Tax Wall St. $0.25 per trade, that would be a quick way to FILL our coffers AND possibly make them

[ShamelessHussy]

financiers more responsible with their trades, and system integrity (e.g. last weeks shenanigans)

This would apply to institutional trades only, not to individuals trading their own shares that they own outright.

How can we get this idea in the M$M, and debated by our politicians?

Maybe we can start by K&R this thread, if you like the idea :shrug:

:hi:

BTW: This would apply to every SHARE traded.

[WCGreen]

1. It's been talked about before..

The tax evaders drag out that dusty old excuse and say then American Stock Exchanges will lose business to over sea concerns...

[ShamelessHussy]

4. i haven't heard of it before, and in this climate I bet a LOT more folks would be receptive

certainly not the elite ruling classes, but we out number them BIG time.

[WCGreen]

16. I read about it because I am a Tax Preparer...

It was talked about back in the 90's.

[Hannah Bell]

20. tobin tax

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

2. this would not be fair to small investors but how about a penny tax a share

that way when we poor trade 100 shares we are not taxed more then those who trade 1000 and 10000 shares at a time.

[ShamelessHussy]

5. individual traders are exempt

cept maybe for the whales out there

[DLnyc]

15. More fair, maybe, would be a fraction of a percent transfer tax.

A percent of trade value seems more to the point than a price per share, since share prices vary widely.

A transfer tax rewards long-term investment and punishes speculation and high-volume 'program trading'.

Also, in the current climate, to get all the major exchanges around the world to sign on to such taxes, since whoever didn't would become a target of the program traders.

[northzax]

3. why only institutions?

individuals can pay it too. but frankly, i'd go much lower, and run it as a percentage, based, like capital gains, on the length of time a security was owned. As in the Democratic proposal last fall, tax all securities trades .1%. if the security has been held for longer than 18 months, the tax is reduced to .01%. most individuals hold stocks for much longer than 18 months (for retirement, perhaps) and long term growth wouldn't be damaged, since holding a stock for 18 months would mean you'd pay one penny on every hundred dollars of value. sell a thousand dollars worth? pay ten cents. sell a million? pay a hundred bucks.

[ShamelessHussy]

6. because they are the problem, not the individual investors

not to mention, it would be an easier sell... since NO ONE like to hear about a new tax, unless it is aimed at the FAT CATS who caused this mess, which is the other motivation for targeting institutions, get THEM (who are the problem) to change their behavior.

[Statistical]

23. Except institutions run pensions, mutual funds, 401K.

All those fees will come right back to the end user.

Plus manageing and tracking institution trades vs non institution trades would be a nightmare.

Simply have it a flat tax on all trades period. Exchanges already collect a fee per share (to cover cost of exchange) so a mechanism is already in place.

Still $0.25 per share is smoking crack. 1/10th cent per share (or something in that ballpark) and make it universal and it could be adopted yesterday (exchange already charge a per share fee).

[Oregone]

7. That would impede America's exceptional individuals

They will no longer trickle down goodness upon us

[progressoid]

8. So a trade worth three bucks would be taxed the same as a trade worth three million?

[ShamelessHussy]

9. all proportional taxes on income gains remain, but yes, each share traded would be a FLAT rate

they seem to love the idea of FLAT taxes, too :evilgrin:

[progressoid]

13. And it would be very unfair.

1 share of Berkshire Hathaway A @ 117,000 a share would be taxed 25 cents.

1657 shares of McDonalds stock @ 70.58 a share ($116,951) would be taxed $414.25.



Same amount of money changes hands but they are taxed differently. Seems to me, it would be better to use a percentage.

[Statistical]

24. There already are per share fees for the exchanges.

http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/accounts/fees/NYSEstkfee.php?ib_entity=llc

So companies with small stock price are already penalized. The entire system works on per share so devising an entirely new system for taxation would be complex and unnecessary.

NYSE and other exchanges already collect fees per share that trade from every single share that trades. That is how NYSE, Nasdaq and others make money by acting as middle man (think ebay for stocks) and collecting a tiny cut from both sides. To tax on per share basis simply require exchanges to collect the per share amount and hand it over to govt.

As far as McDonalds v. Berkshire McDonalds chose to split in the past and may choose to split in the future. It would simply mean that companies would be less likely to split in the future. McDonalds has split 5 times in its history. If it had never done that it would be $2269 per share making the tax $12.94.

Then again this is all academic because a $0.25 per share fee/tax/assessment will never happen. Maybe a fractional cent.

[TexasObserver]

10. It would need to be a very small percentile based upon dollar volume.

It is a reform that is both needed and deserved.

[ShamelessHussy]

11. hmmm... maybe you are right, i didn't even consider penny stocks, maybe that would be the max

this idea also has reform of their behavior in mind though... and I would still want regulations to be imposed as well.

but this could be a start, and keep the tax officers busy ;)

[ShamelessHussy]

12. yikes, start yapping about taxing the man, and the site starts wigging out

;)

[JCMach1]

14. Isn't capital gains enough?

.25 cent is nothing to a big corporation, but sounds like the equivalent of an annoying ATM fee for my small savings portfolio.

[Hannah Bell]

21. no. capital gains are less than most people pay on wage income.

[Scuba]

17. I like it!!!

[morgan2]

18. taxing trades like that would cause companies to list overseas

A lot of the problems come from the speed of trades. Some kind of hybrid system taxing stock transfers more for the shorter they are held sounds the most realistic to me. It would get rid of the short term speculation based of whims and feelings, and increase peoples reliance on betting on the company doing well not the word on the street.

[Hannah Bell]

19. +10000

this should separate the real left from the right.

[Statistical]

22. $0.25 per SHARE not just no but FUCK NO. 1/10th cent per share. No problem.

Maybe 1/10th of a cent per share is closer to realism?

About 50 billion shares change hands each month on NYSE alone.
http://www.nyxdata.com/nysedata/asp/factbook/viewer_edition.asp?mode=table&key=3069&category=3#mthlyvol

Between all markets it likely is double that.
So 100 billion per month * 12 months = 1.2 trillion shares. At 1/10th cent per share that would be $120 billion per year in revenue.

However I wouldn't make it just "institutions" because almost instantly companies would split off and make subsidiaries and find ways to weasel out of the definition and then trade without any tax.

Please it gets complicated quickly keeping track (most trades are anonymous). Simply requires NYSE to collect 1/10th cent per share and pass that on to the govt. 100% of trades 24/7/365.


$0.25 per share is simply silly. Like saying $40,000 tax per car or $150,000 tax per house.

[blindpig]

25. You want to oppress rich people...

the poor thangs. That'll never fly with some around here.

Why exempt individuals? If they can play then they can pay.

[ShamelessHussy]

26. Not oppress, just make them pay to play

I think it should only target institutional investors because they are the problem, but I guess it could be expanded.

That system generates so much wealth these days to so few, with enormous risks to many.

[blindpig]

27. Don't get me wrong....

I'm all for oppressing them, turnabout is fair play.

Nobody should profit from the labor of others.

[ShamelessHussy]

28. Excellent point

They deserve some pain as well.