Last week, some US democrat congressmen expressed themselves in favor of imposing a 0.25 percent tax on over-the-counter derivatives transactions. Friday 19th of November, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that this tax only could be imposed only if it is also levied internationally.
Several months ago, the idea of raising a tax on financial transactions was born. Since them, lobbyists from Wall Street attempt to put pressure on congressmen, particularly those from the state of New York, arguing that this will push Wall Street traders to take their business offshore. On the other hand, some “more democratic” congressmen are worried about employments. Some measure has to be taken to boost employment, and the time has come that Wall Street saves Main Street jobs: Let Wall Street pay for the restoration of Main Street. To avoid off shoring of the major banks and transactions, this tax must be international. The United Kingdom, France and Germany are studying the proposal.
First of all, in my opinion, this tax should be imposed only to bankers and financial institutions, and not the entire business sector. Congressman and lawmakers should be careful not to hit business that try to get out of the recession. They are not responsible for the financial crisis and therefore should not be imposed by this “recovery tax”. Moreover, they are not the ones that are making huge profits and paying scandalous bonuses while most of American families are still suffering. In addition, American taxpayers helped Banks and financial institutions when they were in trouble. It should be normal that the opposite works as well. Finally, from my point of view, the tax should be temporary. If the tax became permanent over the years, the raised money will be attributed to other purpose and will fill other budget gaps. Therefore, raising money to create stimulus employment plans is good idea under certain conditions. By contrast, what I do not understand is why Obama administration does not support this idea: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last week "not seen a version of that tax that I think would be appropriate for our country". For a democratic President, Obama seems to have conservative ideas concerning tax rising.
This news story concerns particularly the United States. Nevertheless, if such a tax is implemented in the US, it will affect the whole financial world. Therefore, international press organization such as Bloomberg and Reuters reported the news as well.
Let’s start with three American press organizations that reported the news. First of all, The New York Times reported the news with different headlines, but the content of those articles was similar. Here is one of them: “Wall Street Tax Must Be International, Pelosi Says” (Nov 20th). The entire article spoke about the democratic view of the case, avoiding to quote or to write about the republican point of view. They didn’t criticize the government for its immobility, neither the democratic over spending for stimulus. In my opinion, this article was relatively bias from a political point of view. Secondly, CBS News published on his website “Congressman: Tax Wall Street to Help Main Street” (B. Montopoli, Nov. 18th). Once again, this article focuses on one particular sub-topic. Most of the article spoke about M. DeFazio and his proposal, quote from the article:”The money raised "will be invested in the current needs of Main Street America," according to a message DeFazio sent….”We must make it clear to our constituents that we know Main Street is suffering and a restored Wall Street should now share in its recovery with everyone else..””. By contrast with the NY Times, CBS criticized more Wall Street and was in favor of M. DeFazio’s bill. Therefore, I will say that CBS was maybe more subjective than the NY Times but less bias. Finally, looking at the Washington Post website, I was really surprised that they didn’t have written any article about the topic. They copy the Reuters 'article and posted it on their website. This has a significant advantage: they will not suffer of any American bias or subjectivity.
Now, let’s have a look at the international press with Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters published “Wall Street tax must be international: Pelosi” (A. Sullivan, Nov. 19th) and Bloomberg published the same day “Stock Tax Must Be ‘International Rule,’ Pelosi Says” (J. Rowley, Nov. 19th ). The two headlines are really similar as well as the articles. They are quoting approximately the same persons from the Democratic Party. By contrast, Reuters did mention any opinion by quoting Republican representative while Bloomberg did it. The two articles are explaining the topic quite objectively, almost without any political bias.
To conclude, I will definitely recommend readers to look at the Bloomberg article for several reasons: First of all, it’s one of the shortest one, but it include all the information you need. Secondly, it’s quite objective, quoting member from the Democratic Party as well as from the Republican Party. Finally, the lay-out used for this article is very clear, making use of bold letters for the persons they quoted, which makes the articles clearer for the reader.
Q. Piloy
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111902175.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700582.shtml
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/wall-street-tax-must-be-international-pelosi-says/?scp=1&sq=Pelosi%20tax&st=cse
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AI3ZV20091119
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0THokhNGb5I
http://imarketnews.com/node/4963
First of all, in my opinion, this tax should be imposed only to bankers and financial institutions, and not the entire business sector. Congressman and lawmakers should be careful not to hit business that try to get out of the recession. They are not responsible for the financial crisis and therefore should not be imposed by this “recovery tax”. Moreover, they are not the ones that are making huge profits and paying scandalous bonuses while most of American families are still suffering. In addition, American taxpayers helped Banks and financial institutions when they were in trouble. It should be normal that the opposite works as well. Finally, from my point of view, the tax should be temporary. If the tax became permanent over the years, the raised money will be attributed to other purpose and will fill other budget gaps. Therefore, raising money to create stimulus employment plans is good idea under certain conditions. By contrast, what I do not understand is why Obama administration does not support this idea: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last week "not seen a version of that tax that I think would be appropriate for our country". For a democratic President, Obama seems to have conservative ideas concerning tax rising.
This news story concerns particularly the United States. Nevertheless, if such a tax is implemented in the US, it will affect the whole financial world. Therefore, international press organization such as Bloomberg and Reuters reported the news as well.
Let’s start with three American press organizations that reported the news. First of all, The New York Times reported the news with different headlines, but the content of those articles was similar. Here is one of them: “Wall Street Tax Must Be International, Pelosi Says” (Nov 20th). The entire article spoke about the democratic view of the case, avoiding to quote or to write about the republican point of view. They didn’t criticize the government for its immobility, neither the democratic over spending for stimulus. In my opinion, this article was relatively bias from a political point of view. Secondly, CBS News published on his website “Congressman: Tax Wall Street to Help Main Street” (B. Montopoli, Nov. 18th). Once again, this article focuses on one particular sub-topic. Most of the article spoke about M. DeFazio and his proposal, quote from the article:”The money raised "will be invested in the current needs of Main Street America," according to a message DeFazio sent….”We must make it clear to our constituents that we know Main Street is suffering and a restored Wall Street should now share in its recovery with everyone else..””. By contrast with the NY Times, CBS criticized more Wall Street and was in favor of M. DeFazio’s bill. Therefore, I will say that CBS was maybe more subjective than the NY Times but less bias. Finally, looking at the Washington Post website, I was really surprised that they didn’t have written any article about the topic. They copy the Reuters 'article and posted it on their website. This has a significant advantage: they will not suffer of any American bias or subjectivity.
Now, let’s have a look at the international press with Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters published “Wall Street tax must be international: Pelosi” (A. Sullivan, Nov. 19th) and Bloomberg published the same day “Stock Tax Must Be ‘International Rule,’ Pelosi Says” (J. Rowley, Nov. 19th ). The two headlines are really similar as well as the articles. They are quoting approximately the same persons from the Democratic Party. By contrast, Reuters did mention any opinion by quoting Republican representative while Bloomberg did it. The two articles are explaining the topic quite objectively, almost without any political bias.
To conclude, I will definitely recommend readers to look at the Bloomberg article for several reasons: First of all, it’s one of the shortest one, but it include all the information you need. Secondly, it’s quite objective, quoting member from the Democratic Party as well as from the Republican Party. Finally, the lay-out used for this article is very clear, making use of bold letters for the persons they quoted, which makes the articles clearer for the reader.
Q. Piloy
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111902175.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700582.shtml
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/wall-street-tax-must-be-international-pelosi-says/?scp=1&sq=Pelosi%20tax&st=cse
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AI3ZV20091119
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0THokhNGb5I
http://imarketnews.com/node/4963
No comments:
Post a Comment