Still not sure what a transaction tax has anything to do with bad loans and credit default swaps that couldn't be paid off. People have lost there minds, falling housing prices + bad loans + bad insurance on the loans = financial mess. Now what the fuck does that have to do with high frequency trading? Somebody please help me out with this.
Just a bunch of idiots who want to point fingers and act like they are doing something. Every time there is some turmoil people look to chop off heads. When I read this crap I always picture a group of townspeople running around with torches. This stuff (transaction tax, other bs, etc.) happens all the time and this will end up like the rest....forgotten. When we stop worrying about the economy the townspeople will run off to another problem.
Since the next Pres. seems a foregone conclusion, don't let Congress become a filibuster-proof majority so that whatever O wants they will sign, and vice versa. The real upcoming danger is a system where we don't have any checks and balances, and it looks like this might be a possibility. No one political party should have this. If this scenario comes to pass, you can bet your ass you will see this tax.
With the coming need for more taxes and the growing hate toward speculators (there will be more dropping of the stock market - we all know this I think from the fundamental outlook - so that hate is going to grow), I think it's coming. The question is how much it will be taxed, that white paper in the other thread actually recommended reasonable taxes for futures that won't kill most of our trading, but the blanket .25% idea would kill most futures trading. So, I'm just going to trade while I can and do a couple of things. Look into options trading instead of straight futures trading, .25% on an option is a heck of a lot more reasonable. Also, I'll think about doing something totally different since, well, I get bored doing what I'm doing in approximately 5 year increments anyway, so I guess it'll be on to the next thing possibly for me. My point is - I'll fight it and write letters and make as much noise as I can about it, but the lawmakers have already proven they'll do what is best for them and will favor ideas most of their constituents understand. Believe me, the ideas we have to use to fight this most of the constituents aren't going to understand. Using advanced concepts, it is nearly impossible to defeat hate (against Wall Street) and a growing need for revenue.
This is precisely why the two party system needs to be eliminated..... Any system setup like this ....will be nothing more than the fulcrum point of control of special interests groups.... The economy is going to do what it is going to do.... The products that are going to be sold....are going to be sold.... The only good system for any government is to have one that allows for individual freedom, and government projects by township...internet voted....with only a single unavoidable 10% consumption tax....Nothing else will work.....And debt must be minimized.....This is a road to a strong currency....and thus a strong country.... It is difficult to manage one "township sized" government....much less thousands of them.... Good rules are made based on efficiency of goods and services because it is everyone's best interest to be efficient and respecting....and in balance.... A voting by advertising system promotes cronyism and payback for the short term election...and has nothing to do with viable long term projects.... Basing a good project on politics....is like trying to build a stone house on shifting sand.....
I would say that if Ralph Nader's pushing it the idea's dead but who knows what the unholy trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid will force down our throats... especially in taxes.
actually, it's not that bad of an idea and probably wouldn't have much of an effect on most of the people on this message board. lots of countries including the UK already have transaction taxes, and if the US were to institute one, it would probably be less than 10 basis points here's a pretty good report (a bit dated) on the pros and cons of a transaction tax: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp418-e.htm
What the government should do is to reduce all onerous taxes except for a 10% consumption tax... Eliminate the IRS Eliminate the SEC Eliminate the failed two party system altogether.... Eliminate legal largesse ........................................... The government needs to dramatically reduce its size altogether and totally rid itself of the failed lobbyist crony system.... The current form of government podium rule by advertisements is a fucking joke. Let there be no mistake....that the total tax take for proper township government projects would increase many times over the current revenue if business enterprise were allowed to expand not contract..... Obama is a lot like Chavez.....talks like music....but at the end of the day will inefficiently cronyize the tax take......which is total fucking bullshit... And McCain is an old man with a wife who charges $500k on Amex in a month.....wtf ? ............................................. Any tax on securities just represents a further failed system.....and total fucking ignorance ......
libertad said ""What the government should do is to reduce all onerous taxes except for a 10% consumption tax... Eliminate the IRS Eliminate the SEC Eliminate the failed two party system altogether.... Eliminate legal largesse"" But then the "monied interests" would lose control. Can't have that now can we?
email your congressmen and email the president, er obama. an acquaintance worked for a congressmen, and their responsibility was to make sure every piece of mail was read and cataloged. they really do read their mail. these people really are just ignorant, and it's not that difficult to put forth a narrative argument that would make such a tax sound like a positive thing. company executives have the press' attention and are blaming short sellers for their own horrific decisions and risk management. that's what these congressman hear all day. they need to hear the other side in a simple manner. "This is with regard to the proposed 1/4 of 1 percent transaction tax to pay for the bailout. The overwhelming number of shareholders, such as mutual fund holders and hedge fund Managers, traders, were victims of the poor decision making and risk management of some investment banking and mortgage banking institution, only a very insightful few were able to hedge their losses in other companies by short selling. Bear Stearns went bankrupt because they were leveraged 40-1, not because of short sellers. The short sellers were invaluable in sending price signals to the market, that "we've been duped and there is something really wrong with this company." those that heeded the markets signals could have exited with a portion of their investment in the days leading up to the bankruptcy. Many in the free market investment community believe these firms should not have been bailed out, and should have been let to fail, weeding out these executives and letting new start ups replace them. The unintended consequence of the 1/4 of 1 percent transaction tax, would be less liquidity, and a 6500% increase in the cost of doing business. Volume would dry up to a halt, leading to widened spreads, leaving Tom the inability to buy shares in his beloved Apple. Every mutual fund holder would suffer by paying higher fees. Companies would not be able to raise money from the public to invest in their ideas, their equipment, and hire workers because there would be a much smaller pool to invest in their share. It would cost these startups more. Quite possibly, this transaction tax is so large, that existing Electronic Communications Networks (ECNS) would supply the nyse and nasdaq as the world's leading stock exchange, located in some computer room outside of the United States. The heads of the banks made horrific risk management decisions, and are shifting the blame to speculators. Don't let them dupe you. " anything to add?