What about this article - apparantly Defazio spoke with Lew and he is not as opposed to the FTT as Gaithner was... http://www.thenation.com/blog/173134/financial-transactions-tax-introduced-again-can-it-pass-time#
Sounds fishy to me. That article is dated February 28th and just this week Lew sounded like a definite no. Maybe Lew was just being polite to Harkin and Defazio (LOL). -Guru
https://mninews.marketnews.com/inde...s-proposed-fin-transaction-tax-very-troubling I guess they meant a "fee structure on Financial institutions as a better alternative", not on financial transactions.
Yes sounds like a typo. I believe they were referring to the financial responsibility fee thats been in Obama's budgets as the piece mentions that fee further on down. Bottom line Lew and the administration are still firmly opposed to the ftt. -Guru
(Reuters) - Bankers are confident they can persuade the European Union that its proposed financial trading tax poses enough risks to struggling economies and banks to warrant being watered down.[...] http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/14/uk-europe-banks-tax-idUKBRE93D02C20130414
Financial Transactions Tax Would Cost French Companies EUR70 Billion - Report http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/201...d-cost-french-companies-eur70-billion-report/
I'm guessing "watered down" means exemptions for the big boys? Independent traders who don't hold the relevant licenses will still get screwed. Or am I being too cynical?
Yes. I heard Natixis' boss on the radio : "This would cost us 7 billions, our turnover is 6 billions, this tax would cost us more than our turnover"