1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today

Discussion in 'Taxes and Accounting' started by seasideheights, Jan 13, 2009.

  1. Exactly! we need to rename this bill. "Screw main street investors to fund Wall St bailout"
     
    #4771     Jan 11, 2010
  2. GG1972

    GG1972

    I'd rather pay an extra $10 on my monthly bank statement than the 1/4% trade tax anyday
     
    #4772     Jan 11, 2010
  3. cstfx

    cstfx

    So....we (Wall Street, et al) are on the hook for repayment of the auto bailout and the recently passed jobs bill which tapped TARP funds. Nice.

    f'n scumbag Dems.
     
    #4773     Jan 11, 2010
  4. timcar

    timcar

    Hopefully Congress will pass that Traders Tax this year 2010.

    If they do just imagine how much those Algorithmic programs and High Frequency Traders will pay. With all that fast trading those guys do, the tax they will pay should pay for the War.
     
    #4774     Jan 11, 2010
  5. Yes, I know. Unfortunately, most people do not.
     
    #4775     Jan 11, 2010
  6. The SEC is set to address High Frequency Trading in 2010 through possible rule changes for those strategies deemed to be "unfair" or unlawful.

    It doesn't need to be handled through taxation.

    If it is, then you will have to pay the tax as well. Do you mind paying $271 every time you buy & later sell 1,000 shares of Walmart? If not, then send 1/4% of the total value of all of your buys & sells of stock for 2009 to the US Treasury. You can easily find this figure on the 2009 tax return that you will be filling out.
     
    #4776     Jan 11, 2010
  7. TPCS

    TPCS

    So far my spreadsheet for 4191 has 36 Representatives for and 4 against.
     
    #4777     Jan 11, 2010
  8. TPCS

    TPCS

    #4778     Jan 11, 2010
  9. TPCS

    TPCS

    There's a problem:

    Part of the "proceeds" of H.R. 4191 are earmarked for the Surface Transportation Authorization Act (H.R. 3617), which has already passed the House. The reason, of course, is that DeFazio is one of the co-sponsors of this so he wants to have a source of funds for his pet project. The problem stems from the fact that Charles Rangel is another co-sponsor of H.R. 3617. He happens to be Chair of the Ways and Means Committee (one of the key committees overseeing H.R. 4191). This means that Rangel may actually want H.R. 4191 to pass in order to pay for H.R. 3617 and he has quite a bit of power to see that it gets through his committee.
     
    #4779     Jan 11, 2010
  10. rc822

    rc822



    The funding for H.R. 3617 will obviously have to come from somewhere else, as it won't come from a transaction tax. Just because they earmark something as funding for a bill doesn't mean that the funding source will be there to use. There are many bills that get passed where they earmark the funding to come from a specific source, only to discover that the source they wanted to fund it with was not attainable. So basically, Defagio may get his bill H.R. 3167 passed, but the funds to pay for it will not come from H.R. 4191.
    One minute Defagio and these idiot Democrats say the revenue funding from H.R. 4191 will be used strictly for budget deficit reduction, then to pay for health care, then for climate control/global warming, then to pay back main street, then to wipe their assholes, and now to help pay for pet projects like H.R. 3617. Defagio is so desperate to get H.R. 4191 passed, (which it won't), that he constantly changes the reasoning we need this tran. tax. I can only imagine that Defagio is sticking pins in his Obama voodoo doll because the White House is leaning towards levying fees on the banks, as opposed to a financial transaction tax. If the Obama White House get's it's way, and the fees are implemented on the banks, there is no way in hell a transaction tax would take place. With Geithner, Summers, and even Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who has very deep ties to wall street, they obviously have a major say in whether something like this would take place.
     
    #4780     Jan 11, 2010