The difference between 0.025% and .25% is huge.. it would still suck but at least somewhat manageable at .025%
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
The difference between 0.025% and .25% is huge.. it would still suck but at least somewhat manageable at .025%
I think .25%, that article is the only one I've ever seen with .025%. I think the journalist just got his decimal point in the wrong place.
This is from the original letter DeFazio wrote to his colleagues (I posted earlier in the thread) when the idea was first floating around, so it's straight from him at .25%:
----
This transfer tax would be on the sale and purchase of stock and more
exotic transactions such as credit default swaps, options, and futures.
A quarter percent (0.25%) tax on financial transactions could raise
approximately $150 billion a year.
This is from the original letter DeFazio wrote to his colleagues (I posted earlier in the thread) when the idea was first floating around, so it's straight from him at .25%:
----
This transfer tax would be on the sale and purchase of stock and more
exotic transactions such as credit default swaps, options, and futures.
A quarter percent (0.25%) tax on financial transactions could raise
approximately $150 billion a year.
China canceled their transaction tax on buying...
http://daily.iflove.com/bizchina/2008-09/18/content_7039355.htm
Many in the UK are trying to abolish it.
(copied from another source)
Research conducted by independent consultants, such as Charles River Associates, suggested that if the chancellor chose to abolish the tax, such a move would be revenue neutral, or even beneficial for the economy, because it would bring other tax gains to the Exchequer, a fact that Mr Brown has seemingly chosen to ignore. The Charles River findings suggested that the knock-on effects of stamp duty abolition would be that:
* Enhanced share values would provide an initial increase in Capital Gains Tax revenues of approximately £6 billion;
* The volume of UK companies' shares traded on the London Stock Exchange would increase by around 40%;
* Income and Corporation tax revenues would increase significantly;
* The FTSE All-share index would increase by up to 5%;
* There would be overall net efficiency gains to the economy of around £3 billion.
http://daily.iflove.com/bizchina/2008-09/18/content_7039355.htm
Many in the UK are trying to abolish it.
(copied from another source)
Research conducted by independent consultants, such as Charles River Associates, suggested that if the chancellor chose to abolish the tax, such a move would be revenue neutral, or even beneficial for the economy, because it would bring other tax gains to the Exchequer, a fact that Mr Brown has seemingly chosen to ignore. The Charles River findings suggested that the knock-on effects of stamp duty abolition would be that:
* Enhanced share values would provide an initial increase in Capital Gains Tax revenues of approximately £6 billion;
* The volume of UK companies' shares traded on the London Stock Exchange would increase by around 40%;
* Income and Corporation tax revenues would increase significantly;
* The FTSE All-share index would increase by up to 5%;
* There would be overall net efficiency gains to the economy of around £3 billion.
Quote from OffTilt:
China canceled their transaction tax on buying...
http://daily.iflove.com/bizchina/2008-09/18/content_7039355.htm
Many in the UK are trying to abolish it.
(copied from another source)
Research conducted by independent consultants, such as Charles River Associates, suggested that if the chancellor chose to abolish the tax, such a move would be revenue neutral, or even beneficial for the economy, because it would bring other tax gains to the Exchequer, a fact that Mr Brown has seemingly chosen to ignore. The Charles River findings suggested that the knock-on effects of stamp duty abolition would be that:
* Enhanced share values would provide an initial increase in Capital Gains Tax revenues of approximately £6 billion;
* The volume of UK companies' shares traded on the London Stock Exchange would increase by around 40%;
* Income and Corporation tax revenues would increase significantly;
* The FTSE All-share index would increase by up to 5%;
* There would be overall net efficiency gains to the economy of around £3 billion.
That's a terrific find, this is something that should be sent to DeFazio and other supporters of this
freakin black boxes throwing out 100's of millions of shares a day are causing a lot of the problems. they're going to screw it up for all of us. they need to have some type of fee's for using automation.
Oh my, this just gets better and better :eek:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1222827925297110.xml&coll=7
----------------
Excerpt:
DeFazio said the plan could be executed quickly and would have an almost immediate positive effect on the markets. That would buy time to devise fixes for the economy's underlying problems.
Among the proposals:
[cut out some stuff]
Ban short-selling of stocks, the complicated and highly speculative practice of "selling" stock at a lower price before actually taking ownership.
[cut some stuff out]
"If they do that without a real pay-for, I think there will still be problems in the House," DeFazio said.
DeFazio and other critics insist that, to protect taxpayers, any big bailout needs to be financed with a surcharge or tax on traders.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1222827925297110.xml&coll=7
----------------
Excerpt:
DeFazio said the plan could be executed quickly and would have an almost immediate positive effect on the markets. That would buy time to devise fixes for the economy's underlying problems.
Among the proposals:
[cut out some stuff]
Ban short-selling of stocks, the complicated and highly speculative practice of "selling" stock at a lower price before actually taking ownership.
[cut some stuff out]
"If they do that without a real pay-for, I think there will still be problems in the House," DeFazio said.
DeFazio and other critics insist that, to protect taxpayers, any big bailout needs to be financed with a surcharge or tax on traders.
Quote from Susannah:
Oh my, this just gets better and better :eek:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1222827925297110.xml&coll=7
----------------
Excerpt:
DeFazio said the plan could be executed quickly and would have an almost immediate positive effect on the markets. That would buy time to devise fixes for the economy's underlying problems.
Among the proposals:
[cut out some stuff]
Ban short-selling of stocks, the complicated and highly speculative practice of "selling" stock at a lower price before actually taking ownership.
[cut some stuff out]
"If they do that without a real pay-for, I think there will still be problems in the House," DeFazio said.
DeFazio and other critics insist that, to protect taxpayers, any big bailout needs to be financed with a surcharge or tax on traders.
One positive I'm seeing is that in the most recent reports the transaction tax hasn't been directly stated
Quote from Trader666:
Thanks for pointing that out... when I first read the article, my mind converted it to .25% of the transaction amount lol... this would be even more of a bureaucratic nightmare to implement but easier to stomach.
This doesn't mention it at all:
http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=441
It is mentioned here:
http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=438
excerpt:
If Democrats continue to back the basic questionable premise of the Bush/Paulson bailout, then we must pay for it. The $700 billion is to protect Wall Street investors, therefore the same Wall Street investors should pay for this infusion of taxpayer money. I have proposed a minimal securities transfer tax of ¼ of one percent. A securities transfer tax would have a negligible impact on the average investor and provide a disincentive to short-term traders. Similar tax proposals have been supported by many esteemed economists such as Larry Summers, John Maynard Keynes and Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and James Tobin.
There is considerable precedent for this. The United States had a similar tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied 7a 0.2% tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help finance various programs during the Great Depression. In 1987, Speaker of the House Jim Wright offered his support for a financial transaction tax. And today the UK has a modest financial transaction tax of 0.5 percent.
Quote from St.ignorant:
It is mentioned here:
http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=438
excerpt:
If Democrats continue to back the basic questionable premise of the Bush/Paulson bailout, then we must pay for it. The $700 billion is to protect Wall Street investors, therefore the same Wall Street investors should pay for this infusion of taxpayer money. I have proposed a minimal securities transfer tax of ¼ of one percent. A securities transfer tax would have a negligible impact on the average investor and provide a disincentive to short-term traders. Similar tax proposals have been supported by many esteemed economists such as Larry Summers, John Maynard Keynes and Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and James Tobin.
There is considerable precedent for this. The United States had a similar tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied 7a 0.2% tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help finance various programs during the Great Depression. In 1987, Speaker of the House Jim Wright offered his support for a financial transaction tax. And today the UK has a modest financial transaction tax of 0.5 percent.
That is from 4 days ago, and things are changing very quickly and based on the most recent proposals from dickhead DeFazio, it seems he may be moving onto other things, other than the 0.25% tax