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

Quote from zdreg:

6800+ posts and ET posters still post nonsense about a "modest" financial transaction tax. there is NO such an animal as a modest FTT tax if you are a professional trader who is leveraged and turns over his portfolio numerous times in a year.
please stop posting this nonsense about a FTT. a ftt of .0001, which seems small, would end the day trading business in the business in US stocks.
it is disgusting that ET is full of mathematical illiterates who have the need to post.
More...

- Ksharmon is just quoting the headline and the illiterate is Barnier so you are the only one with comprehension problems( Goldman exempted, Obama TT supporter ...).

- It doesn't have to be the UK or Germany, it can be Sweden, Czech Republic, the Netherlands... So chances it will pass are really slim.

- Call me crazy but in my case( I trade cme group only ), I would prefer a euro only FTT than a euro only FAT. Why ? because I anticipate that it would be too hard for the EU to tax foreign transactions at the beginning, they would just tax at the clearing house and this woud be so disastrous for euro exchanges that they would soon repeal it. On the other side, an FAT has a chance to work, It's just a matter of who makes a lot of money and can pay an extra 5% on their income. There would some relocation but it wouldn't simply kill business like an FTT.I know, it's a selfish attitude and I hope people trading Eurex, LME won't see it happening but there's no way I pay an extra 5% on my income.
 
Quote from TraDaToR:


- Call me crazy but in my case( I trade cme group only ), I would prefer a euro only FTT than a euro only FAT. Why ? because I anticipate that it would be too hard for the EU to tax foreign transactions at the beginning, they would just tax at the clearing house and this woud be so disastrous for euro exchanges that they would soon repeal it. On the other side, an FAT has a chance to work, It's just a matter of who makes a lot of money and can pay an extra 5% on their income. There would some relocation but it wouldn't simply kill business like an FTT.I know, it's a selfish attitude and I hope people trading Eurex, LME won't see it happening but there's no way I pay an extra 5% on my income.
More...

But what if that FTT will not destroy the exchanges. UK already has a 0.5% Stamp Duty and it is working. Sure, the volumes might go down, and they might not collect many taxes, but I don't think this is there goal. In fact, they just want to kill daytrading because they hate us!
Even long term investors hate us!
I'm not very familiar with UK's Stamp Duty. What is the difference between Stamp Duty and the FTT? Why Stamp Duty is working and the FTT will not work?
 
Quote from TraDaToR:
- It doesn't have to be the UK or Germany, it can be Sweden, Czech Republic, the Netherlands... So chances it will pass are really slim.
[/B]
More...

Yes, and another reason why this is unlikely to pass relates to the nature of EU funding.

Until now the EU budget has been funded from contributions from each member government. With this proposal, for the first time the European Commission is attempting to tax Europe's citizens and businesses directly.

This is a big deal. The concept of EU direct taxation is strongly opposed by many countries on principle, regardless of the type of tax.

So the proposal may well be rejected on general principle on top of objections to an FTT specifically. And when you consider it takes just a single member state to veto the whole thing, it looks very unlikely that this will see the light of day.
 
Barroso stakes reputation on finance tax

http://www.gfsnews.com/article/2166/1/Barroso_stakes_reputation_on_finance_tax

José Manuel Barroso has revealed that the European Commission believes there is a "strong case" for imposing a tax on the continent's financial services industry.

In a letter to the European Council, released on Tuesday, the commission president confirms that officials will present a "formal legislative proposal" after the summer.

It is unclear whether Barroso is throwing his weight behind either a transaction tax, an activity tax or some other levy, but he insists the sector should make a "fair and substantive contribution" in the aftermath of the global crisis.

He says that the EU executive will "in parallel" continue to lobby for a global financial transaction tax, but, crucially, does not rule out introducing a Union-only tax....

-----------------------

For the record, on the previous post on the Dow Jones headline on Barroso, I was quoting DJ verbatim.

I am under no illusions about any kind of "modest" tax whatsoever.....Furthermore, the tendency is for an initial tax once implemented to find ways of going up over time, look at the way the VAT has worked in Europe.
 
Quote from Lamar95:

But what if that FTT will not destroy the exchanges. UK already has a 0.5% Stamp Duty and it is working.
More...

Have you ever thought about why the UK is opposed to FTT if they already have one? Simply because it isn't a real FTT. I don't remember exactly but there is something like 75% of the volume which is exempt. The stamp tax is targeting the dumbest mom and pops and pension fund investing. Even half sophisticated retail traders have ways around it( CFDs ). The Stamp tax would have never seen the light if the city was subject to it( like the current FTT we are talking about ). The debate is clearly on every transaction right now, particularly the banks, HF and HFT volume...
 
Quote from TraDaToR:

Have you ever thought about why the UK is opposed to FTT if they already have one? Simply because it isn't a real FTT. I don't remember exactly but there is something like 75% of the volume which is exempt. The stamp tax is targeting the dumbest mom and pops and pension fund investing. Even half sophisticated retail traders have ways around it( CFDs ). The Stamp tax would have never seen the light if the city was subject to it( like the current FTT we are talking about ). The debate is clearly on every transaction right now, particularly the banks, HF and HFT volume...
More...

and tax revenue would be three billion pounds more if the 0.5% stamp duty was abolished. It's removal is not surprisingly being blocked by the exchequer that collects stamp duty.
 
Quote from Explorer:

Yes, and another reason why this is unlikely to pass relates to the nature of EU funding.

Until now the EU budget has been funded from contributions from each member government. With this proposal, for the first time the European Commission is attempting to tax Europe's citizens and businesses directly.

This is a big deal. The concept of EU direct taxation is strongly opposed by many countries on principle, regardless of the type of tax.

So the proposal may well be rejected on general principle on top of objections to an FTT specifically. And when you consider it takes just a single member state to veto the whole thing, it looks very unlikely that this will see the light of day.
More...

There is a lot at stake here for the UK and other EU countries:

EU fans legislative smokescreen:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/735/822/EU_fans_legislative_smokescreen.html

"As the world continues to focus on the Greek economy and the future of the Euro, the European Union has proposed several key pieces of legislation which will have a significant impact on life in the UK."

"The details, sent to European leaders ahead of their meeting in Brussels later this week, provide a useful smokescreen to the ongoing events in Greece, while having potentially devastating consequences for the UK in terms of industry, commerce and asylum if approved."

Later this week, the European Council will be discussing the following proposals:

* A financial transaction tax which will allow the EU to raise its own tax, even set its own tax rates, without democratic oversight. This money will be disproportionally raised in the City of London and will cripple London's place as one of the world's financial leaders.

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said: "A number of significant proposals will be discussed at this meeting, all of which could have devastating consequences for the UK.


"All of this will be discussed while Greece burns. It is our belief that this blizzard of potential legislation has been created in order to remove the focus away from Greece.

"David Cameron had better have his wits about him or otherwise he could find that Britain has lost the right to set its own taxes, budgets and asylum policy."


Couple this with news that George Osborne recently reiterated Britain's strong opposition to the FTT (or Robin Hood tax if you like) and I think it's fair to say this EU only FTT is DOA (as is a global FTT). This isn't just about the FTT in Europe, it's about a huge power grab by the EU and that isn't going to set well IMHO.

-Guru
 
this is now looking like a huge push to pick up easy rev to pay for greece bailout. i used to trade 200k shares a day now i've found a way to make good money on 10-20k shares a day. i think the lure of easy rev is too great and this passes eventually
 
If the below is true it may change a lot:

On 1st November 2014 the following areas of competence will switch from requiring unanimous approval of all member states to qualified majority voting:


Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Administrative co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Asylum – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Border controls – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Citizens' initiative regulations – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Civil protection – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Committee of the Regions – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Common defence policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Crime prevention incentives – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Criminal judicial co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Criminal law – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Culture – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Diplomatic & Consular protection – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
Economic & Social Committee – Nice: QMV Lisbon: QMV
Emergency international aid – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
Energy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
EU budget – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Eurojust – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
European Central Bank – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
European Court of Justice – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Europol – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Eurozone external representation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Foreign Affairs High Representative election – Lisbon: QMV
Freedom of movement for workers – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Freedom to establish a business – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon QMV
Freedom, security, justice, co-operation & evaluation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Funding the Common Foreign & Security Policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
General economic interest services – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Humanitarian aid – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Immigration – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Intellectual property – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Organisation of the Council of the EU – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Police co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
President of the European Council election – Lisbon: QMV
Response to natural disasters & terrorism – Lisbon: QMV
Rules concerning the Armaments Agency – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Self-employment access rights – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Social Security Unanimity – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
Space – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Sport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Structural & Cohension Funds – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Tourism – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Transport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
Withdrawal of a member state – Lisbon: QMV

Not only that, but tptb have come up with a great wheeze to make it more difficult to vote down any proposal; there now has to be a "blocking minority" which represents "at least three quarters of EU citizens" or "at least three quarters of member states". Even then, the Council undertakes only to "discuss the issue".

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