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

Quote from FightTheFuture:

Very good info from the UK's European Scrutiny Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeuleg/428-xxxix/42806.htm

Among more technical points, below is something the general public should know: for every 0.1% increase in the EU FTT rate, half million EU people lose their jobs. Some want a rate of one percent, two percent, the president of, I think it was, the Dominican Republic, demanded 5 percent, in part to be directed to corrupt regimes.

-with a tax rate of 0.1% the model finds that EU GDP drops 1.76% in the long-run, with an accompanying drop in employment of 0.2%;
-a tax rate of 0.2%, as implied by the Commission's explanatory memorandum, leads to a 3.43% long-run drop in EU GDP and 0.34% drop in employment;
-these effects stem from the increase in business's cost of capital caused by the tax;
-the assessment points out that the significant economic impact of the tax derives from the cascading effect of the tax, whereby transactions in the same production chain are taxed several times; and
-taking these figures in turn and before taking into account relocation effects, in real economic impacts it can be estimated that a reduction of 1.76% of EU GDP equates to a fall in economic output of €216 (£186) billion, a fall in employment of 0.2% equates to a loss of 478,000 jobs, a 3.43 % fall in EU GDP equates to a fall in economic output worth €421 (£362) billion and a 0.34% fall in employment equates to a loss of 812,000 jobs.
-the tax would not just affect banks and bankers, but also increase costs for consumers through this tax being paid by insurers, asset managers, pension funds, industry including manufacturing and the broader service sector;
-the stamp duty differs from the EU proposal in that the UK's carefully targeted stamp tax on shares (STS) is fundamentally different from the Commission's all-encompassing and poorly designed FTT;
More...

Excellent find.
 
Quote from FightTheFuture:

Very good info from the UK's European Scrutiny Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeuleg/428-xxxix/42806.htm

Among more technical points, below is something the general public should know: for every 0.1% increase in the EU FTT rate, half million EU people lose their jobs. Some want a rate of one percent, two percent, the president of, I think it was, the Dominican Republic, demanded 5 percent, in part to be directed to corrupt regimes.

-with a tax rate of 0.1% the model finds that EU GDP drops 1.76% in the long-run, with an accompanying drop in employment of 0.2%;
-a tax rate of 0.2%, as implied by the Commission's explanatory memorandum, leads to a 3.43% long-run drop in EU GDP and 0.34% drop in employment;
-these effects stem from the increase in business's cost of capital caused by the tax;
-the assessment points out that the significant economic impact of the tax derives from the cascading effect of the tax, whereby transactions in the same production chain are taxed several times; and
-taking these figures in turn and before taking into account relocation effects, in real economic impacts it can be estimated that a reduction of 1.76% of EU GDP equates to a fall in economic output of €216 (£186) billion, a fall in employment of 0.2% equates to a loss of 478,000 jobs, a 3.43 % fall in EU GDP equates to a fall in economic output worth €421 (£362) billion and a 0.34% fall in employment equates to a loss of 812,000 jobs.
-the tax would not just affect banks and bankers, but also increase costs for consumers through this tax being paid by insurers, asset managers, pension funds, industry including manufacturing and the broader service sector;
-the stamp duty differs from the EU proposal in that the UK's carefully targeted stamp tax on shares (STS) is fundamentally different from the Commission's all-encompassing and poorly designed FTT;
More...

Also, add to these damages the costs of administering an FTT program. It will require many thousands of new government employees with their salaries, benefits and retirement, all further draining taxpayer dollars.

This is clearly counter to the needs of government to streamline operations, simplify tax programs, and reduce government expenses.
 
The Wall Street Accountability through Sustainable Funding Act:

This is modeled after the SEC model of collecting user fees and it would be to fund the CFTC:

http://welch.house.gov/index.php?op...global&catid=39:2011-press-releases&Itemid=32

The Wall Street Accountability through Sustainable Funding Act will create a stable, sustainable funding mechanism for the CFTC. Currently the Commission relies on an annual appropriation from Congress to fulfill its mandate. Its FY2012 budget was cut by 33% and further cuts would occur under the scheduled budget sequestration.

The Welch/DeLauro/Boswell bill would create a new funding mechanism for the CFTC modeled after the Security and Exchange Commission's funding source. Under their plan, the CFTC would cover its annual budget by collecting transaction fees from covered market participants.

"If you want stable markets, you need a stable regulator," Welch said. "This legislation will fully fund the consumer's cop on the beat without taxpayer dollars. For too long, Congress has used the CFTC budget as a political whipping boy at the expense of stable markets. Our proposal will make sure it has predictable and reliable resources to do its job so that future MF Globals are stopped in their tracks."
 
Translation: "British sabotage french-german plans for EU"


But the british don't just want to stop the Financial Transaction Tax that Merkel wants. They want to withdraw from already established european banking regulation and wouldn't even accept the new Basel-III rules for credit institutions. These plans would create nothing less than a british special zone in the EU, where precisely the unregulated speculation that Merkel wants to stop, would continue.

The british plan is so radical, that the chancellor's office didn't believe that Cameron would take it to the summit. Even when the Premier was in the chancellor's office in november and wouldn't budge from his plans, they doubted his determination.
More...

The Germans believe the Uk refusing an FTT is " radical"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top