I walked by OWS campers today extricated from Columbus Circle in Manhattan, on the side walk near Trump International. If there wasn't an OWS sign, you would easily mistake them for homeless people living on the street. These people are not the 99%, they are the hapless 1%. It's sad to see. Instead of a tin cup asking for change to buy food, they are sticking up successful taxpayers for billions. The OWS movement seems to be petering out. In Bob Woodward's book "The Price of Politics," Jack Lew was depicted as a troublemaker in forging a grand bargain. Boehner and his staff didn't want to negotiate with him anymore? Obama also back tracked in negotiations and the two of them sank any grand bargain deal. Jack Lew would be a great mistake for Treasury Secretary. Erskin Bowles is too wedded to Bowles Simpson and the president doesn't like that deal - a 23% tax rate is far too low for Obama.
I'm interested in it too. According to this, they need 258 out of 345 votes for permission to form an EC. The 11 countries and Netherlands have together 188 votes (weighted). So they need 70 out of 157 votes from the other countries. Without UK they need 70 out of 128.
Discussion about extraterritorial reach of EU FTT was very unreal and hypothetical to me until I found this comment: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Worried about European Financial Tax According to The Hill, the U.S. financial industry is worried that a European move toward establishing a tax on financial transactions could hit the United States. A group of investment and business lobbies wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Nov. 6 expressing concerns that European nations could seek to impose a global tax unilaterally, and urged the administration to make clear its opposition to such a move. The letter was signed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Investment Company Institute. "Now is not the time to experiment with policies that experience tells us will impede growth, fragment markets, increase market volatility, destroy savings, and encourage uneconomic tax-motivated decision-making," they wrote. Attempts to impose a tax on all financial transactions in the U.S. have been pushed by some Democratic lawmakers, but have garnered little attention. The group notes that 11 European Union members have supported establishing a regional transaction tax that would be extraterritorial, allowing the collection of taxes on markets and traders that have "little or no connection" to those nations, including in the U.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess banning EU entities from trading outside EU FTT zone is not an option
'The OWS movement seems to be petering out." here is a different spin on OWS, saying they are gaining new strength. http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...3fe388-2b0a-11e2-aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html
I just don't see how this ez ftt with extraterritorial would work in practice. I can't see countries getting taxed on their trades and then shipping that money to another country. This just isn't going to happen IMHO. Hopefully they just drop all this extraterritorial talk. If they want to tax their own investors into oblivion thats fine but leave the rest of us alone. I'm sure the UK and Sweden amongst others arn't going to let this EZ FTT hammer them. -Guru
Glad to see U.S. financial industry players and organizations waking up to this FTT threat and joining the fight. They will get Geithner and others in the administration and maybe Congress on the case. When the U.S. helps the UK, they can win in Europe.
About the residence principle: If I understand the faq well, I think only EU (EC-11) residents or companies have to pay the FTT, and only if there is also an EC-11 based financial institution involved with the transaction: But if you don't live in an EC-11 country, you simply can't pay the tax because your country is not involved (and also your share would be 0%). So then the EC-11 resident pays it all (only if there is also an EC-11 based financial institution involved with the transaction). It seems to me, that these financial institutions could only be EC-11 based. I can't imagine that the EC assumes institutions outside EC-11 would cooperate with this. And regarding to this: Does this all mean, that if a (private) EC-11 resident uses a non EC-11 broker for trading on a non EC-11 market, he doesn't have to pay the FTT (nor the tax would pass on him), because there is no EC-11 based financial institution involved with such transactions? (as required according to that faq)?
Residence Principle in some foreign slang difficult to understand in North America meaning that if you smell EU on counterparty you pay tax as well because for that split second you are French: Example 2: A hedge fund established in France enters into a swap agreement with a bank established in Switzerland. ⢠FTT is due twice in France at national rate, by the Swiss bank deemed to be established in France (Art. 3.1.e) and by the French bank. ⢠If the notional value of the swap was EUR 600.000, and France applied the minimum rate of 0.01%, each financial institution would have to pay EUR 60 FTT. Article 3.1: "For the purposes of this Directive, a financial institution shall be deemed to be established in the territory of a Member State where any of the following conditions is fulfilled: (a) it has been authorised by the authorities of that Member State to act as such, in respect of transactions covered by that authorisation; (b) it has its registered seat within that Member State; (c) its permanent address or usual residence is located in that Member State; (d) it has a branch within that Member State, in respect of transactions carried out by that branch; (e) it is party, acting either for its own account or for the account of another person, or is acting in the name of a party to the transaction, to a financial transaction with another financial institution established in that Member State pursuant to points (a), (b), (c) or (d), or with a party established in the territory of that Member State and which is not a financial institution."
more crapola: In order to avoid extra-territoriality of the proposed FTT provisions it is also foreseen (see Article 3.3) that a financial institution shall not be considered established in the territory of a Member State "in case the person liable for payment of FTT proves that there is no link between the economic substance of the transaction and the territory of any Member State." The below box illustrates how this provision could be applied. Economic substance (Art. 3.3) Example 1: A Chinese bank and a Chinese investment firm, who acts in the name of a Chinese branch of an industrial company established in Germany, conclude a currency futures contract in China for operations of the industrial company in Germany. ⢠EU FTT is due at the German rate as both the Chinese bank and the Chinese investment firm are deemed to be established in Germany (Art. 3.1.e). ⢠If the notional value of the agreement at the time of conclusion of the future contract was EUR 600.000, and Germany applied the minimum rate of 0.01%, both the Chinese bank and the Chinese investment firm would have to pay EUR 60 FTT. Example 2: Same case as the first example, but this time it is a commodities (such as steel) futures contract for operations of the German company in China: In principle, FTT is due as both the Chinese Bank and the Chinese investment firm are deemed to be established in Germany (Art. 3.1.e), unless both Chinese companies can prove that there is no link between the economic substance of the transaction and the territory of Germany (Art. 3.3). Such proof is not available, however, where the operations of the German company in China have an impact on the balance sheet of the German headquarter. In the debate, some advocated adding the issuance principle to the residence principle as defined in the proposal to better minimise the risks coming from possible avoidance schemes. This approach would allow to tax trading in at least some financial instruments issued in the EU even when Article 3.1.a to 3.1.e do not apply. Where applicable, it would also make taxable cases where two non-EU financial institutions were party to a transaction or were acting in the name of exclusively non-EU parties to the transaction on certain instruments issued in the EU, thus transactions where there was no EU party involved at all.
ok, it's clear to me now I just read the pdf http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custom...inancial_sector/fact_sheet/territoriality.pdf