1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
An assessment of EU plans for an FTT from UK law firm Clifford Chance, including why introducing the FTT as part of VAT - and other back-door methods - aren't going to work:-
http://www.cliffordchance.com/publi...s/2011/10/financial_transactiontaxupdate.html
http://www.cliffordchance.com/publi...s/2011/10/financial_transactiontaxupdate.html
I still haven't figured out Gates' angle on supporting this. He has an angle. He's in it for something... he just doesn't operate any other way.
My guess is that there is a group of elites who have decided that trading is an activity reserved for them and the general public should only be allowed to buy, hold and hope.
...kind of like when the casinos figured out card counting. As a counter you had to have a sharp disciplined well trained mind, time and a reasonable bank roll... but that was no guarantee of winning. Sound familiar?
Let's say 5 out of 100 would-be card counters were actually any good. Sound familiar?
If there are enough successful "ma and pa" traders eventually it will get the attention of "the house" ... and they will start trying to cut them out. After all ...your trading income would probably otherwise wind up in some elite's pocket.
Good info.
And shocking info:
"The âcascade effectâ makes the effective rate of the FTT on securities much higher than the headline rate of 0.1% - perhaps ten times higher."
"If the securities pass through market makers as well then the rate will be even higher." ( If? Big firms that everyone hates exempt? )
He must want his foundation to get some of 100s of billions that will supposedly be raised each year.
So Sarkozy says several G20 countries signed onto the FTT at the end of the summit? What a joker. Maybe 3 or 4 said yes but most who said yes seemed in indicate they would only do so if the ftt were global (which isn't going to happen).
I can't wait until Sarkozy is out of there. I think the G20 (as a whole) has spoken loud and clear (again) that they do not and will not support a global ftt. If France wants to administer their own ftt no one is stopping them
-Guru
Sarkozy is halucinating.
Here's the scorecard from the G20:
Eleven of the G20 nations have said ânoâ to the FTT. These countries include: the US, Canada, Mexico, the UK, Australia, China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and South Korea. In addition, Argentina and Brazil said they will only support the FTT if itâs world-wide, including Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore, all of whom have said they will not introduce any new transaction fees or taxes into their financial system. Japan and Italy have expressed reservations and are unwilling to commit to the FTT at this time. Only Germany, France, Turkey and South Africa unconditionally support the FTT.
Now Sarkozoy heads back to Europe to continue the European Union browbeating. As long as the UK and Sweden hold their ground, there will be no EU FTT. The Eurozone FTT may be decided by Ireland and/or the tiny island nation of Malta.
Here's the scorecard from the G20:
Eleven of the G20 nations have said ânoâ to the FTT. These countries include: the US, Canada, Mexico, the UK, Australia, China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and South Korea. In addition, Argentina and Brazil said they will only support the FTT if itâs world-wide, including Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore, all of whom have said they will not introduce any new transaction fees or taxes into their financial system. Japan and Italy have expressed reservations and are unwilling to commit to the FTT at this time. Only Germany, France, Turkey and South Africa unconditionally support the FTT.
Now Sarkozoy heads back to Europe to continue the European Union browbeating. As long as the UK and Sweden hold their ground, there will be no EU FTT. The Eurozone FTT may be decided by Ireland and/or the tiny island nation of Malta.
Quote from listedguru:
So Sarkozy says several G20 countries signed onto the FTT at the end of the summit? What a joker. Maybe 3 or 4 said yes but most who said yes seemed in indicate they would only do so if the ftt were global (which isn't going to happen).
I can't wait until Sarkozy is out of there. I think the G20 (as a whole) has spoken loud and clear (again) that they do not and will not support a global ftt. If France wants to administer their own ftt no one is stopping them
-Guru
As an active trader, I'm clearly against any form of FTT, but I'm surprised that people defending an FTT don't see the unintended consequences to the average person who has a 401k, etc:
- For every mutual fund they buy, presumably the fund managers will have to pay the FTT on every transaction they make to manage the fund. They'll of course have to pass those costs on to their retail customers as higher management fees - for actively managed funds, those fees could be considerable, dramatically reducing the returns.
- For every ETF a retail customer buys, the management fees of those would likely go up considerably. For example, think of what is involved in the SPY - having to buy/sell large numbers of shares of each of the S&P 500 components in order to rebalance so that they can accurately track the index. All of these rebalancing transactions would presumably incur the FTT - resulting in extremely large administration fees passed on to the retail customer (and likely making many of the ETFs no longer feasible or attractive). Imagine the rebalancing costs (equities, options, futures) in something like the leveraged index ETFs & funds...
I'm not quite sure why people don't universally see a FTT as both impractical to manage as well as an insanely bad idea...
D.
- For every mutual fund they buy, presumably the fund managers will have to pay the FTT on every transaction they make to manage the fund. They'll of course have to pass those costs on to their retail customers as higher management fees - for actively managed funds, those fees could be considerable, dramatically reducing the returns.
- For every ETF a retail customer buys, the management fees of those would likely go up considerably. For example, think of what is involved in the SPY - having to buy/sell large numbers of shares of each of the S&P 500 components in order to rebalance so that they can accurately track the index. All of these rebalancing transactions would presumably incur the FTT - resulting in extremely large administration fees passed on to the retail customer (and likely making many of the ETFs no longer feasible or attractive). Imagine the rebalancing costs (equities, options, futures) in something like the leveraged index ETFs & funds...
I'm not quite sure why people don't universally see a FTT as both impractical to manage as well as an insanely bad idea...
D.