"Financial Transactions Tax" Comes before "Value-Added Tax"
The deficit hawk crew, famous for missing the $8tn housing bubble that wrecked the economy, is now on the warpath, pressing the case for a big, new, national sales tax (a.k.a. "value-added tax"). They claim that the United States badly needs additional revenue to address projected budget shortfalls.
While we may need additional revenue at some point, it makes far more sense to impose a financial transactions tax, which would primarily hit the Wall Street banks that gave us this disaster, than to tax the consumption of ordinary working families. We can raise large amounts of money by taxing the speculation of the Wall Street high-flyers while barely affecting the sort of financial dealings that most of us do in our daily lives.
The logic of a financial transactions tax is simple. It would impose a modest fee on trades of stocks, futures, credit default swaps and other financial instruments. For example, the UK puts a 0.25% tax on the sale or purchase of shares of stock. This has very little impact on people who buy stock with the intent of holding it for a long period of time.
For example, if someone buys $10,000 of stock, they will pay $25 in tax at the time of purchase. If they sell the stock 10 years later for $20,000, they will have to pay $50 in tax. The total tax would be equivalent to an increase of 0.8 percentage points in the capital gains tax.
By contrast, if someone is interested in buying stock at 1.00pm to sell at 2.00pm, this tax is likely to take a bit hit out of their expected profits. The same applies people who are speculating in futures, credit default swaps and other financial instruments.
We can raise more than $140bn a year taxing financial transactions, an amount equal to 1% of GDP. Before we look to impose a national sales tax, or value-added tax, as the deficit hawk crew would like, we should insist that we first put in place a set of financial transactions taxes.
A national sales tax will primarily hit the consumption of ordinary workers. People will pay for it in all of their everyday purchases. Food, clothing, medicine - everything will cost a bit more as a result of a sales tax. Poor and middle-class people will end up paying a larger share of their income in this tax. This is both because they spend a larger share of their income than the wealthy and also because they spend a larger share in the United States. While the wealthy may have the opportunity to travel extensively in Europe or in countries not affected by the national sales tax, few low- or middle-income people will have this option.
Since the financial sector is the source of the country's current economic and budget problems it also makes sense to have this sector bear the brunt of any new taxes that may be needed. The economic collapse caused by Wall Street's irrational exuberance has led to a huge increase in the country debt burden. It seems only fair that Wall Street bear the brunt of the clean-up costs. A financial transactions tax is the way to make sure that this happens.
In short, we have to tell the deficit hawk crew, many of whom earned their fortune on Wall Street, to slow down. The country does face serious budget problems, even if they may not be as bad as this crew claims. However, if we need taxes to address a budget shortfall, then Wall Street is the place to start. After we have put in place a tax on Wall Street speculation, if we still need additional money, we can talk about a tax that will primarily affect the middle class.





















Typical republican and "Blue Dog" answer is to tax everyone except the rich and big business.
Yep...they hate taxes...for themselves and their rich friends bu very ok with them otherwise.
C
November 9, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad Tim Geithner has been opposed to this at the G-20 or else at this point it would have been adopted as part of the global financial framework.
It ain't for nothing that they coined the term "Washington Consensus."
November 9, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A VAT is one way to recover taxes on wealth that has already accumulated. A small financial transaction tax might well prevent in the future some of the excesses of Goldman Sax et al. We can get back to capitalism creating real wealth rather than just moving money around. A VAT with exemptions for things like food, housing, and such would be progressive and recapture some of the inequities already out there.
November 9, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds more like a luxury tax than a VAT ---
Nothing wrong with the former except that it wouldn't raise much revenue -- if raising revenue is the goal.
November 9, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We already pay city, county, state and federal taxes. Why pay an extra tax on consumption? Especially since the item bought has already been taxed by every greedy government entity in the country? Now if the proposal is to do away with all taxes in favor of a VAT, then it will boil down to how much and will it be universal thru out the entire country. Say tires bought in California are the same price as in Alabama. But then you run the problem where the cost of one item rises higher than is use to be for no other reason that a VAT stabilizing prices nationwide. Does the government really want to open that Pandora's box?
November 10, 2009 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Potential Problems:
1. Would a financial instruments transactions tax give rise to the establishment of "tax sheltered" exchanges in countries that don't adopt such a tax? Must the tax rate be uniform across all countries to prevent tax arbitrage?
If the tax gave rise to foreign based exchanges, would American jobs be lost?
2. In a bull market short-term income tax gains from financial trading generate significant tax revenue (see, the Clinton surplus).
To the extent that the tax reduced these transactions, how much would the increased revenue from the transactions tax be offset by the loss in income tax receipts.
November 9, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see another fly in the ointment. Wall Street itself, as we have seen, has a hard time keeping track of all transactions that take place. How in the world would you expect the government to be able to. Heck the IRS has a hard enough time just keeping track of those who are supposed to be paying the taxes they do (or don't as the case maybe).
C
November 9, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, 3 special investigations of Madoff by the SEC failed to even notice he never hadn't traded one damn share.
November 9, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It all depends on who is running the country at the time. In Madoff's case, his ponzi scheme ran its' course undetected starting with Reagan's Administration all the way thru the Bush I, Clinton and Bu$h Administrations. Obviously, for a government agency to be effective in today's political environment, they need complete autotomy from the Party in power and Congress.
November 10, 2009 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow brokers manage to keep track of their commissions in fast moving markets. I don't know how market makers get compensated but suspect it is transaction based. I find it hard to believe that there is no way to apply millage in favor of Uncle Sam.
November 10, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
One cd also incorporate more land value taxes, taxes on commercial advertisements, all forms of $peech and raise taxes on oil(while simultaneously providing compensating income transfers)....
the possibilities of fiscal reform are huge!!!
I'd like to see the total of US Gov'ts income tax scheme and welfare programs replaced with a simple revenue neutral flat tax and monthly fixed-income transfer to non-incarcerated adults (18+, with maybe 16-18 yr olds who focus on their education and do not seek employment also receiving the transfer).
dlw
November 9, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
A flat tax taxes lower incomes more than higher incomes. Been proven many times over. Not an effective tax scheme to promote equality. VAT is also income discriminating just like a flat tax on income.
November 10, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to believe that this suggestion is coming from someone with a PhD in economics. The financial industry, for whom this tax would most probably be a tap on the wrist, is eager for any opportunity (such as this) to concoct yet another off-shore, off-balance sheet financial engineering mechanism so that the big boys can circumvent the tax
The math here is screwed up as well. If this new proposed levy equals only about one percent of the capital gains tax but would raise revenues equal to 1% of GDP, that means GDP = Capital Gains Tax revenues (a ludicrous notion).
November 10, 2009 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes; someone's math is "screwed up," but I'm afraid it isn't Baker's.
November 10, 2009 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doubtful that Wall Street would pay much of anything with this kind of tax. To them, this tax is nothing but an increased cost of doing business, a cost that will be passed down to me through higher fees and reduced yield. Even the IMF and Russia do not support a financial transaction tax.
November 10, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Hands off my 401k!!
November 10, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever is left of my 401K (I've been afraid to look) doesn't need further pillaging, BUT consumption taxes are highly regressive, as others have pointed out. Until we have real reform and regulation of offshore tax shelters, something that remains irrationally but not surprisingly taboo, there will be no way to control the gamers no matter how cleverly we formulate new taxes.
November 10, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dean, what's your response to those bringing up the idea that a transactions tax would "force" trading to be done offshore? Is there a way to make sure that the tax raises as much revenue as it is supposed to?
(I think if you went to the people right now and said "Hey, Wall Street's making money, how about a tax on Wall Street?" you'd get more yeses than ever before, even from the anti-tax crowd who are slowly starting to see the light.)
November 10, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, how about we just spend a little less for a change? Instead of dreaming up new ways to gouge money out of people. No, that's crazy talk. Let's just tax ourselves to prosperity. I'm sure it will work.
November 10, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Erica,
obviously some trades will go offshore, but we can look at the example of the UK where the government still collects the equivalent of $30 billion a year (relative to the size of its economy), just by taxing stock trades. So, even if we lose some business to foreign markets, we should still be able to raise a ton of money through a comprehensive tax on trades of stock, futures, options, credit default swaps and the rest.
Also, last I looked, the U.S. is not entirely powerless in the world. Although the boys and girls running policy like to say that the u.S. is absolutely helpless in confronting bullies like the Cayman Islands and Lichtenstein, if we ever had an administration that cared more about enforcing the tax codes than serving Wall Street, these tax havens would be put out of business quickly.
November 11, 2009 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
So, some business would go offshore, but there would still be plenty of business in the US, and more stringent enforcement of existing tax laws would help as well?
I hope I have that right.
November 11, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine, a Democrat proposing a new tax, but not to worry, only 'the rich' will have to pay it! WOW! Never heard that before. That makes it A-OK!
So you tax my money when I earn it. Then you tax it when I invest it. Then you tax any dividends it pays (even though the company paid taxes on that profit once). Then you tax it when I sell. And you tax any profit I make on the deal. All so you have lots of money to give out to leeches to buy their vote. Great idea. But what happens when I get sick of this BS and move to the Bahamas? Then the system collapses. If you think this tax will not drive capital offshore you are an idiot. In addition, the revenues lost from all the cap gains taxes not being collected will have a major impact on the budget. Democrats always think they can just tax and tax and that there is no consequence to their actions.
November 10, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you move to the Bahamas, don't forget to pay your "Leaving Las Vegas" tax on your way out the door.
And budget plenty for razor wire and security to protect your tax-relieved kiester from the untaxed masses.
:^)
November 10, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 11, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anything other than an outright gift of a yacht to every investor will result in some capital being driven offshore. Always has , always will.
Did I tell you about my 20 year old PFIC?
We should do what makes sense for us and assume that what ever that is there'll be someone in the Grand Cayman, or Tortola or Lichtenstein who'll offer a better deal. At least a better appearing one.
November 10, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A stock transaction tax would hit every working family that has a 401(k) plan invested in mutual funds.
They may own the mutual funds for a long period of time. But the mutual fund managers are constantly buying and selling stocks from the fund's portfolio. And the transaction tax would be passed on to the shareholders of that mutual fund in the form of far higher expense ratios--enough to wipe out much of the capital gains from those funds.
November 11, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
A STET (Securities Transaction Exchange Tax) is a great idea, and could be broadened as an idea to be applied to other kinds of transactions, like a tiny tax on arbitrage in currencies.
Another type of tax that is progressive in its impact would be taxes on pollution, both within and beyond legal limits, providing further incentive for close government monitoring of pollution
It could be applied to stuff like mercury emissions
November 15, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink