Wikipedia's article, "Financial Transaction Tax"
***
Alan: Immediately
prior to the last two economic catastrophes (1929 and 2007-2008) American high
finance became over-heated. We can dampen such "irrational exuberance" with financial transaction taxes. Although we can debate which
financial transactions would benefit most from taxation, I suggest the
highest taxes on those "investment instruments" which distill to
gambling rather than productive economic activity. Hedge funding and derivative
trades figure high on this list. It is also true that garden-variety stock
purchases cost one tenth to one twentieth what they did in the 1950s, when America reveled in her last generally agreed-upon "Golden Age." There is ample room
to impose transaction tax on share purchase without coming close to overall transaction costs prevalent in my youth. As a people, Americans have
become skittish -- even nauseous -- at mention of new taxes. Fact: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."
And notably American civilization is sorely frayed (existentially frayed?) by
the nation's refusal to swallow the bitter pill of good medicine.
"Conservatives" argue that any financial tax will cause
"financial centers" to shift from states that impose such a tax to
those that do not. Although there may be some such "shifting,"
contrarian arguments do
not acknowledge that interstate commerce can be regulated so that financial
transaction taxes are imposed nationwide. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/in-wall-street-tax-a-simple-idea-with-unintended-consequences/ In any event, no "system" is perfect,
and shunning any financial transaction tax because there is an associated downside is the kind of argument used by financial
"libertarians" who champion Impossibly Pure Principles like those of the intransigent Tea Party whose "success" threatens survival of The Republican Party and bodes ill for the tradition of compromise that lies at the heart of Democracy. It bears mention that if small-to-moderate economic disadvantage results in mass
migration from more costly financial centers to less costly ones, every American would have already migrated their bank accounts from commercial
banks to credit unions whose financial practices are much less costly to consumers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union)
***
From Daily Kos:
Sens.
Tom Harkin and Sheldon Whitehouse have proposed a Wall Street speculation tax.
The burden on traders would be minimal -- 3 cents on every $100.00 traded, or
0.03 percent. This
sliver thin tax would raise $352 billion over 10 years, or one-third of what
the sequester will cut, creating and saving jobs, and putting the burden where
it belongs -- on those who created our economic problems, profited most from
taxpayer bailouts, and continue to profit today. As is
usually the case in DC, the roadblock isn’t public opinion -- 81 percent of
Americans support a tax on trading.
***
- Katrina vanden Heuvel
- Opinion Writer
It’s time to tax financial transactions
On Friday at midnight, the sequester kicked in, triggering $85 billion in deep, dumb budget cuts that sent “nonessential personnel”— such as air traffic controllers — packing.
Not to worry, though: Wall Street’s day was pretty much like any other. Billions of dollars in profits were made off of trillions of dollars in financial transactions. And the vast majority of those transactions were conducted tax-free.
940
Comments
Moral of the story: What else is new?
Crash the economy? Free pass. Prevent planes from crashing? Pink slip.
We don’t need a team of policymakers to tell us this isn’t good policy, or that it needs changing. But on Thursday, we heard policymakers propose exactly that: a change.
Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), along with Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-Ore.), unveiled a bill that would place a light tax on all financial transactions — three pennies on every $100 traded.
The good news is that it’s a tax so small it could be mistaken for a rounding error. It’s so small, Wall Street could easily afford it and the average E-Trade investor would barely notice it. If this were a tax on coffee, it would cost you $1 for every 800 cups you bought at Starbucks.
But there’s even better news. This insignificant tax raises a significant amount of revenue — $352 billion over the next 10 years, or enough to refund about one-third of what the sequester will slash from the federal budget. It’s also enough to put many air traffic controllers back to work, Head Start teachers back in preschools, and crucial government programs back in business.
As the saying goes, “Nothing can resist an idea whose time has come.”
And after years of Wall Street excess, and at a moment when new revenues are badly needed, the time has surely come for a financial transaction tax .
Indeed, support for such a tax has never been stronger — or broader. Many on the progressive left have long favored it . Now, though, another group of bleeding-heart liberals, otherwise known as the American people, is on board. When it comes to cutting the deficit, 6 in 10 Americans prefer taxing the financial industry to cutting social spending.
But this idea doesn’t just have the masses on its side; it has the elites, and even some Republican elites. Once championed by the granddaddy of liberal economics, John Maynard Keynes, the banner of a financial transactions tax has been picked up by conservative economists including Sheila Bair, George W. Bush’s appointee to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
After all, the tax isn’t just a good revenue raiser. It’s smart regulatory reform.
The high-frequency traders that now dominate our markets would be hardest-hit by the tax. A top economist recently concluded that their lightning speed, algorithm-driven trading drains profits from traditional investors. And analysts fear that such mass trading strategies could lead to disaster if markets behave unexpectedly.
The new tax would discourage these kinds of trades, which would be a good thing.
Europe, at least, seems to agree. Eleven nations, led by the conservative German government, are on track to start collecting the tax by January 2014. Expected revenues: $50 billion per year.
Of course, we’re talking about a tax on Wall Street.
It’s no wonder that, over the past few weeks, K Street appears to have upped the financial sector’s retainer. Their lobbying effort against the tax — here and in Europe — is in full swing.
Even the Obama administration has been convinced to come out against the tax in the United States. And they’re pressuring Europeans to water down their version byinsulating American banks. What’s the logic driving this opposition?
Some have argued that, historically, these taxes have been ineffective because of widespread evasion. But they’re cherry-picking a few badly designed examples, such as Sweden’s lemon of a tax from nearly 30 years ago. This is like saying cars don’t work because you bought a Datsun in the ’70s.
Many countries have implemented such taxes effectively. The United Kingdom, for example, manages to raise more than $5 billion per year on a 0.5 percent tax on stock trades alone.
Another common argument is that the tax will be passed on to mom-and-pop investors. The just-introduced U.S. legislation addresses these concerns by providing tax credits for contributions to typical middle-class investment accounts, including 401(k)s. Investment funds would still be taxed on their trades, but this could encourage longer-term productive investment instead of the short-term speculation that adds little to no value to the real economy.
If the Obama administration is serious about fair taxation and a smart approach to the deficit, it should change its position. Rather than trying to derail Europe’s efforts, it should cooperate with Europe to ensure that the tax there is effectively enforced. And the administration should build support in Congress, including among Republicans.
Yes, we’ve all heard House Speaker John Boehner’s line that the debate over revenue raising is over. We also remember former President George H.W. Bush’s line, “Read my lips, no new taxes,” and how quickly his lips starting saying something else.
For tea partyers, wouldn’t a tax on Wall Street, the beneficiaries of the bailout they so reviled, be less objectionable than most other revenue options?
Sequestration is a septic wound, self-inflicted by lawmakers who can’t agree on anything. Here, at last, we have a smart idea with widespread support — Americans and Europeans, populists and economists, progressives and conservatives.
After Friday’s dumb budget cuts, a little smart policymaking would be nice for a change.
Read more from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s archive or follow her on Twitter.
