Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:39 PM
Taking Aim At Stock Tax
Financial industry lobbyists are working to kill a new House bill that would impose a 0.25 percent tax on stock, options and futures trades. The measure was introduced by by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.
Interested parties include the Investment Company Institute, the New York Stock Exchange, the Managed Funds Association, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Lobbyists began to mobilize earlier this month when the NYSE hosted a conference call to round up signatures for a Dear Colleague letter organized by Rep. Michael McMahon, D-N.Y., and Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. The letter opposing the suggested tax was released yesterday with 36 lawmakers aboard and was sent to the two top members on the House Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.
The letter raised concerns that the tax "will fall on millions of hardworking Americans who are saving for their future, through 401 k plans, mutual funds, pensions and other savings vehicles." Sponsors of the proposed tax, which has strong union backing, say it would raise $150 billion a year which could be used to pay for jobs stimulus measures and to cut the deficit. Proponents of the tax argue that it would not impact most Americans but would mainly affect highly paid financial traders, a point that critics dispute.
Daniel Grace
Friday, February 18, 2011
Interested parties include the Investment Company Institute, the New York Stock Exchange, the Managed Funds Association, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Regards, Daniel gifts for wife
Bob
Friday, December 18, 2009
Making false claims and statements indicates a personal vendetta against Wall Street with devastating consequences for Main Street. The $150B in new revenue is so outlandish that it could not be ignorance. $150B is seven times the average annual pre-tax profit of the entire securities industry during the best years. So where is this revenue going to come from, Main Street? Yet, $150B can be several times more than the total annual US personal savings. Other countries have shown that introducing a transaction tax reduces net revenue as jobs are destroyed, not created, and capital gains revenues are reduced. This securities transaction tax will severely reduce the yield of Main Street retirement funds by more than a few percent annually. Reduced compounding over a lifetime should reduce potential yield by one half. This tax will stop most trading. It would break the underlying foundation and proper functioning of the markets that long-term investors need. This tax will put most of the market makers and liquidity providers out of business. This will increase costs for the Main Street long-term investor many times more than the cost of the tax itself, so the proposed insignificant tax exemptions for us mean nothing. Reduced liquidity will easily increase the bid-ask spread by more than 50 times. Broker fees will increase substantially to stay in business as fees earned from trading are virtually stopped overnight and most brokers go broke. Also, the proposed 0.25% rate will not stay that low for long as the disappointing negative revenue will tempt them to increase it to several percent as has been done in several countries that tried the tax.
Thomas Paine
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Anyone who says this tax will not harm ordinary Americans is either misinformed or a liar. Please see this article for one reason why: Misconception #1: Long-term investors need not fear a
financial transactions tax.
Jill Maning
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Americans should fight this idea. US policy makers should understand that there are many countries that would not involve their taxpayers in any type of global agreement for collection and management of their workers' monies. Canadian and Australian unions would not be interested in signing up to any new internationally controlled tax collection "deal" to facilitate the transfer of funds to God knows where, for God knows what.
It's a pernicious taxation impost that would ultimately destroy millions of innocent working families. The promoters of this ill-directed tax are unwisely taking aim in the wrong direction. And there are several countries that have already expressed disinterest -- Canada and Australia just for starters. Americans should fight it with every ounce of resistance they can muster.
Robert A. Green, CPA
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Unions should be against a financial-transaction tax (rather than supporting it so forcefully) to save money for their members in their union-controlled pension plans. This tax stifles speculation and market makers which widens bid and ask prices and costs union member investors lots of money.
Maybe unions don't really care about their members anyway. Weren't unions heavily implicated in many "pay-to-play" schemes around the country on allowing their union investment funds to be raped by unscrupulous bankers and investment managers? Didn't many union officials get busted for accepting bribes from those crooked investment managers?
Unions are playing politics and they don't care about their members, the users of financial markets. They just want to punish Wall Street and banks to cease more power in Washington and their states to control the agenda more. And they are certainly succeeding with the Obama administration.
ann
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The US Chamber is combating many issues right now – From climate change to our budget deficit and defending consumer choice. Please support the U.S. Chamber’s Fan page and join the conversation! * http://www.facebook.com/uschamber?ref=ts