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

[clacy]

Quote from Angrycat:

Liquidity will be reduced even with these exemptions. Reduced liquidity is positively correlated with MORE not less volatility.

Stocks will be less liquid, but more volatile. Good for market makers, sucks for everyone else.

No point in debating with seasideheights. This poster is lost and clueless about the effects of this plan and is arguing for pulely partisan reasons.

 

[seasideheights]

Republican Barton not against Transaction Tax in principle. He mentions it as an idea that he would liked as a possiblity.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=876795328&play=1

 

[bears21]

Quote from seasideheights:

Republican Barton not against Transaction Tax in principle. He mentions it as an idea that he would liked as a possiblity.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=876795328&play=1

wake me up when this looks like a majority viewpoint, right now this has forrest gump legs before the braces were taking off

 

[listedguru]

Quote from cstfx:

What fee recoupment program was added to house bill? Pelosi just mentioned it.

I believe it's a 2% fee that would hit financial services company if the taxpayers don't get their money back. I think it would come after 3 or 5 years if I remember correctly....

So I guess we're in the clear for now (no tranny tax) - let's just hope that idea just goes away for good

-Guru

 

[Klamath]

Quote from listedguru:

I believe it's a 2% fee that would hit financial services company if the taxpayers don't get their money back. I think it would come after 3 or 5 years if I remember correctly....

So I guess we're in the clear for now (no tranny tax) - let's just hope that idea just goes away for good

-Guru

2% of what?

 

[listedguru]

Quote from Klamath:

2% of what?

This was part of the proposal but I'm assuming it's in the final bill:

Tanner and other Blue Dogs see this provision as an "insurance policy" for taxpayers, and it would amount to a 2 percent "fee" on taxable income of financial services firms.


"A recoupment clause, as we envision it, is essentially an insurance policy for the
taxpayer. Three to five years after enactment of TARP, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report on the program's net gain or loss to the taxpayer. If the plan results in the taxpayer showing a loss, then the amount of that loss would be recouped by a small fee imposed by the Internal Revenue Service on the financial services industry until the taxpayer recoups the loss. If the taxpayer comes out even or makes a profit, there would be no recoupment necessary."


-Guru

 

[Klamath]

Quote from listedguru:

This was part of the proposal but I'm assuming it's in the final bill:

Tanner and other Blue Dogs see this provision as an "insurance policy" for taxpayers, and it would amount to a 2 percent "fee" on taxable income of financial services firms.


"A recoupment clause, as we envision it, is essentially an insurance policy for the
taxpayer. Three to five years after enactment of TARP, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report on the program's net gain or loss to the taxpayer. If the plan results in the taxpayer showing a loss, then the amount of that loss would be recouped by a small fee imposed by the Internal Revenue Service on the financial services industry until the taxpayer recoups the loss. If the taxpayer comes out even or makes a profit, there would be no recoupment necessary."


-Guru

2% of their income sounds a whole lot better than 100% of mine.

 

[listedguru]

Quote from Klamath:

2% of their income sounds a whole lot better than 100% of mine.

Amen... I'll drink to that (LOL)...

 

[cstfx]

Well it's already guaranteed to be a money losing plan. With the addition of AMT tax relief tacked on to this bill, it is already forecast to add about 100B to the deficit over 10 yrs. I wonder if this, since it is now part of this bill, would be sufficient cause to "recoup" this cost thru an industry tax, er..... excuse me, fee.

 

[Angrycat]

Quote from cstfx:

Well it's already guaranteed to be a money losing plan. With the addition of AMT tax relief tacked on to this bill, it is already forecast to add about 100B to the deficit over 10 yrs. I wonder if this, since it is now part of this bill, would be sufficient cause to "recoup" this cost thru an industry tax, er..... excuse me, fee.

The AMT is nothing compared to the increase in deposit insurance. Mind that the FDIC in not funded for $250K guarantees and any payouts not currently funded (i.e. above $100K) to depositors of bankrupt banks will come straight from taxpayers. Not to mention that an increase in FDIC insurance incentivizes banks to lend imprudently (have we learned nothing?). The last time we raised FDIC insurance, the taxpayers bailed out the S&L depositors.

Everything they've done to this completely unnecessary bailout bill has been to increase the risks and costs to taxpayers.

Now, the freaking state of California wants to borrow from the Fed (i.e. - you and me). Unbelievable.