You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.

What Stands In The Way Of Taxing Derivatives: 1,479+ Lobbyists

Tyler Durden's picture




There are about $1.4 quadrillion of them. So why not tax them? As Tim Geithner says "That's not something we are prepared to support." Some are curious, who is this editorial "we" in this case. According to a co-sponsor of an upcoming bill, he has been called three times by none other than Jamie Dimon to promote the party line...guess which side of the fence the JPM CEO is on.

An just in case there is still any confusion about the size of the Wall Street's lobby tsunami (and the implication of what happens to politicians' wallets without it), here is a comprehensive overview by Bloomberg. In brief, as Shopyield points out:

  • Citigroup - 46 lobbyists
  • Chamber of Commerce - 46 lobbyists
  • American Bankers Association - 44 lobbyists
  • Prudential - 41  lobbyists
  • SIFMA - 36 lobbyists
  • Managed Funds Association - 31 lobbyists
  • Goldman Sachs - 29 lobbyists
  • American Insurance Association - 29 lobbyists
  • Charles Schwab - 28 lobbyists
  • Investment Company Institute - 28 lobbyists
  • Industry total = 1479 lobbyists
  • Consumer total = 58 lobbyists
  • Ratio of 25 to 1

 




Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 18:58 | Link to Comment Quackking
Quackking's picture

The linked story (excerpt below) is less off-topic than it may appear.

The suspects allegedly would sever victims' heads, arms and legs, remove organs and suspend torsos from hooks above candles, which warmed the flesh as the fat dripped into tubs below. Members claimed other gangs were engaged in similar killings.

Bonus! The story refers to Fight Club liposuction scam...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/20/peru-gang-killing-human-fat

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:43 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:45 | Link to Comment spekulatn
spekulatn's picture

Selling your fat (dot) com >>>>> is all mine :)

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 21:23 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 18:59 | Link to Comment JohnKing
JohnKing's picture

in the future, in the future...yah timmay

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 18:59 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:00 | Link to Comment Racer
Racer's picture

I admit I don't know much about the US and the lobbying thing, but this sounds very much like legalised bribery to me from the sound of it!

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:03 | Link to Comment lizzy36
lizzy36's picture

When discussing the CEO of JPM it would be helpful to post a visual. 

I adore the irony of Timmy claiming to be working to limit the exposure of  "taxpayer's" to loss. 

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 20:14 | Link to Comment heatbarrier
heatbarrier's picture

Lizzy, you got me hooked on tags now.  

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 20:50 | Link to Comment Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

@lizzy   timmay is just a puppet. here's an idea - not mine - how about when a bank fails, it files for chapter 11 bankruptcy? no need to write new laws on how to save the taxpayers money.

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:43 | Link to Comment peterpeter
peterpeter's picture

> There are about $1.4 quadrillion of them. So why not tax them?

 

Ignoring the question of what should and should not be taxed (I think a Tobin tax is a horrible idea) - how on earth do you think those *could* be taxed.

Most of that notional amount of derivatives are CDSs that are just private contracts between 2 private companies (with some of the counter-parties being non US entities).... and while I think a Tobin tax on financial transactions of any sort is a terrible idea, credit swaps seems like they would be in the group of financial assets/instruments to tax, as the counter-parties could easily transact their private contracts in any country not dumb enough to impose said tax.

At least with equities and other publicly traded assets and contracts (including some derivatives but a small amount of the total notional value of all derivatives), there is a hurdle towards moving the trading to a tax-free haven, but with CDSs - no such hurdle exists.

 

 

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 19:45 | Link to Comment peterpeter
peterpeter's picture

"would be in the group of financial assets/instruments to tax"

Should read:

"would be in the group of financial assets/instruments hardest (nearly impossible) to tax"

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 20:27 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

Why not a transaction tax on securities to pay for all the welfare supplied to Wall Street by the tax payer?

You fucked it up, you pay for it Jamie and Lloyd Blank-dick...

Goldman reaps a HFT transaction tax on the market everyday. What is good for Goldman should be good for the tax payer.

Sun, 11/22/2009 - 00:39 | Link to Comment Bubby BankenStein
Bubby BankenStein's picture

Your back?

Sun, 11/22/2009 - 10:19 | Link to Comment Riley Wilde
Riley Wilde's picture

> private contracts between 2 private companies

In fact, there is a third party in any bilateral contract--the party that enforces the contract (i.e. the courts system). If you wanted to tax OTC derivatives the legal system could simply refuse to accept any derivative/contract on which the duty has not been paid.

Many jurisdictions tax insurance policies; why would a derivative be so different?

 

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 21:19 | Link to Comment Rollerball
Rollerball's picture

Cut to the chase. Eliminate the middle men/women/other (CONgress) and the political judiciaries, and let the CB's proxify the next assemantic prose-Czar. Make-believe hath become boorish.  BTW, I have a Kevorkian double-barrel shotgun.  One pull of the trigger, two rounds exit in opposite directions.  I call it my "Goderator". 

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 20:46 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

I do not willingly watch the maggot geithner ever.

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 21:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 21:37 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 11/22/2009 - 11:30 | Link to Comment Rainman
Rainman's picture

How did 138469 slip through the denial filter ??

Clean out your desk, Tyler.

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 22:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 22:28 | Link to Comment BT310
BT310's picture

Why not require a $30,000 annual lobbyist registration fee on people who are paid to make direct contact with members of congress and officials of the federal executive branch. 

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 23:04 | Link to Comment Zippyin Annapolis
Zippyin Annapolis's picture

Already required--except the check is made out to Congressional political action committees.

 

Also there might be a pesky Constitutional issue regarding the First amendment right to petition your government that would come into play with a "fee".

Sat, 11/21/2009 - 22:45 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sat, 11/21/2009 - 22:53 | Link to Comment AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

-

Sun, 11/22/2009 - 00:08 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 11/22/2009 - 20:31 | Link to Comment Zippyin Annapolis
Zippyin Annapolis's picture

100+

Sun, 11/22/2009 - 02:47 | Link to Comment delacroix
delacroix's picture

bush pulled the fbi off financial crime, and put them on the war on terror deal. we would be in better shape if we had only endured a terrorist attack.

Sun, 11/22/2009 - 02:49 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 11/22/2009 - 04:38 | Link to Comment Stevm30
Stevm30's picture

1.

My interests as a consumer are NOT represented by UNION lobbyists, so don't put us in the same basket. 

2.

Just because a lot of lobbyists are against it doesn't make legislation good.  We should be talking about where Congress f'd up in the first place, which was from all the bailouts.  Had they not done the bailouts, they wouldn't need a tax in the first place.  Go to the root of the problem.

Sun, 11/22/2009 - 10:16 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 11/22/2009 - 10:27 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 11/22/2009 - 22:01 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!