Jump to content



Photo

Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 traderpaul

traderpaul

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 6,034 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 12:57 PM

Read all about it.....Link
"Inflation is taking place now. Prices may not appear to be rising because they are making packaging smaller. " Rickoshay

#2 gohowe

gohowe

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 142 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 01:23 PM

Just called my congressman. This is bull. Just as uptick rule was taken away before market piped. This can only mean markets going up. haha

#3 goldswinger

goldswinger

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 01:32 PM

bunch of blood sucking scumbags..... This is another tax for the trading community and mutual funds (the people) and investors. If anything they should restrict this to trading activities for house accounts of the big banks.... and people like geithner who cheat on their taxes. Definitively a bull(*&^%$#@@ piece of legislation......they are desperate! ..and I believe not bullish at all.... Goldswinger.

#4 IndexTrader

IndexTrader

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 7,694 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 01:59 PM

This proposal of a .25% transaction tax will bring about the end of active trading. Here's why: if you buy $50,000 in securities this will create a transaction tax of $125. When you sell it that will create another transaction tax of $125. A total of $250. Plus commission. Let's say you do this 250 times per year. Your total transaction tax is $62,500. This means that if you were using no leverage at all, you would need to profit over 100% in the course of the year in order to pay your transaction tax. By the way, this also covers futures. Which means that if you trade 1 ES each day for a year, your transaction tax would total $62,500 approximately. I don't know many folks who can pay that type of friction, along with commission, and still stay in business. This bill would not only end the career of active traders. Because of this, it would also reduce liquidity (fewer traders), and therefore increase volatility. This means spreads between bid and ask would then rise. So the remaining investors would then not only pay the transaction tax, they would pay addition execution costs via the increased spread. But lets go further: companies like Ameritrade, Interactive Brokers, etc tc etc, would no longer be able to offer their low commissions because their volume would decline precipitously. Thus, commission increase. My guess is that some of these online brokers would go out of business. And finally, the support services that currently service the active trader community, like charting software, front end execution software, and so forth, would all see a major decline in customers, and in all likelihood would either go out of business or have to sharply increase prices. My guess is the latter. This proposal could literally be a disaster to the markets. My suggestion is to contact your Congressman, contact members of the house ways and means committee where this bill will be taken up, and give them your views. IT

#5 atlasshrugged

atlasshrugged

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 4,409 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 02:40 PM

IT will pass...you know why...because trading is my only source of income right now...and has allowed me to live the lifestyle i have greatly supplementing my real estate income...so it just goes to figure that they will strip me of this and leave me with no skills other that that for trading and real estate... can you say timothy mckvay in the making

#6 IndexTrader

IndexTrader

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 7,694 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 02:53 PM

Charles Rangel is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, where this is being taken up. Interesting that the guy is a tax cheat. :lol: Anyway, send him an email. Send your congressman an email. IT

#7 HoseB

HoseB

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,061 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 02:58 PM

It would be a shame if it passed. The Wall street TRADER has very low culpability, if any. There are a HUNDRED more responsible. If it did pass, I doubt it would be long before being repealed. NY trading money would go outside the US and make the NYSE and Nasdaq ghost exhanges... until the legislature wised-up and said, "Oops... sorry, didn't mean it."

Edited by HoseB, 18 February 2009 - 03:05 PM.

40,000 headmen couldn't make me change my mind....

#8 dcengr

dcengr

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 13,391 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 03:14 PM

They should just make it illegal for the markets to go down. That's what they really want. A market that perpetually goes up.
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

#9 IndexTrader

IndexTrader

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 7,694 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 03:14 PM

It would be a shame if it passed.

The Wall street TRADER has very low culpability, if any. There are a HUNDRED more responsible.

If it did pass, I doubt it would be long before being repealed. NY trading money would go outside the US and make the NYSE and Nasdaq ghost exhanges... until the legislature wised-up and said, "Oops... sorry, didn't mean it."


If the US passes this tax, don't be surprised if the tax is passed worldwide. In fact, it does exist already in some other markets. That makes it even more important to fight this proposal here.

IT

#10 HoseB

HoseB

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,061 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 03:21 PM

They should just make it illegal for the markets to go down. That's what they really want. A market that perpetually goes up.


They tried to "make it so" with the housing market money-pump and irresponsible credit... look where it got us..
40,000 headmen couldn't make me change my mind....