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

Quote from tomdavis:

Your idea is on the right track, but this forum is not the place for most people to get their FTT questions answered.

Twice I have referred people to this thread, and both times they came away overwhelmed and confused. There's too much information here and it's not organized in a way that an outsider can follow it.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that we need a place (e.g., website) to send interested parties where they can see anti-FFT arguments presented in a succinct and organized manner. Pro-FTT sources have littered the WWW with specious arguments in favor of the tax, and we need to have a strong answer to their lies. This thread is not that answer because the information here is not organized in a way that answers peoples' questions.

A logical discussion of the FTT boils down to a few basic points:

1. Who really ends up paying the FTT.
2. What effect does the FTT have on economic growth and unemployment.
3. Why the FTT won't provide billions of dollars to end poverty and global warming. (aka, Why the FTT is a net negative tax.)
4. Why the FTT won't stabilize financial markets.
5. Where in the world do countries oppose the FTT and why do they oppose it.


Unions are making the FTT a "money-and-votes" issue in the 2012 election. They are currently recruiting academics around the world and across the country to write pro-FTT papers.

Our well-reasoned and researched response has to prove that arguments in favor of the FTT are based on academic/socialist fantasies, not on logic or facts. Ideally, we would have something in place before the election heats up next summer.
More...
I thought we already had a place for this argument with a dedicated website. Did its owner lose interest?
 
Quote from andohmeeta:

UK not interested in supporting EU stamp tax proposal - same product in different wrapper - same as ftt - UK revenue diversion to EU coffers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9028931/UK-rejects-German-olive-branch-of-exchange-tax.html
More...

Seems like a negotiation is underway, and the UK does not want to suffer any new taxes or pain. If other EU countries want to pass a stamp duty tax on shares only, with the same exemptions allowed in the UK, then maybe that could be okay with the UK. Can the UK withstand a new round of pressure on this? Yes, if it's only a trial balloon from Rosler.

But, it's not okay for the UK to pay over their stamp duty collections to the EU in Brussels. The UK does not want to pay for euro zone bailouts, as it's not in the euro. It's also skeptical of EU-fiscal union and socialist policies in Brussels. They've promised to punish UK financial services and the UK is wary of turning over tax or regulatory sovereignty to Brussels-France-Germany.

So the negotiation is, we the UK don't budge and if you want to copy us and not make things worse, go ahead. A stamp duty in other countries is not good for the UK, it will dampen business for them, so they should repeal their stamp duty now. It's to blame for giving the EU ideas on FTT too.
 
Quote from zdreg:

like I told you a long time ago goldman sachs and banks are not on your side.
More...

Everyone is out to protect their own interests.

Neither we or the banks want an FTT.
We dont want Stamp Duty but the Banks wont be effected much so would rather have that than an FTT.
They dont want a bank levy, but we would rather that be introduced instead of an FTT or Stamp Duty.

We should be pushing the case for a Bank levy instead of Stamp Duty.

We should keep pushing the point that Stamp Duty will paid by pension savers, while a Bank Levy will paid only by the banks.
 
Quote from Cotton:

I thought we already had a place for this argument with a dedicated website. Did its owner lose interest?
More...


Didn't lose interest, just got killed on time--aging parents/young children. Classic "sandwich generation" stuff. I'd like to get back to it but the quotidian stuff is really coming down hard these days...

Also, this thing isn't just a matter of conveying "facts" anymore than politics is about weighing "facts". It's all about hermeneutics, something the Robin Hood people have NAILED (how else to explain the traction they've gotten on for their arcane and asinine notion?).
 
Quote from tortoise:

It's all about hermeneutics, something the Robin Hood people have NAILED (how else to explain the traction they've gotten on for their arcane and asinine notion?).
More...

You're right. The hoodies have successfully propagated two evocative FTT messages:

1) The FTT will make the evil bankers pay for the mess they've made.
2) The FTT will raise untold trillions to end poverty and global warming.

I know this first-hand from talking to parents of my kids' friends, a couple of whom are/were fanatical supporters of the FTT. When they're shown: (a) banks don't pay, but rather investors and pension funds pick up the tab; (b) the FTT generates some revenues but income taxes and business taxes fall due to lower GDP and higher unemployment therby offsetting the gains from the FTT; and, (c) "progressive-liberal" countries like Sweden, Denmark, Australia and Canada are against it -- once they see these things, they begin to question what they've been told.

We can't change everybody's minds, but we can change some minds, and we can inform those who are just coming to the party.

I'll be sending you a PM as a follow up.
 
Big argument against: Robin Hood Tax revenue won't go to poverty and climate change things, but to EC budget for bailing out banks. Hoodies are scared to death for this.
 
Quote from FightTheFuture:
Socialists in most parts hate being called socialists. Apparently it's a derogatory term.

Describing FTT as being socialist may be helpful. [/B]
More...

It is derogatory mainly in the US. In Europe generally this is not the case at all.
On the contrary, trying to discredit it by calling it "socialist" might very well backfire, leaving you
with an image of a right-wing fanatic, who is against common people.

We have to win this with real arguments appealing to common sense, instead of by an ideological debate.

Let the propaganda for those who have no real arguments, and let's dismantle their propaganda. as cheap lies.

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