1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
I agree. Osborne said they were engaging in discussions but he didn't say in what way. Just because they are discussing it doesn't mean they are doing so favorably.
-Guru
APEC is against global transaction tax.
"...Views of APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) expressed in open letter to IMF
The APEC forum for facilitating economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region expressed its views in a letter to the IMF on 15 February 2010. The APEC Business Advisory Council stated:
We believe that imposition of a global tax is an inappropriate response and a further burden to industries, especially small and medium enterprises, and consumers in the wake of the global financial crisis. We also believe that the proposals under consideration would be harmful for a range of additional reasons, including the practical challenges of implementing any such tax.[46]
In addition, APEC expressed further concerns in the letter:-
* Key to the APEC agenda is reduction of transaction costs. The proposal is directly counterproductive to this goal.
* It would have a very significant negative impact on real economic recovery, as these additional costs are likely to further reduce financing of business activities at a time when markets remain fragile and prospects for the global economy are still uncertain.
* Industries and consumers as a whole would be unfairly penalized.
* It would further weaken financial markets and reduce the liquidity, particularly in the case of illiquid assets.
* Effective implementation would be virtually impossible, especially as opportunities for cross-border arbitrage arise from decisions of certain jurisdictions not to adopt the tax or to exempt particular activities.
* There is no global consensus why a tax is needed and what the revenue would be used for, and therefore no understanding how much is needed. Any consequential tax would need to be supported by clear consensus for its application.
Note - APEC's 21 Member Economies are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, The Republic of the Philippines, The Russian Federation, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United States of America, Viet Nam.....
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/consult/2009/pdf/Comment91.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_...ooperation.29_expressed_in_open_letter_to_IMF
"
"...Views of APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) expressed in open letter to IMF
The APEC forum for facilitating economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region expressed its views in a letter to the IMF on 15 February 2010. The APEC Business Advisory Council stated:
We believe that imposition of a global tax is an inappropriate response and a further burden to industries, especially small and medium enterprises, and consumers in the wake of the global financial crisis. We also believe that the proposals under consideration would be harmful for a range of additional reasons, including the practical challenges of implementing any such tax.[46]
In addition, APEC expressed further concerns in the letter:-
* Key to the APEC agenda is reduction of transaction costs. The proposal is directly counterproductive to this goal.
* It would have a very significant negative impact on real economic recovery, as these additional costs are likely to further reduce financing of business activities at a time when markets remain fragile and prospects for the global economy are still uncertain.
* Industries and consumers as a whole would be unfairly penalized.
* It would further weaken financial markets and reduce the liquidity, particularly in the case of illiquid assets.
* Effective implementation would be virtually impossible, especially as opportunities for cross-border arbitrage arise from decisions of certain jurisdictions not to adopt the tax or to exempt particular activities.
* There is no global consensus why a tax is needed and what the revenue would be used for, and therefore no understanding how much is needed. Any consequential tax would need to be supported by clear consensus for its application.
Note - APEC's 21 Member Economies are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, The Republic of the Philippines, The Russian Federation, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United States of America, Viet Nam.....
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/consult/2009/pdf/Comment91.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_...ooperation.29_expressed_in_open_letter_to_IMF
"
EU Taxationâ¦here they go again!
http://www.martaandreasen.com/?p=426
Two types of financial taxes are being discussed: a financial activities tax and a financial transaction tax. The Commission prefers the financial activity tax which intends to tax bonuses, salaries and profits and would yield â¬25 billion without affecting -according to them-European competitiveness. The Parliament would prefer the financial transaction tax which would tax all transactions at 0.01% to 0.05%. This is thought to raise from â¬60 billion to even 10 times that amount if derivatives are included! The danger the Commission sees in this tax is that it would push transactions away from Europe to other parts of the world that do not have such a tax, after all, today transactions are electronic entries in computers that can reside anywhere. But they are not going to let that deter them and are talking to other countries around the world to see if a global financial tax can be arranged. The Commissioner says that the American authorities are interested and would like to see the impact of the Commissionâs studies.
-Guru
http://www.martaandreasen.com/?p=426
Two types of financial taxes are being discussed: a financial activities tax and a financial transaction tax. The Commission prefers the financial activity tax which intends to tax bonuses, salaries and profits and would yield â¬25 billion without affecting -according to them-European competitiveness. The Parliament would prefer the financial transaction tax which would tax all transactions at 0.01% to 0.05%. This is thought to raise from â¬60 billion to even 10 times that amount if derivatives are included! The danger the Commission sees in this tax is that it would push transactions away from Europe to other parts of the world that do not have such a tax, after all, today transactions are electronic entries in computers that can reside anywhere. But they are not going to let that deter them and are talking to other countries around the world to see if a global financial tax can be arranged. The Commissioner says that the American authorities are interested and would like to see the impact of the Commissionâs studies.
-Guru
"And higher taxes, as the government tries to save its own skin by producing revenue any way it can"
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...ety-is-going-to-the-dogs-535805.html?tickers=^tnx,tlt,tbt,^dji,^gspc
http://snipurl.com/1try2f
be vigil as golden slax sells traders down the drain.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...ety-is-going-to-the-dogs-535805.html?tickers=^tnx,tlt,tbt,^dji,^gspc
http://snipurl.com/1try2f
be vigil as golden slax sells traders down the drain.
The Commissioner says that the American authorities are interested and would like to see the impact of the Commissionâs studies.
-Guru [/B][/QUOTE]
The commissioner forgot to expand that lie by also claiming that Canada, Japan, Sweden, and other non-supporting FTT countries were also interested.
-Guru [/B][/QUOTE]
The commissioner forgot to expand that lie by also claiming that Canada, Japan, Sweden, and other non-supporting FTT countries were also interested.
Semeta :" The European Union is engaging in discussions on the Transaction Tax and bank taxes... Blah ... Blah ... Can we count on the US Participating?"
Geithner: "OK , OK"
Semeta: "On the transaction Tax, we urge you to reconsider ...Blah, Blah... With the french presidency...Blah..Blah, we will do a study... Blah, Blah...What do you think?"
Geithner:"OK, OK"
Semeta: "What OK?"
Geithner( awaking):" Umm, yes, yes, do your study, we will see"
Semeta thinking "yes we get the US on board", Geithner thinking "WTF seriously..."
Geithner: "OK , OK"
Semeta: "On the transaction Tax, we urge you to reconsider ...Blah, Blah... With the french presidency...Blah..Blah, we will do a study... Blah, Blah...What do you think?"
Geithner:"OK, OK"
Semeta: "What OK?"
Geithner( awaking):" Umm, yes, yes, do your study, we will see"
Semeta thinking "yes we get the US on board", Geithner thinking "WTF seriously..."
For real, I think it's possible that the democrat administration will operate a u-turn on this subject since they lost congress and want to get votes back. It would be only for electoral purposes, knowing that there is few chances that it will ever see light, given:
- The need for congressional approval in the US
- The lack of agreement on how to do it between countries who wants it
-And most importantly, the impossibility to get Asia on board( which has become the world 1st trading region , particularly in derivatives )
- The need for congressional approval in the US
- The lack of agreement on how to do it between countries who wants it
-And most importantly, the impossibility to get Asia on board( which has become the world 1st trading region , particularly in derivatives )
Sarkozy et al take it as a joke when South Korea say they don't want transaction tax... He is probably not aware that KSE is trading more volume in futures and options than CME GROUP( Well in the case of Sarko, he is probably still thinking that NYSE is half the trading world... Idiot 
). And it's only the beginning, so much gamblers in Asia...
). And it's only the beginning, so much gamblers in Asia...Actually I'm willing to bet that Semeta didn't even speak directly to Geithner on this matter. He probably talked to some low level staffer at the Treasury who said sure we'll take a look at the results of your study, etc.
If Geithner had even implied that the US were rethinking it's position on the FTT we would of heard about it through other avenues.
Just my 2 cents,
-Guru