That's entirely correct! The idiots who bring up the UK as an example of a country with a transaction tax on stocks are just that, idiots! Traders there pay NO tax on daytrading activities. In fact, most of the "professional" platforms have ways to 'designate' LSE transactions as all being 'CFDs' so you won't pay stamp duty. Some brokers, however, like IB, have no way around that issue, which still leaves me puzzled. So it appears most of the transaction tax being paid in the UK are by mom 'n pop bagholders and other entities which due to certain regulations are forced to pay. And even then, many are for *abolishing* the ripoff fee.
The public believes it. What kind of look do you get when you tell someone you're a day trader? Do you kind of get that look of loathe? Volume will dry up initially but since the big banks will be exempt it will eventually come back. The markets will be no worse for wear if this passes. There will be a loophole somewhere. Someone will find it.
First post, this is a joke right, funny. But seeing as 63%+ of Americans owned stock in one form or another according to Princeton survey in 2006 (Mutual funds, 401k, company stock etc...), who is your majority of Americans? Of the 37% lets say that don't, what percentage of them vote? This is the same argument as the Cap Gains one. Google 'Laffer Curve' and get back to us. Increasing taxes does not increase revenue historically. We're NOT daytraders, SOES guys were daytraders, we're Short-term Investors thank you, and we want our own COUNTRY. We'll be showing up to buy your house soon.
Problem is no CFDs allowed in US. And I agree that the public will be for the tax. Why not generate whatever revenue at the expense of non-productive activity. I am telling you guys, this tax will eventually come up for serious consideration. I think in the end it will come down to whether or not the "big boys", exchanges/goldman/morgan etc., decide that it's absolutely necessary to fight this thing(would depend on how tax is proposed). Only then do we have a chance, but they'll be fighting against stiff headwind. I would imagine CNBC will be on our side. We need to write the anchors to constantly rail against this thing all day and grill politicians that come on air. Cramer needs to redo the "They Know Nothing" and come out every night and go ballistic against it. I think he would if talks about the tax heated up. I mean who are his viewership.
Be careful. Additional Exposure to this tax may be counterproductive considering how the general public is seemingly in favor of it. It's best to bat down articles as they come up with responses to the stories directly on the article's webpage as the URL's are posted in this thread. That's a way to get our voice heard while not inadvertantly spreading the flames.
Forward to 5:12 in the Archived Webcast http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/hr021109.shtml Frank talks about phasing the transaction tax in now.
thank you i have been trying to tell the people on this board that it would not effect them trading in the least bit. exemptions exemptions exemptions. little guys big and small. now if you want to trade retail through ib those are the accounts that will be effected. so get into a group llc prop etc that is an exchange member and enjoy not paying this tax ala the traders over in the uk
just watched the video -- according to barney rubble, "something like this [transaction tax]" is coming within four years as mandated by some amendment to TARP . . . this is shaping up to be something that'll be breathing down our necks until it's voted on or someone does a study about why it will fail . . . at least the senator that brought it up (Lynch from MA) was only referring to stocks and not futures or currency.