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

FTT dies an overdue death today, as the bitch concedes defeat.

Anything Wall Street related that's not in the finreg bill has 0% prospects, especially after the November tsumani that's going to hit the O. Admin.
 
President Obama on controlling the debt: "Somehow people say, why are you doing that, I'm not sure that's good politics. I'm doing it because I said I was going to do it and I think it's the right thing to do. People should learn that lesson about me because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step-up because I'm calling their bluff. We'll see how much of that, how much of the political arguments that they're making right now are real and how much of it was just politics."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._those_complaining_about_debt_he_created.html
 
Quote from listedguru:

It will be interesting to see if Germany (and or France) go it alone on the FTT issue.

-Guru
More...

Choose to remove liquidity from their markets (including the markets for government debt) and put up their borrowing costs? They don't have the balls. I wish they did - when they go cap in hand to the IMF we can learn from their mistakes.

They have not learned from the experiment with an FTT in Sweden, which cut volumes in the cash bond market by 85% and the bond futures market by 98% in the first week following its introduction. Not surprisingly, it was repealed. That was a "tiny tax" of 0.003% of notional value.

It would be sad if the Dax futures disappered, but we'd find something else...
 
Quote from Blotto:

Choose to remove liquidity from their markets (including the markets for government debt) and put up their borrowing costs? They don't have the balls. I wish they did - when they go cap in hand to the IMF we can learn from their mistakes.

They have not learned from the experiment with an FTT in Sweden, which cut volumes in the cash bond market by 85% and the bond futures market by 98% in the first week following its introduction. Not surprisingly, it was repealed. That was a "tiny tax" of 0.003% of notional value.

It would be sad if the Dax futures disappered, but we'd find something else...
More...

End of the 80th the BUND was trading at Liffe London.
Coming home Bund and DAX, London is a nice place .....
 
EU To Study Bank Transaction Tax After G20: Tax Chief

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/business/article_212309608.shtml

The European Union's executive will study whether it should go alone in imposing a tax on financial transactions after G20 leaders failed to agree on the issue, the EU's top taxation official said on Monday.

The tax would be separate from a bank levy, or a resolution levy, which some governments are proposing to impose on banks to insure them against the costs of any future bailouts.

"We now need to determine if Europe can and should go alone in taxing the financial sector beyond the resolution levy," EU Tax Commissioner Algirdas Semeta told the European Parliament's committee on economic and monetary affairs.

"If we want to progress, we must now assess the potential impact of bank taxation on the competitiveness of the EU economy," he said.

G20 leaders failed to agree on a global banking levy or transaction tax when they met over the weekend in Canada, leaving it up individual countries to decide what to do.

EU leaders instructed their finance ministers last month to work out by the end of October details for the banking levy, but any financial transaction tax remains much more controversial.
 
Quote from Explorer:

EU To Study Bank Transaction Tax After G20: Tax Chief

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/business/article_212309608.shtml

The European Union's executive will study whether it should go alone in imposing a tax on financial transactions after G20 leaders failed to agree on the issue, the EU's top taxation official said on Monday.

The tax would be separate from a bank levy, or a resolution levy, which some governments are proposing to impose on banks to insure them against the costs of any future bailouts.

"We now need to determine if Europe can and should go alone in taxing the financial sector beyond the resolution levy," EU Tax Commissioner Algirdas Semeta told the European Parliament's committee on economic and monetary affairs.

"If we want to progress, we must now assess the potential impact of bank taxation on the competitiveness of the EU economy," he said.

G20 leaders failed to agree on a global banking levy or transaction tax when they met over the weekend in Canada, leaving it up individual countries to decide what to do.

EU leaders instructed their finance ministers last month to work out by the end of October details for the banking levy, but any financial transaction tax remains much more controversial.
More...

It seems highly unlikely to me that even the EU would agree to impose a FTT. I guess we'll see what happens going forward though.

-Guru
 
Fee on Swaps in FinReg Bill?

It sounds like maybe they are going to impose what they are calling a 'fee' on each swap transaction as part of the fin reg bill:

SEC. XXX. SWAP TRANSACTION FEES.



The Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) (as amended by section 748) is amended by adding at the end the following:

SEC. 24. SWAP TRANSACTION FEES.


(a) Recovery of Costs of Annual Appropriation for swaps activities.-Beginning in fiscal year 2012, the Commission shall, in accordance with this section, set a fee for each swap transaction that is designed to recover the costs to the Government of the portion of its annual appropriation to the Commission that is related to the supervision and regulation of swaps markets and swaps participants, including enforcement activities, administration, legal services, and international regulatory activities.


The above was sent to me but I haven't been able to locate that language in the fin reg bill. I'm not sure if they are referring to a set fee per swap or if the number would be a % tax. Strange that it doesn't mention it. I'm not sure if this is actually in the bill or something that got thrown out, etc... The good news it appears to be only on swaps (if it exists at all).

Just an FYI,

-Guru
 
Merkel's attempt to bluff the G20 into taking an unpalatable and unviable measure that was never on the cards has dumped her political colleagues into a right royal dilemma - worsened due to the budgeted inclusion of projected (dodgy) tax revenue.

They must now figure out how to extricate themselves with minimal political damage.

The signs are already emerging.
 
Guru mention the Fin Reg bill having FTT on swaps transactions.

I've been working hard the past few weeks to blog, comment and fight against first the tax extenders bill and now Fin Reg. Passage of either could open the door to an FTT in my view. Often times I mention no FTT too. We can block Fin Reg.

See my site blog and forbes blogs at http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/author/rgreen/

Please join me with Comments on the leading media articles to defeat Fin Reg. It's a momentum shift and we can block harmful tax increase ideas on our industry. I continue to think we need to win all battles and the war and not just try to defend against FTT. I know some of you agree but that others disagree to. Hope you will join me.

Sent from my iPhone.
 
Quote from Robert A. Green: the Fin Reg bill having FTT on swaps transactions .. Sent from my iPhone.
More...
".. designed to recover the costs .. related to the supervision and regulation of swaps markets"? [citation needed BTW]

Doesn't sound like a tax to me ;) It has a very specific purpose, severely restricting its size: merely recovering the costs of regulatory activities. Taxes on the other hand, would be for generic (deficit) spending, and thus could be set at unmitigated rates, motivated solely by greed (as in the Baker/de Fazio FTT rate). Having a specific purpose also guarantees that this new 'CFTC fee' (transactions-based, just as the current SEC fee) cannot be increased in the future to some unreasonable rate (e.g. the infamous 0.25%) , so the 'slippery slope' fears do not apply. It's just another non-destructive, reasonable (in comparison to any FTT) regulatory fee for the previously unregulated part of the financial markets.

Relax, yours is a democratic country, so when they say 'no', they don't mean it in the UK's sense (where 'no' has a bit more complex meaning: 'no to new such taxes, but let's keep our great British national tradition which precedes even Tobin by a decade: the SDRT 'duty' on pensions and foreign residends';)

Let's hear it from the source (keeping in mind that the Commodity Exchange Act regulates CFTC, not SEC):

"When you sell a stock, you may have noticed that a small transaction fee, often just a few pennies, appears on your confirmation slip. Although some broker-dealers have described this charge as an "SEC Fee," the SEC does not actually impose this fee on individual investors.

The SEC does not impose or set any of the brokerage fees that investors must pay. Instead, under Section 31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, self-regulatory organizations (SROs) -- such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and all of the national securities exchanges (including the New York Stock Exchange) -- must pay transaction fees to the SEC based on the volume of securities that are sold on their markets. These fees recover the costs incurred by the government, including the SEC, for supervising and regulating the securities markets and securities professionals [and some visual erotic entertainment - the only perk in this exceedingly boring job;)]." [source: "SEC Fee" — Section 31 Transaction Fees, URL: http://www.sec.gov/answers/sec31.htm ]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top