in part by the transactions tax. Does this increase the odds of a transaction tax succeeding in some form, or would it have to be stripped from the bill if it is to pass the Senate? Your thoughts? Thanks again,
My quick reply -
I thought of the same thing during the speech and I think the financial transaction tax (FTT) will be stripped out of any jobs bill. It's counter-productive and odd to cause traders and others in the financial-services industry to be fired as an unintended (or intended for some) consequence of passing a financial-transaction tax - all for the stated purposes of creating new jobs in a "jobs bill." This is the main point of our Petitions at http://www.rallycongress.com/greentradertax-traders-association1/ .
The President was also very firm in the State of the Union address about 'not having passed one dime of new taxes on the middle class' and this FTT tax would fall mostly on the middle class as concluded by Secretary Geithner. The government's piggy-back seems to be unused and repaid TARP funds and the President's chosen means for paying back TARP is his administration's bank fee plan, not a FTT (financial transaction tax).
---------------
Bob â I misspoke. H.R. 4191, the bill with the transaction tax, is not the one that got approval from the House. Obama was referring to a different bill last night. Sorry for the mistake!
Reply: Regarding the follow up clarification about HR 4191 - The Senate can work up their own version of a jobs bill and include HR 4191 too I presume.
Just to be clear there is no FTT is any jobs bill currently and I highly doubt a FTT will show up in the Senate's jobs bill. If a FTT were going to show up in a jobs bill it would have showed up in the house version. It sounds like any jobs bill that does come about (in the Senate) is going to be scaled down from the ambitious jobs bill put forth by the house...
-Guru
Donât trample on traders constitutional rights with a financial-transaction tax.
I want to delve more into the constitutional law issue on selectively taxing and punishing Wall Street and traders in order to turn over those tax collections to another group who the federal government curries more favor with, like manufacturers and union jobs.
Based on what I have seen from the bank lobbyists and lawyers first shots across the bow of the Obama bank fee plan, I think they have strong arguments to play the constitutional law card.
Especially after the Supreme Court (stacked with Bush appointments) just really upset the Obama administration with their business-friendly-advertising decision which could weigh heavily in the upcoming mid term elections (allowing for more corporate ads and support to counterbalance current union ads). During the State of the Union address last night, the body language, stares and jibes between the President and Chief Justice Roberts and is colleagues were very noticeable, and inappropriate in my view (on the Presidentâs part).
Senator Hatch (R-UT) - a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and still a senior member - told Fox News the night before the State of the Union that the health care bills were most-likely unconstitutional. That it was unconstitutional and unprecedented for the federal government to force its citizens to purchase any product or service, which certainly includes the health care bills provisions for mandated purchase of health insurance policies. The Senator said the precedent of states requiring auto insurance is not applicable because a person can chose to use public transportation and not drive having an out. I say they can also have others in their family drive too for another out. Senator Hatch went on to say that states have more powers than the federal government in this regard and the Democrats are taking us to dangerous and un-chartered waters. This reminds you of the Tea Party rants on the federal government growing way beyond its acceptable roles.
Democrats may currently control most branches of government â the administration and legislature (both the House and Senate), but they donât control the judiciary, which is supposed to be an independent body. For those that like more checks and balances, itâs now not a bad thing to have the Bush appointments on the court, like Chief Justice Roberts.
Can you smell Bush vs. Gore election Florida 2000? Health care legislation and other important Obamaâs initiatives may face this same fate, ultimately in the Supreme Court. Does anyone really think that the administration and legislature are not dysfunctional these days after the health care debacle and more?
Any time traders see âWall Street pay for Main Streetâ rants, I suggest that you shout out in Comments that itâs unconstitutional for the government to decide that traders are immoral and useless â they certainly are important as speculator market makers â and second, to selectively punish Wall Street and traders with new taxes and fees which they turn over to groups the government officials morally decided are superior for our economy (and who they take lots of campaign contributions too as well).
This current government is further stepping way beyond the role that citizens want and in the case of a FTT, itâs trampling on tradersâ constitutional rights. Banks may not have constitutional rights as corporations, but traders have those rights as small-business individual traders trying to make a legal living for their families.
Financial services and trading dominate Americaâs profits and taxes and union jobs have been exported to Asia. Neither is the fault of traders. The meltdown and the outsourcing trend is the fault of consumers not paying their mortgages and buying Asian goods at Wal-Mart. The government could have helped stopped those problems and they did not. Stop selectively and unfairly blaming Wall Street and traders.
The President said in his State of the Union that Wall Street did bad behavior. Is it bad to go to get straight As in school, get into Harvard University, get a job on Wall Street, help your community with charity, and make billions of dollars that support our government with taxes? Is it better to not study hard, not go to college, get a union job, buy goods cheaply in Wal-Mart and see your job go to China and then ask for government hand outs on your mortgage and more? Is this President trying to create a middle class that relies on hand-outs? Stop this class warfare against Wall Street, its unconstitutional and âbad behaviorâ now that you use that term.
I want to delve more into the constitutional law issue on selectively taxing and punishing Wall Street and traders in order to turn over those tax collections to another group who the federal government curries more favor with, like manufacturers and union jobs.
Based on what I have seen from the bank lobbyists and lawyers first shots across the bow of the Obama bank fee plan, I think they have strong arguments to play the constitutional law card.
Especially after the Supreme Court (stacked with Bush appointments) just really upset the Obama administration with their business-friendly-advertising decision which could weigh heavily in the upcoming mid term elections (allowing for more corporate ads and support to counterbalance current union ads). During the State of the Union address last night, the body language, stares and jibes between the President and Chief Justice Roberts and is colleagues were very noticeable, and inappropriate in my view (on the Presidentâs part).
Senator Hatch (R-UT) - a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and still a senior member - told Fox News the night before the State of the Union that the health care bills were most-likely unconstitutional. That it was unconstitutional and unprecedented for the federal government to force its citizens to purchase any product or service, which certainly includes the health care bills provisions for mandated purchase of health insurance policies. The Senator said the precedent of states requiring auto insurance is not applicable because a person can chose to use public transportation and not drive having an out. I say they can also have others in their family drive too for another out. Senator Hatch went on to say that states have more powers than the federal government in this regard and the Democrats are taking us to dangerous and un-chartered waters. This reminds you of the Tea Party rants on the federal government growing way beyond its acceptable roles.
Democrats may currently control most branches of government â the administration and legislature (both the House and Senate), but they donât control the judiciary, which is supposed to be an independent body. For those that like more checks and balances, itâs now not a bad thing to have the Bush appointments on the court, like Chief Justice Roberts.
Can you smell Bush vs. Gore election Florida 2000? Health care legislation and other important Obamaâs initiatives may face this same fate, ultimately in the Supreme Court. Does anyone really think that the administration and legislature are not dysfunctional these days after the health care debacle and more?
Any time traders see âWall Street pay for Main Streetâ rants, I suggest that you shout out in Comments that itâs unconstitutional for the government to decide that traders are immoral and useless â they certainly are important as speculator market makers â and second, to selectively punish Wall Street and traders with new taxes and fees which they turn over to groups the government officials morally decided are superior for our economy (and who they take lots of campaign contributions too as well).
This current government is further stepping way beyond the role that citizens want and in the case of a FTT, itâs trampling on tradersâ constitutional rights. Banks may not have constitutional rights as corporations, but traders have those rights as small-business individual traders trying to make a legal living for their families.
Financial services and trading dominate Americaâs profits and taxes and union jobs have been exported to Asia. Neither is the fault of traders. The meltdown and the outsourcing trend is the fault of consumers not paying their mortgages and buying Asian goods at Wal-Mart. The government could have helped stopped those problems and they did not. Stop selectively and unfairly blaming Wall Street and traders.
The President said in his State of the Union that Wall Street did bad behavior. Is it bad to go to get straight As in school, get into Harvard University, get a job on Wall Street, help your community with charity, and make billions of dollars that support our government with taxes? Is it better to not study hard, not go to college, get a union job, buy goods cheaply in Wal-Mart and see your job go to China and then ask for government hand outs on your mortgage and more? Is this President trying to create a middle class that relies on hand-outs? Stop this class warfare against Wall Street, its unconstitutional and âbad behaviorâ now that you use that term.
There's a Reader Comment section at the bottom of that article.