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

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

  1. Businessman

    Businessman

    A large fund buying and selling 50,000 e-mini S&Ps would pay over $10 million in taxes.

    All the futures markets would just die.
     
    #81     Jan 13, 2009
  2. Very true, a lot of discussion. For a bill to become law it would be a very difficult task to surmmount the lobbying pressure, getting the bill out of committee and endless debate on what exceptions there might be. During all of this a congressional session might end thus killing the bill and having it needed to be reintroduced. By then the circumstances driving support may have changed.

    Still, we all should take time to contemplate what each of would do to continue with what we do in the case it becomes law. At least get some thoughts going to protect ourselves.
     
    #82     Jan 13, 2009
  3. "While the fees would be a trivial expense for what the general public tends to think of as ordinary traders — people investing in stocks, bonds or other assets for some reasonable period of time — they would amount to a much heavier lift for speculators, the folks who bring a manic quality to the markets, who treat it like a casino."


    ... and who provide liquidity!!!
     
    #83     Jan 13, 2009
  4. You give a NY Times journalist far too much credit. He didn't even give any credit to James Tobin or John Maynard Keynes who first proposed this kind of a tax back in 1930. Instead, he lauded economist Dean Baker from the CEPR in Washington.

    Again, this legislation was originally proposed in Congress by Reps DeFazio (OR) and Wellstone (MN) back in 2000 as a way to tax short-term, cross-border foreign exchange transactions to deter speculation. Some of the dumbest Reps in Congress ( such as Marcy Kaptur of Ohio) co-sponsored the bill.

    Suffice to say, it lacked VOTES back then and it will lack VOTES now.

    But once again, ET doesn't understand this kind of legislation.
    In fact, it's practically a waste of time posting here.
     
    #84     Jan 13, 2009
  5. Smart or dumb doesn't matter. Do you really think CME (Chicago) is going to get government APPROVAL and SUPPORT into the multi-trillion OTC-clearing market without giving up something(s)? STT is a gift in that case.

    Your confidence is misplaced. You need to have confidence in yourself to do the "right thing". Politicians will not save you.

    Once unthinkable, now unstoppable
    obama-lama
     
    #85     Jan 13, 2009
  6. zdreg

    zdreg

    it is typical that ET posters don't understand the situation.
    Wall Street and goldman are behind it
    broker dealers will get an exemption.
     
    #86     Jan 13, 2009
  7. If the big boys will get an exemption then the $100 billion tax income tag is NOT possible.
     
    #87     Jan 13, 2009
  8. I guess you little pea brain doesn't remember that Clinton signed that act.

    You little dems just don't get it. Truth just constantly evades you.


    John
     
    #88     Jan 13, 2009
  9. clacy

    clacy

    No shit. What's the point of trying to tax the little guy? That is a drop in the bucket and would eliminate the retail trader completely, thereby obsoleting itself.
     
    #89     Jan 13, 2009

  10. Votes can easily change when constituents call & push the idea.

    Wildfires start easily.

    Don't discount it.
     
    #90     Jan 13, 2009