Keep in mind while Buffet opposes the bank tax, he signed a letter about a month or two ago talking about Short Termism where they also were for a transaction tax.
Burnett had Stockman on to discuss his op-Ed today NYT. He generally told her that trading and financial activity is too big and short term focused and concluded it crowds out more useful activity. Plus it's very profitable so why not choose this activity as a last resort for desperate new tax revenues. His op Ed piece was much more detailed and he only suggested the bank fee and not a FTT in the article. Stockman was with President Reagan as I recall and a supply-sider. He seems a little out of touch with the latest trends and somewhat dusted off coming from out of the woodwork. His article was very well written. Saw it last night. Burnett is now very careful not piling on to a bank fee and FTT too. Before the bank fee she seemed like a trouble maker on the FTT. Seems like every economist can't ignore this once in few decades financial conundrum and what went wrong. They all want to weigh in to show their intelligence and suggest a fix. Many of them are attracted to the Tobin Rubix Cube which even Tobin never figured out. On iPhone . Home sick today for first time in a long time. An accountants vacation. Get to watch cnbc, read and make too many posts.
lol you watch the little guy will get screwed again. the banks are pushing back and saying "we'll take a transaction tax instead" knowing the little guy will pay it.now if they want to exempt all non professional traders thats fin. go nail gs.ms and the rest. every tax profposal that comes up is being passed on and the person with the least power the little trader will get nailed
Response to email sent several months ago. ------------------------------------------ Dear xxxxx: Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the financial transaction tax proposed by Rep. Peter DeFazio. I share your concerns about the timing of this legislation and the disproportionate impact it could have on New York's economy. As proposed, the tax would be levied at a rate of 0.25 percent on the sale and purchase of stocks, options, and futures. While I understand and appreciate the frustrations many Americans have with Wall Street, I fear that this legislation has the potential to harm economic recovery efforts by deterring capital investment. I am particularly concerned about the burden a transaction tax would put on the investments of middle-class Americans, such as pension plans, which are already struggling to meet funding requirements, as well as other retirement investments, such as 401(k)s and IRAs. According to the most recent Retirement Confidence Survey, the number of workers who believe they have enough money to retire comfortably is the lowest in over a decade. Congress must take great care not to harm the solvency of retirement plans. Again, thank your contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other, matter. Sincerely, Charles E. Schumer United States Senator
You are still keeping your stress levels up. That's real good for you. Not. Not to encourage you to not rest and recover by making more posts, but your posts have been excellent. Logically I cannot see this trans tax passing, yet emotionally I fear that it will. The effort is not for nothing when this dies down, because the tax proposals will be back sometime and the knowledge gained will be here to refer to.
seasideheights, Any more color on the above? Did they mention who was meeting regarding the TT today? Also I wonder who is there from Vanguard? I believe the current person in charge is against the TT (but not Bogle)... -Guru
Where did you see the banks prefer a FTT over a bank fee? I highly-doubt that. Goldman said it was a principal and not a broker or fiduciary when it sold (what they thought was) junk to their clients - per testimony at FCIC. Wall Street naked assess high frequent trading is pure trading and not being a broker or fiduciary. No way can the banks get exemptions from a FTT on trading, not with the current populism in politics of Main Street versus Wall Street. This is why Secretary Geithner does not want a FTT to protect Main Street. We do not want a UK style stamp tax that exempts 70+% of trades (someone's prior post laid this out), mostly falling on the little guy. As mentioned before, I think Brits domiciled in the UK get an income tax credit for stamp duty tax too. Apples and oranges. No bank wants to pay .50% (buy plus sale) on hundreds of transactions per day, when they could instead pay .15% one time per year on non-insured liabilities only. Even if trading capital is a small fraction of liabilties, a FTT would be far higher. Look at the projections for FTT, its 100 billion per year, not 100 billion over 10 years as per the bank fee. If banks try to lay off the taxman on traders, we need to get tougher.
The new deficit commission probably owes every tax idea in public debate and otherwise on the table a look, and each tax plan's proponents will probably get a fair shot at testimony to them. It doesn't mean that one plan is preferred over another. The FTT will probably be kicked to the curb on this round. Wishful thinking, yes, but probably right.
Pretty impossible but imagine a strike where traders stopped trading for one day in protest. No when I worked at a prop firm in NYC in the hey day 1999-2001. We had a lot of traders who did lots of volume at our firm paying 10-15 bucks per thousand, and when we wanted a rate cut we striked and stopped trading. Mangement moved quick back then. I know times are different now but it would be pretty cool country wide to do that, but probably not even remotely practical