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

From an article in the FT:

George Osborne, finance spokesman for the UK opposition Conservatives, said he would back a global insurance levy on the banks if his party wins a general election expected on May 6.

Mr Osborne told the Financial Times he did not back a transaction tax, but added: “I think what’s more likely to command international support is some kind of insurance levy.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e7f2779c-0201-11df-8b56-00144feabdc0.html

 

yeah, but THEY wouldn't have to pay it off of their own pockets, would they?

 

Hardly pain...these guys keep doling out record bonuses after being bailed out. It is not relevant that they have fully paid back the money that was lent to them by the Fed/Treasury, my issue is that they were bailed out in the first place. That is not capitalism. Why is it that large companies are bailed out and small companies are not? As soon as they went begging to the taxpayer the game changed, or it should have...

I think this tax can best be described as a 'too big to fail insurance fee'. Maybe they should be given an alternative choice - re-introduce the Glass–Steagall Act and be forced to separate speculative activities from deposit taking banking operations - and let them decide. If they want the luxury of being saved by the taxpayer AT ANY COST then they need to pay something to the taxapyer for this privilege.

Of course, the same rules should apply to the auto makers and FRE and FNM too. That rightly pisses off the banks.

The moral hazard created by bailing out any large company is just going to make the next crisis even worse.. FRE and FNM was always going to be bailed out, now we KNOW that GS, MS, ML, JPM, etc will be too.

 

It may matter less now but I thought I would highlight some things about S. 2927:

1. The tax rate on futures is 0.25%, not 0.02% as in H.R. 4191. Actually, futures are not specifically mentioned in S. 2927. Forwards are mentioned as are "any similar financial instrument". Presumably futures would fall under this.

2. The legislation makes no distinction between shares of public and private corporations. Thus the 0.25% fee implicitly applies to purchases of shares of private corporations as well.

 

To bail out or not bail out was ultimately government's decision so the buck stops there. And remember the banks themselves are as good taxpayers for many years before the crisis as anybody else. Does it count?

 

Instead of insurance levy the banks should be simply required to keep higher capital reserves.

 

I suppose in the real world, yes it does matter. I've just become downright cynical about the whole show..

Would be good if Obama cut taxes somewhere else...enough talk about raising taxes, eh? Give main street something to work for. Raise the tax free threshold to $50,000 for every individual...would that be any more irresponsible than resorting to the printing presses?

 

This bill will never pass.

Brendan P. Byrne

 

Besides Obama’s proposed “fee” on the biggest banks, Congress may take up the idea of a Wall Street “transactions tax.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...tax-cfpa-credit-card-delinquencies-gekko.html

Note the link to influential columnist Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post who should know better

 

Pearlstein. What's intellectually honest about putting market makers out of business without acknowledging that market disruptive fact? All he admits is that some speculation is excessive. He's not intelligent enough to understand that markets will be dysfunctional. I'll tackle him on this soon.