Tax on Trades Should Be Part of Rescue Plan, Some Democrats Say

That is encouraging, but I have to vent one more thing.

Can you imagine what this would do to someone gamma scalping an options position all day with a tight delta?

Perhaps beyond the scope of this thread, but what would be a ton of very small profitable trades throughout the day would disappear.

All of the small traders getting hurt, along with the large traders doing a thousand small trades per day, is why this has already gotten shot down.

But it is just scary that this was even proposed in the first place. As was stated before, this has a precedent based on the depression era, and our politicians are incredibly ignorant as to what is going on with somewhat complex issues.

They're compelled to act and tax before they analyze.

Scary stuff.
 
Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

"The fees and the fund would likely only apply to larger firms over a certain asset size"

If that lets us little guys off the hook I'm very relieved...
More...

Exactly... go ahead and penalize the hedge funds if necessary... but to attack the retail traders (who use daytrading to pay their mortages.... ) is ridiculous... it'd be really ridiculous to ruin the small retail traders business, which would likely make many of them default on their mortgage, which is what got us into this mess????? These guys have to think things through
 
Quote from drukes1234:

Exactly... go ahead and penalize the hedge funds if necessary... but to attack the retail traders (who use daytrading to pay their mortages.... ) is ridiculous... it'd be really ridiculous to ruin the small retail traders business, which would likely make many of them default on their mortgage, which is what got us into this mess????? These guys have to think things through
More...


I would imagine this is the first thing that got their attention as to why not to do it.

Not only retail, but a prop guy like me who MIGHT make 100k this year, but also provides liquidity 90% (estimate) of the time. (a small fish i know)

What they don't realize is that there are tons of prop guys out their providing liquidity through running APIs etc, and if that goes away, well then I guess the market makers at large firms would get exemptions...yada..yada..yada
 
That was actually brought up earlier in the thread. I was basically stating that I don't ever see this happening. The lobbies which would be created between now and then would be enormous.

Don't worry about it dude. Good discussion. 60 pages is allot of reading on a sat night.
 
According to Reuters, Pelosi is considering the tax to take effect in 5 yrs if the gvt loses money on this deal. This is not going away:

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMo...T00986620080927

WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are pushing for a new Wall Street tax that would cover the potential costs of a $700 billion bailout being negotiated by Congress and the Bush administration.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking to reporters after a meeting with fellow Democrats, said the fee could be assessed after five years if the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined taxpayers had lost money in the bailout.

"If after five years ... the CBO decides that the American taxpayer has lost money in this, then there would be a fee on financial institutions," Pelosi said, adding that she hoped the provision could be part of a final bailout deal.

Pelosi said that the Secretary of the Treasury could determine how to assess the fee.
 
Quote from cstfx:

According to Reuters, Pelosi is considering the tax to take effect in 5 yrs if the gvt loses money on this deal. This is not going away:

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMo...T00986620080927

WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are pushing for a new Wall Street tax that would cover the potential costs of a $700 billion bailout being negotiated by Congress and the Bush administration.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking to reporters after a meeting with fellow Democrats, said the fee could be assessed after five years if the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined taxpayers had lost money in the bailout.

"If after five years ... the CBO decides that the American taxpayer has lost money in this, then there would be a fee on financial institutions," Pelosi said, adding that she hoped the provision could be part of a final bailout deal.

Pelosi said that the Secretary of the Treasury could determine how to assess the fee.
More...
Thanks for posting this information, forwarned is forarmed.

While a breathrough has been reached in the Bailout Negotiations, the NY Times article does not speak to this specific issue.

And while I'm a registered Democrat, I do not (nor would any trader in their right mind) see this as being a good thing.

Point-in-fact I am actually on the side of the hard-core Republicans on this one, I don't think there should be a Bailout at all.

"Some lawmakers have made clear that they will not vote for the bailout plan under virtually any terms. “I didn’t want to be in the negotiations because I object to the basic principles of this,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, who would normally be his party’s point man. "

Just to show you that everyone has their perspective on this mess ...

***

P.S. This isn't the time to argue amongst ourselves, but rather to continue to work together to make sure that we will not be blindisded by the decisions of a few misguided fools who are responsible for lawmaking in our country.

To me it is amazing that we are even having this conversation, but here we are, people are stupid and greedy.
 
Quote from jnbadger:

That was actually brought up earlier in the thread. I was basically stating that I don't ever see this happening. The lobbies which would be created between now and then would be enormous.
More...
This is the only way out of this mess, play the game by the rules which have been established (even though the government seems to want to change them at whim). But we have to start now if we want to come out on top.

Quote from jnbadger:

Don't worry about it dude. Good discussion. 60 pages is allot of reading on a sat night.
More...
LOL, I agree on all points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top