not quite. it is very inefficient and expensive and resembles a bucket type of operation ________________________________ Quote from KK70: India is removing STT (securities transaction tax) and also lowering income tax rates drastically from 2011. http://business.rediff.com/report/2...de-released.htm kudos. thx.
The NYTimes link appears to be down. I haven't read the proposal, but if they are trying to protect the "small investor", wouldnt' this tax still have a large effect on Mutual Funds? The tax/expenses would be very large. No one would ever have an investment that produced tax efficient growth. Perhaps they specified what the time range is for the tax to not apply (i.e. must hold 1 year?). S
I am sure even the "small investors" do not want this tax. Only the profits should be taxed not *the transactions* regardless of whether they will result in profits or not.
the government in a static analysis says x number of shares were traded last year. this is a great way to raise revenue and punish speculators.
The rationale is very simple: greed. They think they can collect billions of dollars in additional tax revenues. But it's going to disrupt many strategies that are currently profitable. The profits will fall, the volume of transactions will fall and the tax revenues will fall as well. They will end up with nothing. Classic example of greed at work.
TERRIFIC job with your responses to the reuters story. James Pethokoukis wrote another article with the responses from some of you in it. THIS is exactly the purpose of this thread. To give our viewpoint visibility. You folks hit a home run here. http://blogs.reuters.com/james-peth...-the-union-dem-plan-for-new-investment-taxes/ Now that we have Mr. Pethokoukis's ear, adding comments at the end of the story at that URL would be very useful. Please comment if you can. Thank you.