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

"The Financial Transactions Tax (FTT, or the Robin Hood Tax if you prefer) will lower tax revenue, not increase it. That someone can declare an increase in revenues when the effect will be a decrease shows that someone, somewhere, is either lying or ignorant."

A commenter responds: "revenue from FTT goes to the E.U., consequent shortfall in tax revenue goes to member states."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CQBg&usg=AFQjCNHQJMc7tX0qzpxGzgRF-nkWbpM97w
 
Quote from listedguru:

Exactly. If this 'new' enhanced cooperation ftt proposal contains any hint of extraterritorial reach then the UK and others would be very stupid to sign on. I'm really not sure they should sign on anyway but I guess we'll see.
More...

If the EC-10 FTT has extra-territorial reach in the UK and around the EU, I highly-doubt they will get a QMV of yes from the UK, and probably won't from the other big countries either. Who wants a tax charged in their country forked over to a competing country?

Maybe, they are so desperate to pass an EC-10 FTT, they will do it without a foreign bite and then hope to add that bite, as it snowballs further down the line. It's that or failure and embarrassment. The EU crew needs political victories, not failure.

If leaks say the UK will vote yes, it must be predicated on no extra-territorial reach, which probably would be subjected to lawsuit and delay, anyway.

Without foreign bite, transactions will move more, taking business out of the EC-10 FTT countries. It sets up FTT for more likely failure, which is what we want.
 
Quote from Robert A. Green:

If the EC-10 FTT has extra-territorial reach in the UK and around the EU, I highly-doubt they will get a QMV of yes from the UK, and probably won't from the other big countries either. Who wants a tax charged in their country forked over to a competing country?

Maybe, they are so desperate to pass an EC-10 FTT, they will do it without a foreign bite and then hope to add that bite, as it snowballs further down the line. It's that or failure and embarrassment. The EU crew needs political victories, not failure.

If leaks say the UK will vote yes, it must be predicated on no extra-territorial reach, which probably would be subjected to lawsuit and delay, anyway.

Without foreign bite, transactions will move more, taking business out of the EC-10 FTT countries. It sets up FTT for more likely failure, which is what we want.
More...

If Britain votes yes, that is a pity no matter what. Who knows what the future brings?
 
Quote from Pasternak:

If Britain votes yes, that is a pity no matter what. Who knows what the future brings?
More...

UK has stamp duty. The UK conservative government could have said they are against all forms of FTT including their own Stamp duty on shares and they want to scrap it some point in the future.
But that is not the official policy at all. The official line is in favour of a globally implemented FTT.
UK stamp duty seems to be quite successful, just reading wiki pedia it says 40% ($2.4billion a year) is paid by foreign investors and 25% comes from depository receipts (like ADRs) which are hit 1.5% when a share is transfered into an ADR.
 
Hi,


As regards Southall's last comment: You UK's stamp tax has territorial reach? I wasn't aware that, if that's the case. I have traded many UK ADR's in the US, and never been charged stamp duty.
 
Quote from southall:

UK has stamp duty. The UK conservative government could have said they are against all forms of FTT including their own Stamp duty on shares and they want to scrap it some point in the future.
But that is not the official policy at all. The official line is in favour of a globally implemented FTT.
UK stamp duty seems to be quite successful, just reading wiki pedia it says 40% ($2.4billion a year) is paid by foreign investors and 25% comes from depository receipts (like ADRs) which are hit 1.5% when a share is transfered into an ADR.
More...

The UK likes to tax foreigners who use their markets and airports, too. Those landing taxes in London are way too high.

I agree with southall above.

When I first wrote about UK stamp duty years ago in connection with fighting FTT, I discussed the UK tax resident versus non-resident issue. It was before, the UK changed their rules to force a flat tax residency agreement on more non-domiciled people living in the UK. I viewed stamp duty then as a means to tax non-domiciled residents. I have to bring up that content to revisit it again. I sort of recall a credit, too on income tax?
 
Cameron's empty veto to cost City billions

"The design of the European tax means it will be paid by City institutions despite the UK's refusal to sign up. The tax will apply to any transactions on shares, bonds and derivatives where one of the parties to the transaction is based in a country where the tax is introduced. Accountants Ernst & Young estimate that, depending on the final number of countries that sign up, City institutions will still be liable for up to £21bn in tax. But rather than this being paid into our Treasury, it will go instead to governments on the continent.

This is the first veto in history not to stop something."

http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2828-camerons-empty-veto-to-cost-city-billions
 
Quote from FightTheFuture:

Cameron's empty veto to cost City billions

"The design of the European tax means it will be paid by City institutions despite the UK's refusal to sign up. The tax will apply to any transactions on shares, bonds and derivatives where one of the parties to the transaction is based in a country where the tax is introduced. Accountants Ernst & Young estimate that, depending on the final number of countries that sign up, City institutions will still be liable for up to £21bn in tax. But rather than this being paid into our Treasury, it will go instead to governments on the continent.

This is the first veto in history not to stop something."

http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2828-camerons-empty-veto-to-cost-city-billions
More...

Europe just shot itself in the head. Let's pray we don't do the same.
 
The veto has nothing to do with this issue. The Ernst & Young estimation was calculated on the tax being designed in that fashion.
How ever the final design of the tax has yet to be presented and the UK have said they will vote against it should it impact there country in this way.

That article is basically spin produced by UKIP, using old news and events, none of which is relevant to the current situation.
 
Quote from sheda:

The veto has nothing to do with this issue. The Ernst & Young estimation was calculated on the tax being designed in that fashion.
How ever the final design of the tax has yet to be presented and the UK have said they will vote against it should it impact there country in this way.

That article is basically spin produced by UKIP, using old news and events, none of which is relevant to the current situation.
More...

Agree, this article's author seems behind the curve on the FTT saga, she never even mentioned the upcoming QMV vote on EC-10 FTT. If she was up to speed, she would demand a no QMV vote by the UK.

I don't see how the EC-10 FTT won't be extra-territorial, and therefore punitive to the UK as described in this article. So, the UK should vote No on QMV. We need to start seeing the No QMV votes coalesce around a UK lobbying effort. This should be the key next battle over EC FTT. As a fall back positon, will Brussels let the UK keep that share of the EC-10 FTT? Hopefully not, as that ushers in FTT and it's bad for us.

The US exchanges and government need to speak up, too. US banks will be on the hook for this tax like the UK. The election and departure of Secretary Geithner is hurting us as the US is a lame-duck on this now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top