Brown can hang on to the last minute (June 3rd) if the polls are against him and that's a bit late on that proposed timeline.
I am also not 100% convinced that Cameron is against a transaction tax. Has he actually said anything? If he perceives it as a potential vote winner he might express an interest. You just don't know until he commits! I'm not sure his grasp of economics is too great either (Was he taking Economics 101 when Lehman went under?). Having said this, he is poltically astute, a fine orator and has many qualities. But I would like to see him come off the fence...
A couple of noteworthy items from the above piece: -They say at the low rate of 0.005% the market is modeled to shrink by 14%. Can you imagine what .25% will do? -Also it mentions that Obama supported this tax during his campaign (I have yet to see that). -I also like the risks they point out: that everyone pretends to be in favor but only if everyone moves at once, thereby killing the issue as it proves impossible (very likely IMHO) -And also that Brown loses the election and UK support ends (although riskit makes a great point regarding that). These are policiticans and they can change on a dime... -Guru
-And also that Brown loses the election and UK support ends (although riskit makes a great point regarding that). These are policiticans and they can change on a dime... -Guru [/B][/QUOTE] While true that politicians can change their tune at any time, I would much rather see the U.K. elect a conservative like Cameron, than a liberal like Brown. Having Cameron as Prime Minister wouldn't guarantee anything on the transaction tax, but I would like our chances a hell of a lot more if he were elected.
"Pelosi rushes votes to catch plane to Copenhagen" http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...es-to-catch-plane-to-Copenhagen-79429532.html How is she still in office? -Guru
While true that politicians can change their tune at any time, I would much rather see the U.K. elect a conservative like Cameron, than a liberal like Brown. Having Cameron as Prime Minister wouldn't guarantee anything on the transaction tax, but I would like our chances a hell of a lot more if he were elected. [/B][/QUOTE] http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/11/09/gordon-brown-tobin-tax/ here is one little article but you have to go back years and read not just the articles but financial papers and studies done by people and you will see who opposed it most, Brown. Remember before Browns short stint at Prime Minister he was Chancellor of the Exchequer which is in charge of all economic anf financial matters and controls the treasury. He had that role for 10 years and he was the Bankers best friend. Thats why it was such an uproar when he did come out for the tax, if he wasnt so against it it wouldnt have been a big uproar as it was. Just like Sarko has always been for it and France, so not a big deal since they were talking about it since 01 in France. But for someone like Brown to favor it was pretty earth shatterting.
Can someone point to some quick bullet points/main ideas why we're against this. I tend to be long winded and well horrible at such things. The reason why I'm asking is I am fighting trying to get our message across. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
U.S. National Debt Tops Debt Limit http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5987341.shtml Part of the unfortunate backdrop against which this call for new taxes is taking place
Bullet points requested. How is this for a start? I will give it to my editor to shorten and improve it. To post the final version tomorrow. Did I leave out any bullet points? Let me know before I give it to Molly my editor (she edits my articles for Active Trader magazine too). A transaction tax stifles market-makers which includes speculators and small-business traders on ECNs. Hurting the market makers hurts the market users. Punishing market markers will reduce their trading activity and that will make markets illiquid with spreads widening significantly. That means all investors and hedgers will be stuck getting lower selling prices and higher purchase prices. Thatâs costs everyone more money. So even if the current bill provides narrow exemptions for small retail investors (first $100,000 of transactions, a tiny amount) and for retirement plans, those exemptions are really just a mirage. Thatâs because with wider spreads market users get lower sales prices and higher purchase prices. Farmers are crying foul over this transaction tax for this very reason; because it will hurt their ability to hedge their products at a fair price. The sponsors claim itâs a âtiny taxâ but farmersâ consider it large enough wipe out their narrow profit margins. That can lead to food shortages, which is a dangerous idea as pundits are predicting food shortages worldwide. The role of a speculator is to prevent food shortages by bidding up prices when needed to give farmers an incentive to plant more crops. The financial markets are used by investors, farmers (and other companies that hedge), for raising capital and more. "Putting sand in the wheels of the financial markets" (Tobin Tax logic) will hurt all investors, farmers and companies raising money. That flies in the face of what Congress and the President are complaining about, problems with loosening up credit and creating jobs. This tax will surely cause job losses in financial markets and services and that will lead to job destruction throughout the economy. If the whole world passes this tax then the US should still not pass this tax because it will cause all the damage mentioned above. If important financial markets around the world do not pass this tax â and itâs doubtful that Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland and many others would pass it â and the US does pass it, lots of trading will leave the US for the foreign exchanges that donât pass this tax. Market makers and market users already pay the same taxes as the rest of Main Street. Only people owning a stock for 12-months are entitled to lower long-term capital gains taxes. Market makers donât get that tax break. The financial markets in the US are one of our greatest assets and industries. Our market places are the largest and most important in the world and the US dollar is the most important and by far the biggest reserve currency. The federal government, states and cities depend on selling their securities to investors around the world to finance their budgets. Our American financial exchanges are buying foreign exchanges and they are expanding. Itâs our best industry along with high tech. Financial services and exchanges are also high-techâs best customer. Trashing our financial exchanges with a financial-transaction tax will seriously undermine all this American strength. US banks have paid back TARP with excellent dividends to taxpayers. This tax is based on collecting a tax from Wall Street to pay back TARP. It was conceived by naysayerâs not trusting banks and Secretary Geithner to arrange for taxpayers to be paid back. Now it makes no sense to make the banks pay TARP back twice. The sponsors are just greedy and they still want to punish the banks. That type of behavior does not loosen up credit to create jobs. The natural business cycle is to allow for financial recovery in a recession first and that then leads to a full jobs recovery later on. To break that cycle by destroying jobs in financial services will undermine the ongoing jobs recovery. Be patient and let the business cycle complete itself. Itâs surely underway. Raising money from developed countries to help undeveloped countries in dealing with climate damage and for social causes is a nice idea. But those causes should be funded with general contributions from countries. Not an ill-conceived, dangerous and destructive tax like a financial-transaction tax that has many unintended consequences â which will hurt many economies in both the developed and undeveloped world too.