A Rational Objection to the Trader Tax from Eric Jackson

Traders around the country are erupting in furor over Jim Cramer’s unfortunate comments in support of the proposed Trader Tax.  Speaking on CNBC in his regular shoot-from-the-hip slot, Cramer basically said what amounted to “why not?” when asked about the Democrats’ backward idea to extract a percentage of every transaction on the markets.

I read his clarification on TheStreet.com this morning, and frankly, it was weak…something about how a Trader Tax would help bring jobs back or whatever, completely absurd.  I got the impression that he wished he hadn’t said anything on the subject to begin with and wished he could back off of his original support for it.  Oh well.

In the meantime, Eric Jackson, an activist investor, contributor to TheStreet.com and the voice of Breakout Performance, posted a very well-written look at what the consequences of a Trader Tax may mean here in the US:

While I support Cramer’s interest in seeing job creation flourish in America, I completely disagree that the “trader tax” will accomplish this aim. To the contrary, I think allowing such a tax to take root here would accomplish just the opposite. In my view, such a tax would encourage large amounts of capital to relocate outside of America, jobs would be lost (not gained) and total government tax revenue would likely go down.

For a preview of what could happen in the U.S. if this trader tax was imposed, look at Britain. At the moment, the U.K. is in even worse fiscal shape than the United States. Because of that, its Labour government recently introduced additional taxes that specifically target hedge funds’ trading profits. Government bureaucrats assumed this was an easy way of generating tax revenue. What they failed to appreciate is that capital has never been more fungible than in today’s global market.

London-based hedge funds immediately announced they were relocating to Switzerland in droves, where they would face none of the new taxes levied in the U.K. With those funds go certain administrative and back-office jobs. But more important, ask London bankers how they feel about losing the many profitable revenue streams attributable to doing business with hedge funds that will now be sent to Swiss banks.

Read the rest:

Trading Tax Stiffs the Little Guy (BreakoutPerformance)

Read Also:

Cramer vs. Furor  (NYP)

Chuck Schumer Opposes the Trader  (TRB)

Tags: , , , ,

This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.

The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client.

References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.

Wealthcast Media, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers

Please see disclosures here.

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web
  1. thenaturalpenguin.com commented on Sep 22

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on to that Topic: thereformedbroker.com/2009/11/27/a-rational-objection-to-the-trader-tax-from-eric-jackson/ […]

  2. online dating commented on Oct 14

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info to that Topic: thereformedbroker.com/2009/11/27/a-rational-objection-to-the-trader-tax-from-eric-jackson/ […]

  3. DotNek E-Commerce commented on Oct 26

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here on that Topic: thereformedbroker.com/2009/11/27/a-rational-objection-to-the-trader-tax-from-eric-jackson/ […]

  4. ลิ้งดูบอลสด commented on Nov 19

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on to that Topic: thereformedbroker.com/2009/11/27/a-rational-objection-to-the-trader-tax-from-eric-jackson/ […]

  5. Research commented on Dec 31

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on to that Topic: thereformedbroker.com/2009/11/27/a-rational-objection-to-the-trader-tax-from-eric-jackson/ […]