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

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...nce-to-tax-on-financial-transactions-or-banks

Poll shows strong resistance to tax on financial transactions or banks
By Jay Heflin - 03/11/10 12:49 PM ET

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday released results showing 70 percent of registered voters polled oppose a new tax on financial transactions and 61 percent say a tax on financial firms would worsen economic conditions.

The Lombardo Consulting Group conducted the survey between Mar. 5 – 9 and tapped the opinion of 800 U.S. registered voters.

“Taxing financial transactions will do nothing to create jobs. It will hurt average investors, reduce savings, and make it harder for America’s job creators to recover from the economic crisis.” said David Hirschmann, president and CEO of the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, in prepared remarks.


He added, “Today’s highly liquid markets make it possible for average investors to get the best price and pay dramatically lower transactions costs when they buy and sell stocks. And, with more investment, they fuel the capital needs of businesses of every size.”

Unions have recently pushed the idea of creating a tax on financial transactions to help pay for a plethora of Democratic legislative initiatives. President Obama has championed a tax on financial institutions to curb excessive risk-taking.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and acting House Ways and Means Chairman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) have discussed the creation of a bank tax with their respective staffers, but no formal legislation has been introduced addressing the issue.
 
Quote from Explorer:

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...nce-to-tax-on-financial-transactions-or-banks

Poll shows strong resistance to tax on financial transactions or banks
By Jay Heflin - 03/11/10 12:49 PM ET

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday released results showing 70 percent of registered voters polled oppose a new tax on financial transactions and 61 percent say a tax on financial firms would worsen economic conditions.

The Lombardo Consulting Group conducted the survey between Mar. 5 – 9 and tapped the opinion of 800 U.S. registered voters.

“Taxing financial transactions will do nothing to create jobs. It will hurt average investors, reduce savings, and make it harder for America’s job creators to recover from the economic crisis.” said David Hirschmann, president and CEO of the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, in prepared remarks.


He added, “Today’s highly liquid markets make it possible for average investors to get the best price and pay dramatically lower transactions costs when they buy and sell stocks. And, with more investment, they fuel the capital needs of businesses of every size.”

Unions have recently pushed the idea of creating a tax on financial transactions to help pay for a plethora of Democratic legislative initiatives. President Obama has championed a tax on financial institutions to curb excessive risk-taking.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and acting House Ways and Means Chairman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) have discussed the creation of a bank tax with their respective staffers, but no formal legislation has been introduced addressing the issue.
More...





100% of America could be against a tax on banks or financial transactions, but the tone deaf, brain dead Democrats won't care and will still try to do something with it. If their willing to ram through healthcare, while the majority of America is dead set against it, they wouldn't blink an eye in ramming through a bank tax/FTT.
The GOP should not only campaign on healthcare for November, but also on this tax issue. Today on Politico.com, and thehill.com, I read that Harry Reid plans on introducing massive filibuster reform in the Senate, which will allow for simple up and down votes for every piece of legislation, and will kill the filibuster rules of needing 60 votes. They claim they can do this reform by having VP Joe Biden simply write new rules, and then it's done.
Republicans must do everything in their power to win in November. If Democrats are allowed to remain in power, everyone will be taxed to death from banking, trading, walking, breathing, wiping their asses, etc............. I've never seen an administration/congress that is so hell bent on ruining this country. If Democrats remain in control, I'm convinced that it's a question of when, not if a FTT is put in place. The only hope we have is that the GOP wins control of the House in Nov., as their odds of taking the majority in the Senate are not as strong.
November 2nd is really our only chance to make sure the FTT doesn't happen.
 
Quote from Clubber Lang:

From Briefing-


The Tax With Nine Lives Appears Dead-- Traders Magazine

The proposed 0.25 percent securities transaction tax (STT) is dead in Congress--at least for now. But opponents warn that the idea could be resurrected and dropped into almost any bill, as the U.S. government seeks new sources to close record deficits. Still, others believe that the tax just won't happen this year. That's good news for prop traders and high-frequency traders, whose profit margins are razor thin to begin with. The tax, many fear, would push them out of the market and lessen liquidity for all investors. Next year, however, is another story and the idea to tax trades could gain traction. But for now, it's a back-burner issue, sources say. "The 0.25 percent is not going to happen," said Paul Zubulake, a securities industry analyst with Aite Group. "That would have had a devastating effect on in the industry. But a smaller STT could still happen." Zubulake said the government's need for more revenues could lead to new forms of taxing Wall Street. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., drafted the STT bill, HR 4191. It would assess a 0.25 percent tax on financial transactions. Money generated by the tax would pay down the debt and create public sector jobs. The STT would be imposed on "stocks, futures, swaps, credit default swaps and options," according to the bill.
More...

Here are a couple more tidbits from the above piece:

"Although the DeFazio bill, along with another STT plan in the Senate, has not cleared committee and has few co-sponsors, many in the trading industry fear that the idea of making Wall Street pay higher taxes will succeed."

"DeFazio concedes the bill will have tough going because it has been introduced late in the Congressional session. A spokeswoman for Rep. DeFazio said the bill is now pending in the House Ways and Means Committee. She said it was not clear when the committee will hold hearings on the bill."

http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/trading-tax-congress-high-frequency-105337-1.html?pg=1

Let's hope that Sandy Levin won't hold hearings on Defazio's bill or if he does that it never makes it out of committee.

-Guru
 
US Chamber of Commerce slams Tobin tax proposals:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/11/us-chamber-commerce-tobin-tax

"America's leading business advocacy group, the US chamber of commerce, has slammed proposals for a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions by claiming that a levy would cause the Dow Jones Industrial Average to plunge by 12.5%, and that seven out of 10 people oppose the idea."

"This tax is designed to punish Wall Street but it really would shoot main-street right in the foot," said one of the report's authors, professor Charles Jones of Columbia business school."

"Virulently opposed to the idea, the chamber today said the tax would double the cost of typical transactions and would turn back the clock to the days of "disco balls, parachute pants and paper trades" before technology drastically eased the price of investing."

And here are Dean Baker's comments:

Dean Baker, co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, questioned the chamber's claim that a levy would cause stock prices to plunge, saying that it would simply encourage investors to hang onto shares for longer: "If people hold their stock, the tax has very little impact."

He added that directly linking the cost of trading to stockmarket movements erroneously implied that a major proportion of the market's rise since the 1970s was simply a factor of low-cost transactions, rather than underlying economic growth.

-Guru
 
The gov't doesn't have any money.

all the money is from tax payers GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS!!!

Quote from listedguru:

US Chamber of Commerce slams Tobin tax proposals:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/11/us-chamber-commerce-tobin-tax

"America's leading business advocacy group, the US chamber of commerce, has slammed proposals for a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions by claiming that a levy would cause the Dow Jones Industrial Average to plunge by 12.5%, and that seven out of 10 people oppose the idea."

"This tax is designed to punish Wall Street but it really would shoot main-street right in the foot," said one of the report's authors, professor Charles Jones of Columbia business school."

"Virulently opposed to the idea, the chamber today said the tax would double the cost of typical transactions and would turn back the clock to the days of "disco balls, parachute pants and paper trades" before technology drastically eased the price of investing."

And here are Dean Baker's comments:

Dean Baker, co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, questioned the chamber's claim that a levy would cause stock prices to plunge, saying that it would simply encourage investors to hang onto shares for longer: "If people hold their stock, the tax has very little impact."

He added that directly linking the cost of trading to stockmarket movements erroneously implied that a major proportion of the market's rise since the 1970s was simply a factor of low-cost transactions, rather than underlying economic growth.

-Guru
More...
 
Quote from wallstreetkids:

The gov't doesn't have any money.

all the money is from tax payers GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS!!!
More...

And the more they tax, the less money they will have.

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD!
 
Quote from wallstreetkids:

The gov't doesn't have any money.

all the money is from tax payers GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS!!!
More...



Oh, okay brainstorm! You must be one of those Obama Harvard economists with their heads buried up their ass. The Gov't. doesn't have any money? Tell that to the shithead-in-chief Obama. Apparently, he thinks we have trillions of dollars to burn, with the all the reckless spending he continues to do.
 
Quote from TraDaToR: make sure the charity [..] isn't part of [the pro-Tobin tax lobby]
More...
For those living in the States, there is a already someting even more effective than "charity screening"! (but for those living elsewhere, I preserved the blacklists here, because these pro-Tobin charities will be soon trying to hide the inconvenient truth).

After the recent "show" put up by so many charities, active traders and the financial industry in general should seriously rethink its involvement with traditional charities, because there is a better option available. It is called a social business - "a non-loss, non-dividiend company with a social objective, [which] aims to maximize the positive impact on society while earning enough to cover its costs, and, if possible, generate a surplus to help the business grow. The owner never intends to take any profit for himself." (source: http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=398&Itemid=199 )

So why not restrict our charitable activities to social businesses, which are self-sustainable in the long term, do not have any funding gaps, and do not distribute money from "helicopters" (via corrupt government officials, who sometimes pass it straight to arms dealers)? How can you be sure that your charity will not become "bent" during the next crisis, joining the next pro-Tobin campaign calling for more of your money via "compulsory giving" / taxation? Social businesses should never even need to do that, because by definition they can fend for themselves, earning profit each year from their definitely charitable activities (http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=426 ).

After all, isn't it a more productive use of the benefactor's money if a "neo-charity" (social business) can re-use your capital many times over, with nearly 100% loan return rates? Forget charities - the model is inherently flawed (it already failed in Africa!) - give instead to a non-profit bank that will lend your money in the form of a micro-loan directly to groups of women (for solid business reasons, not just PC), to help them set up shops and indeed... for trading (not ES, "spot" agricultural products only;) - see the top 25 items for which Grameen Bank members took microenterprise loans: http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=357&Itemid=475 ).

While I do not khow to donate to the main Bangladeshi Grameen Bank, if you live in the States, then Prof. Yunus has already set up a U.S. branch of his bank for your convenience (lending to Americans in need), and that donation would be tax-deductible, because they are registered as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization ( http://www.grameenamerica.com/Get-Involved/Contribute.html ). I do hope, that Grameen will come to Europe as well, so far I'll stick with my local registered charity run by actual monks, because it does "amateur" microloans in Africa, with admin costs as low as they'll ever get. Grameen Bank uses only 10% on admin, which is remarkable given its median loan size and the large number of local loan officers, who get 70% of the admin money, while traditional "one-off fish handout" charities display no sings of economies of scale and manage to waste twice as much of your money, 15-25%! BTW, I wonder what the admin cost of a typical Government would be...;)
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top