You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tax on Trades Should Be Part of Rescue Plan, Some Democrats Say
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Quote from Ticketwatcher:
Why don't they just tax us EVIL shortsellers? I do not like taxes any better than anyone else, but as a shortseller, I would like for shorts to everything back on the table.
Are you seriously a trader?
Only amateurs and politicians blame the shortsellers for this mess.
And professionals go long AND short.
Quote from winsomelosesome:
the scary part is the statement in paragraph three:
"speculators and investors who are principally responsible
for having caused this avoidable financial crisis"
OMG .....where do you start??....they cant all be that
clueless...OMG
They are. I am so fucking sick of these piece of shit communists.
FUCKING RESPONSIBLE?? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
GOD I HATE THESE PRICKS.
Looks like we might be safe for now:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE48O7X720080925
I think the responses detailing how it will effect liquidity and such should probably be directed to Pelosi's office herself and perhaps to the renegade Republicans that actually listened to the responses they got from economists about the bailout plan. It sounds like this DeFazio guy has it out for all short-term traders. Traders complaining is probably music to his ears.
Anyone know any respected economists that we can get up in arms?
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE48O7X720080925
I think the responses detailing how it will effect liquidity and such should probably be directed to Pelosi's office herself and perhaps to the renegade Republicans that actually listened to the responses they got from economists about the bailout plan. It sounds like this DeFazio guy has it out for all short-term traders. Traders complaining is probably music to his ears.
Anyone know any respected economists that we can get up in arms?
Quote from huh:
From an article on cnbc:
In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Boehner urged that the House Republican proposals be "given the consideration they deserve."
The proposals include:
Wall Street â Not Taxpayers â Should Fund the Recovery
Private Capital â Not Tax Dollars â Should Be Injected Into Financial Markets
Immediate Transparency, Oversight, and Market Reform
....now the part about the repubs wanting "Wall Street" to pay for this mess kind of makes me nervous that some of these clowns might actually consider this ridiculous tax.....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26895236
Here's the actual proposal. They were just talking about companies paying a premium to the government to have their bonds insured. I don't like the way they titled it, but this is what the actual proposal said (this was linked to in the article):
I. Wall Street - Not Taxpayers - Should Fund the Recovery
The most troubling part of Sec Paulson's plan is that it relies wholly on taxpayer funds. House Republicans believe that rather than providing taxpayer funded purchases of frozen mortgage assets to solve this problem, any rescue package should adopt a plan to insure mortgage backed securities (MBS) through payment of insurance premiums.
Currently, the federal government insures approximately half of all MBS and can insure the rest of those still outstanding. However, rather than taxpayers funding the insurance, the holders of these assets should pay for it. The working group's proposal would direct the Treasury Department to design a system to charge premiums to the holders of MBS to fully finance this insurance.
Okay, I wrote a letter. Please feel free to cut and paste and use it. Also, *please* comment because it's been a long while since I've written much of anything. I'll revise it based on comments.
http://susannahscratchpad.blogspot.com/
http://susannahscratchpad.blogspot.com/
Quote from Susannah:
Here's the actual proposal. They were just talking about companies paying a premium to the government to have their bonds insured. I don't like the way they titled it, but this is what the actual proposal said (this was linked to in the article):
The proposal you're referencing is from the House Republicans. The "transaction tax" idea is a separate proposal from a group of Democrats.
Quote from Specterx:
The proposal you're referencing is from the House Republicans. The "transaction tax" idea is a separate proposal from a group of Democrats.
I know, that's why I quoted huh. I was referencing what he said. He was inferring that Republicans might go along with this Democrat proposal because of the ominous way the Republicans had titled their proposal. I was just stating that the actual proposal by the Republicans was sane and made sense, despite the ominous title.
It sounds like they want to put the decision on the transaction tax off until after the election.Quote from Susannah:
Looks like we might be safe for now:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE48O7X720080925
I think the responses detailing how it will effect liquidity and such should probably be directed to Pelosi's office herself and perhaps to the renegade Republicans that actually listened to the responses they got from economists about the bailout plan. It sounds like this DeFazio guy has it out for all short-term traders. Traders complaining is probably music to his ears.
Anyone know any respected economists that we can get up in arms?