Quote from vicirek:
more crapola:
Example 1:
A Chinese bank and a Chinese investment firm, who acts in the name of a Chinese branch of
an industrial company established in Germany, conclude a currency futures contract in China
for operations of the industrial company in Germany.
⢠EU FTT is due at the German rate as both the Chinese bank and the Chinese investment
firm are deemed to be established in Germany (Art. 3.1.e).
⢠If the notional value of the agreement at the time of conclusion of the future contract was
EUR 600.000, and Germany applied the minimum rate of 0.01%, both the Chinese bank
and the Chinese investment firm would have to pay EUR 60 FTT.
This is direct attack on the UK and London!! Disguised to look more palatable by using china in the example.
Replace all instances of china by UK or London to see what they really mean!
This is the real intention:
Example 1:
A UK bank and a UK investment firm, who acts in the name of a UK branch of
an industrial company established in Germany, conclude a currency futures contract in London
for operations of the industrial company in Germany.
⢠EU FTT is due at the German rate as both the UK bank and the UK investment
firm are deemed to be established in Germany (Art. 3.1.e).
⢠If the notional value of the agreement at the time of conclusion of the future contract was
EUR 600.000, and Germany applied the minimum rate of 0.01%, both the UK bank
and the UK investment firm would have to pay EUR 60 FTT.
Also they use a small 600K derivative in the example, to make it seem the tax is tiny.
However the tax on a single 10 Billion euro notional derivative deal is 1 million euro which is huge and would cost many jobs on its own. Obviously no one is going to pay 1million or even 100K tax on a single notional derivatives deal. So their real intention must be wanting to shutdown derivatives trading almost completely.
