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

At 4:30pm on Wednesday 10th March the Early Day Motion EDM 913 ROBIN HOOD TAX CAMPAIGN was debated in the UK and you can read a full transcript of the debate here:-

http://www.publications.parliament....00310/halltext/100310h0010.htm#10031072000001

There are currently 113 signatures supporting it. I have written to every one of these MPs stating my opposition to financial transaction taxes. Here is a list of all those that currently support the tax:-
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40522&SESSION=903
Most of them have an email address in the form surnamefirstname at parliament.uk
eg. browng@parliament.uk

and here is a list of the email addresses of ALL UK Members of Parliament if you would also like to oppose the tax:-
http://www.fair-reporting.com/flyer/mp_uk_sep03.txt
 
and here is a breakdown of the EU vote where the vote went 537-80 in favour of the transaction tax:-
http://epvote.eu/index.php?text=443

Seems the UK was the only country in Europe to have more votes against (36) than in support(27) so at least I can be proud of that after the embarrassment of Gordon Brown these past few years.:)

I think this should be a wake-up call to anyone that thinks we have won this battle, it has basically only just begun.

But we will win if we work together and argue clearly why it would be so disastrous
 
Quote from zdreg:

even at .001 of the the value of the transaction would wipe out active day traders in the US.
More...

I know you're just pulling a number out of your hat, per se, but I never proposed such a number nor the inevitability of a FTT. All I said was if Europe decided unilaterally to institute an FTT, the US either wouldn't or do so in a very small way in order to absorb Europe's business and still remain competitive with Asia, who would likely would never institute a FTT.

What's more, it may even come down to just a fee. Much like the exchange, SEC, CFTC fees now. Or they may simply increase some of these fees to support increased financial oversight.

A fee can generate large sums without generating a negative effect on the market.

your entire supposition from above is just plain wrong. politicians shoot the country in the foot all the time.
More...

Right, they have been know to do that, that's why I said "in the head."

FTT would be akin to that.

if u were familiar with the rate of transaction turnover by active traders you would not make the above remarks [/B]
More...

Why grandstand and assume someone is not familiar with the rate of turnover? Didn't I state that the US is dominant in financial markets? The US has some of the most active markets on planet Earth. I'm well aware of the rate of transaction turnover.

This is what I mean. You just want to be disagreeable for disagreement sake. Routinely acting as if you have either special knowledge or the keenest insight. You don't really offer anything but doom and gloom as fact with nothing but your opinion and conspiratorial speculation to back it up.

And when no FTT even comes to a vote this year, you'll likely keep up the gloom and doom warning it's coming like a Fundamentalist Christian warns "the end is nigh."

Have the last word. I don't want to derail this excellent thread. I just wanted to counter your... stuff or whatever you think your purpose is other than to make yourself out to be the purveyor of all knowledge.
 
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/edms.cfm

Early day motions (EDMs) are formal motions submitted for debate in the House of Commons. However, very few EDMs are actually debated. Instead, they are used for reasons such as publicising the views of individual MPs, drawing attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrating the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view.

Why bother?

Although there is very little prospect of EDMs being debated, many attract a great deal of public interest and frequently receive media coverage.

[...]
 
I think there is a little bit too much noise around the euro parliament resolution. I don't know if everyone read it: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B7-2010-0133&language=EN but it was obvious there would be an incredible majority of supporters .

It is a resolution in which the parliament instruct the commission to study how the banking community should make a contribution and to make impact studies, nothing more. They mostly have TT in mind but they will study all options. Journalists are the worst in the TT issue.

Here's the important part:
"1. Is of the opinion that the European Union should agree on a common position in the international framework of G20 meetings as regards the options as to how the financial sector should make a fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burden which it has caused to the real economy or which is associated with government interventions to stabilise the banking system; takes the view that the EU, in parallel to and consistent with the G20 work, should develop its own strategy with regard to the range of possible options for action;

2. Considers, with a view to reaching a coherent EU position based on objective analysis, that the Commission should elaborate, sufficiently in advance of the next G20 Summit, an impact assessment of a global financial transaction tax, exploring its advantages as well as drawbacks;"

This kind of resolution had already been adopted in September or October I can't remember.
 
Quote from PatternRec:

I know you're just pulling a number out of your hat, per se, but I never proposed such a number nor the inevitability of a FTT. All I said was if Europe decided unilaterally to institute an FTT, the US either wouldn't or do so in a very small way in order to absorb Europe's business and still remain competitive with Asia, who would likely would never institute a FTT.

What's more, it may even come down to just a fee. Much like the exchange, SEC, CFTC fees now. Or they may simply increase some of these fees to support increased financial oversight.

A fee can generate large sums without generating a negative effect on the market.



Right, they have been know to do that, that's why I said "in the head."

FTT would be akin to that.



Why grandstand and assume someone is not familiar with the rate of turnover? Didn't I state that the US is dominant in financial markets? The US has some of the most active markets on planet Earth. I'm well aware of the rate of transaction turnover.

This is what I mean. You just want to be disagreeable for disagreement sake. Routinely acting as if you have either special knowledge or the keenest insight. You don't really offer anything but doom and gloom as fact with nothing but your opinion and conspiratorial speculation to back it up.

And when no FTT even comes to a vote this year, you'll likely keep up the gloom and doom warning it's coming like a Fundamentalist Christian warns "the end is nigh."

Have the last word. I don't want to derail this excellent thread. I just wanted to counter your... stuff or whatever you think your purpose is other than to make yourself out to be the purveyor of all knowledge. [/QUOTE

the facts speak for themselves. the suggested proposal in the US was .0025 of the transaction. i lowered it to .001. the reality is that it would eliminate day trading in the US. the truth is that u don't want to do the numbers or you don't want to recognize the numbers. . instead of doing the numbers you attack me on a personal level.: you think your purpose is other than to make yourself out to be the purveyor of all knowledge.

it is an old trick. if you can't contest the facts attack the person.
More...
 
Quote from zdreg:



the facts speak for themselves. the suggested proposal in the US was .0025 of the transaction. i lowered it to .001. the reality is that it would eliminate day trading in the US. the truth is that u don't want to do the numbers or you don't want to recognize the numbers. . instead of doing the numbers you attack me on a personal level.: you think your purpose is other than to make yourself out to be the purveyor of all knowledge.

it is an old trick. if you can't contest the facts attack the person.
More...

I am not arguing in favor of a TT but India has a tax of 0.0017% on transactions and it doesn't seem to have killed day trading there, infact there were articles recently on how algo trading was picking up there with international firms setting up bases.
 
Quote from hermit:

I am not arguing in favor of a TT but India has a tax of 0.0017% on transactions and it doesn't seem to have killed day trading there, infact there were articles recently on how algo trading was picking up there with international firms setting up bases.
More...


If its .0017% then its .0017 * .01 =.000017 So that is only 1.70 per every 100k traded so thats why they ( India) can day trade. But once they get the foot in the door with any amount of a tax, they will turn the key and make it rise. So we do not want an acceptable level of an FTT, we want nothing at all.
 
Quote from TraDaToR:

I think there is a little bit too much noise around the euro parliament resolution. I don't know if everyone read it: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B7-2010-0133&language=EN but it was obvious there would be an incredible majority of supporters .

It is a resolution in which the parliament instruct the commission to study how the banking community should make a contribution and to make impact studies, nothing more. They mostly have TT in mind but they will study all options. Journalists are the worst in the TT issue.

Here's the important part:
"1. Is of the opinion that the European Union should agree on a common position in the international framework of G20 meetings as regards the options as to how the financial sector should make a fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burden which it has caused to the real economy or which is associated with government interventions to stabilise the banking system; takes the view that the EU, in parallel to and consistent with the G20 work, should develop its own strategy with regard to the range of possible options for action;

2. Considers, with a view to reaching a coherent EU position based on objective analysis, that the Commission should elaborate, sufficiently in advance of the next G20 Summit, an impact assessment of a global financial transaction tax, exploring its advantages as well as drawbacks;"

This kind of resolution had already been adopted in September or October I can't remember.
More...

So it sounds like they plan on doing the same thing that the IMF is going to release in a couple of weeks ( a study of options of how to best pay for this mess). Seems kind of redundant to me. We all know the IMF is going to come out against a Tobin Tax and instead favor a direct levy on the banks (liabilities, profits, assets or whatever). That should help put an end to this madness.

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