Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
DeFazio Calls for Tax on Wall Street Speculators
The proposal is nearly identical to one DeFazio introduced in the past only to see it founder. This time he believes prospects are better in the wake of government bailouts for big investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and amid rising public anger over the government's treatment of those firms.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, right, and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., left, take part in a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday to announce new legislation to assess a transaction tax on securities. (AP Photo) ''The American taxpayers bailed out Wall Street during a crisis brought on by reckless speculation in the financial markets,'' DeFazio said. "This legislation will force Wall Street to do their part and put people displaced by that crisis back to work.''
According to DeFazio, half of the money raised by the tax would go to reduce the deficit while the remainder would be used finance jobs. Most of those those jobs would be connected to building and repairing infrastructure across the nation.
And for the first time, DeFazio is getting some support in the Senate. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has agreed to offer an identical measure in that chamber next week.
''There is no question that Wall Street can easily bear this tax,'' said Harkin, who joined DeFazio at a news conference announcing the legislation.
"Last year, the U.S. taxpayer bailed out Goldman Sachs to the tune of $10 billion. This year, Goldman Sachs has set aside nearly $17 billion for bonuses. We need a shift in priorities in this country to ask not what America can do for Wall Street, but ask what Wall Street can do for America,'' he said.
"Main Street bailed out Wall Street so it's time for Wall Street to return the favor,'' DeFazio said at a news conference where he was joined by Harkin and seven House co-sponsors.
DeFazio and his allies said the tax would only to apply to high volume traders and not average
investors or people who have retirement accounts such as 401(k)s. Nor would it affect education or health savings accounts.
Under his proposal:
* Stock transactions would be assessed a tax of one-quarter-of-one percent (0.25 percent);
* The tax on futures contracts to buy or sell a specified commodity of standardized quality at a certain date in the future, at a market determined price would be 0.02 percent;
* Swaps between two firms on certain benefits of one party's financial instrument for those of the other party's financial instrument would pay a 0.02 percent tax;
* Credit default swaps where a contract is swapped through a series of payments in exchange for a payoff if a credit instrument (typically a bond or loan) goes into default would also pay a 0.02 percent levy.
* The tax would not directly strike the average or small investor, DeFazio said. Tax-preferred retirement accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s would be exempt as would the first $100,000 in trades.
Despite those safeguards, prospects for passage are not good. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the Obama administration is opposed to the idea as is Wall Street's influential banks and investment houses. Moreover, DeFazio has problems within his own party.
"The imposition of such a tax would place a huge new tax burden on our fragile economy and could drive up an already high 10.2 percent unemployment rate,'' the letter said. "It also may have serious unintended consequences on our financial markets by raising the cost of credit and private investment for businesses and governments alike."
It continued: "Proponents of a transaction tax argue that a small 0.25 percent tax on stocks would be paid for by the highly paid financial traders and would not affect most Americans. This is simply not true. A tax on stock transactions would affect every single person who owns and invests in stocks from small business owners to senior citizens," the letter said.
Channeling his best, sarcastic voice, DeFazio rejected those suggestions. He pointed out that the United States imposed a transaction tax between 1914 and 1966. Moreover, the tax was doubled during the Great Depression yet the Stock Market and the economy thrived.
Great Britain, he said, currently levies a transaction tax that his higher than the one he proposes. "No one has fled London (stock market) because they're paying twice what we're proposing.'' DeFazio also offered the support of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, recently called for a global transaction tax.
DeFazio and Harkin both pointed out that Goldman Sachs recently set aside $17 billion to pay bonuses to its employees. The average payout was $700,000 per worker.
DeFazio acknowledged the tax would drain some revenue from those firms. But he did not seem concerned. "Maybe the average bonus would drop to $400,000 or $500,000 per employee. Heaven forbid. It's time for them to live in the same world as Main Street.''
- Posted in



34 Comments so far
Show AllCAPITALIST DEMOCRACY
In our a democracy, do not the richest and most intelligent 55% have the right to enslave the slow thinking laboring class?
Democracy being the organized will of the majority, if the majority decide that wealth and access to power shall be in direct proportion to intelligence, is it not democratic for the lower 45% of society to be paid a starvation wage and have no ownership, absolutely none of the rights or powers that come with ownership?
And if the majority should decide that overpopulation shall be eliminated by starving the laboring class, is this not expectable behavior in a democracy ruled by the majority?
And so, as the three conditions exist in both Honduras and in Empire USA, as this is not democratic equality or social democracy, what is it?
Well its capitalist democracy, the most ungodly form of government ever created by the deceitful mind of man.
"Obama open to every good idea to stop job losses" (AP)
Unless Corporate 'Personhood' is terminated there isn't much point in working for this Fascist Wonderland.
hate to sound pessimistic on this one but if we held
our breath on this one we would be in a hole in the
ground before this ever happens. the guardians of
wall st in Congress will not let their masters get
hurt!
"The imposition of such a (0.25 percent) tax would place a huge new tax burden on our fragile economy..."
Holy crap! These creeps spill that much liquor on the floor during their lunches. How much money do these greedy bastards have to have before they have enough?
Choke ,cough ,gasp, wheeze!@#$%^&*()__funny ! thanx.ROFLMFAO peace
Cavedweller quotes:
"The imposition of such a (0.25 percent) tax would place a huge new tax burden on our fragile economy"
*****************
The beauty of this tax (like all taxes)is that it doesn't matter where it starts, it can always be amended upward as need dictates. After all, with unemployment through the roof, and business failuires at an all time high, what other revenue streams do we have other than the FIRE (stands for Finance Insurance, Real Estate--the parasites on true economic growth)
sector of the economy.
Cavedweller wonders:
How much money do these greedy bastards have to have before they have enough?
******************
All they want is all they have ever wanted--everything. They want it all and for you and I to be landless, illiterate, serfs utterly beholden to them for life itself. Their idea of "the good old days" is the Feudal Europe of the Dark Ages.
Poet
"How much money do these greedy bastards have to have before they have enough?" The answer is ALL OF IT!!! Every last damn dime!
IMHO the point of the laws in this country are to make sure the average person dies penniless. Think about it. You should take loans out to pay for your, education, car, and home. You take on more debt on credit cards with 29.99% interest. While doing that you should also pay for your own health care, and you should also pay for long-term health care insurance for when you get stuck in the nursing home at the end of your life.
Now they give you the reverse mortgage. This allows the system access the last of the equity in your home, so you can give it to to doctors, hospitals, or a nursing home before you take your last breath.
See the final greed of the sick financial system in this country. The rich SOBs should not have to pay a .25% tax, and they should not have to pay taxes on their elite estates when THEY die. No they should be able to pass their wealth on to their loathsome heirs, while the average person gets the "reverse mortgage so the system can squeeze the last pennies out them before the die. Average people being able to pass anything on to their heirs? No way, The banksters cant have that now can they?
"... ask not what America can do for Wall Street, but ask what Wall Street can do for America."
Now, there's a real gem!
From the IRS:
"Gambling winnings are fully taxable."
And 'speculation' differs from gambling how again?
I 'speculate' that the ball will land on 33 this spin and bet $100M from a TARP 'loan' on 33.
33 hits - I win $350M, (straight numbers pay 35-1) then 'return' the TARP loan and pocket $250M, which I call 'profit.'
Or... I 'speculate' X Stock will rise by $3 on Friday and invest $100M from a TARP 'loan.' X Stock rises $3 on Friday. I sell, 'earn' $300M, then return a 'portion' of the TARP loan, say $50M (got more bets to make over the weekend.)
Meanwhile, I take that 'earned' $250M and, thanks to fractional reserve banking, I loan out $2.5 BILLION at the highest interest possible. Suddenly, I've gone from broke and living on a TARP loan to a paper value of nearly $3 BILLION! And all I did was push a few buttons and make a lucky guess.
In one of those instances, the IRS claws back up to 50%. In the other, no taxes. Everyone this makes sense to, raise your hand...
This proposed tax is on transactions not capital gains. Gains from investments are taxed exactly like gambling winnings, albeit long term ones at the lower 15% rate.
And gambling losses, like investment losses, are deductions.
Not sure how one would pay 50% to the IRS on big gambling winnings. The top marginal tax rate is currently just 35%. It hasn't been 50% since when Reagan cut it from 70% to 50% in the early 80's.
The time is right for at least a slight chance of this good idea becoming law. The Wall Street lobby is mighty strong though.
Why not legalize marijuana?
Sell the weed for $110 per ounce
Pay producers $5 per ounce to grow and manuufacture high quality/standardized weed.
Pay retailers $5 per ounce to distribute weed.
Put a $100 per ounce tax on the weed.
If, on average, 100 million people buy two ounces per year (or 50 million buy four ounces)you have just raised twenty billion dollars.
To appreciate the absurdity of these numbers - this is also the amount required to keep twenty thousand troops in Afghanistan - 1 million per trooop per year.
Maybe we could skip the war and find a better use for the twenty billion dollars.
You must hear the other side from this strong democrat. Unbelievable bad mistake to even propose such a tax on simple stock trades… I voted all democratic, I love Barak Obama… I strongly support the democrats' health care reform proposals… now thinking it was a mistake to support the Democrats. If this passes I will change and become a Republican fast… Think: better to raise say capital gains tax, or tax derivatives or other strange rare transaction, but not every day stock sales. It will in fact badly affect every day americans who are just now trying to get back their capital losses suffered last year that are on their books. Or do the democrats want to do this before the public has the benefit of using what are essentially tax (loss) credits? Seems rudely unfair to their voting public, changing the tax game half way, to the advantage of the government against its citizens. Note also that there is already now a perhaps 40% to 50% tax on short term stock trade profit that now already exists in the IRS code and in most states: it is called income tax! Any trader takes the risk which he often in good faith fails on, but the government (states and US combined) already then receive 50 percent total if there is a successful gain. It is already a great win win for the govenment. The percent tax on trades proposed is about the amount that a trader expects to receive currently from most trades. So if the bill is passed, even before the president signs it, all stock traders will work toward stopping what they do. If the President signs the bill, most will then leave the stock market altogether. The US market will then drop immediately to Dow 6,000 it is estimated. Harmful to the markets to even propose this, deadly to pass it. Hence why the Democrats themselves eliminated it in 1966!
This is about accountability, not money, pal! We want FINGERPRINTS on every transaction. We want those fingerprints to stay there FOREVER so a forensic investigator can find out why the former trader or Goldman Sachs lawyer that now works for the SEC doesn't want to investigate certain trades that HE was involved with. You can all dance around this stuff now. You guys love risk as long as you risk nothing. If you don't like accountability, stop trading. You aren't doing anybody any good by speculating. Invest in your community. Stop being greedy. Join the human race.
You have no credibility. You boast of voting all democrat, use the word love towards Obama, but will switch if a tax is imposed on traders. No mention of wars, civil liberties slashed, treasury emptied as well the future, a melting planet, and an arbitrary legal system. You worship penury. Both of those rotten parties are filled with self centered misers like yourself.
Didn't the article say Defazio's proposal excluded common trades used for retirement investments?
I strongly recommend Thom Hartmann's explanation of this type of tax, if you can find it. It is so tiny that it will hardly be noticed by true investors, because they invest in things they expect to hold onto for a long time, but the high volume speculators will experience a slight decrease in the profitability of speculating, so it will have a dampening effect on speculating type trading, and an encouraging effect on true investment in things worthy of investing in. Thom Hartmann said that this type of tax could generate hundreds of billions of dollars per year, which could mean less pressure to increase other types of taxes, such as the tax on trade profit you mentioned, as well as income taxes.
I think it was a mistake to support Democrats too. They appear wholly owned by Wall Street interests. But why would you run to Republicans? Why not look for someone outside the dominant party power structure to support, like Ralph Nader?
Steve Gx gee ah a couple of things you missed in your argument.
The vast majority of American people do not own stocks, bonds or make these trades. Some Americans have 401k s but very few make trades themselves.
Brokers will see a tax as the cost of doing business. I doubt any will leave wall street over a tax. Where else in the world could they get anywhere near the returns on investment, salaries and bonuses.
Wall street created huge incomes and profits building a bubble that popped at the great expense of the American people. Their corporations would have vanished but Obuma bailed them out with working Americans money. Wall street carried on making huge salaries and bonuses. Why is it that they should not be taxed to help out those they left bankrupt, homeless and jobless?
I understand now why you voted for Obuma you have your hat on backwards.
To those who favor this tax I would say keep on dreaming if you ever thought anything good will come out of the congress and these practitioners of the second old profession in the world.
This law proposes 0.25% taxes on the amount of trade(not profit which is already at 35%)of stocks and 0.02% on options and future trades. Folks, the banks and brokerage houses are professionals and usually trade options and futures without risking the whole amouht of cash trades. Those who trade cash are ordinary people who trade for a living or supplimental income in stocks, bonds and mutual funds. They are not filthy rich people.
So suppose six-pack Joe put $10,000 of his/her cash money at risk for 1 or 2% gain to "speculate" on the market and gets in and out fast. Half of the time at least he/she is wrong on his/her "speculation" and loses money; but his round trip of $20,000 will be taxed at 0.25% nevertheless. So after a few tries and paying extra taxes he quits and leaves the field to professionals to speculate on options and futures with 0.02% tax which will be passed to the public anyhow to be added to $750 billion dollars that we alrady paid to these banks because they were too big to fail and now they are much bigger than before. And there are many many ordinary folks who play this game for a tiny profit while the big institutions are making huge profits on top of $750 billion and you thought that big brother is looking after you. Dream on.
How exactly does "six-pack Joe" have 10K "cash money" to "'speculate' on the market"?
"six-pack Joes" of the Trading Market are those who are not part of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and the likes. These are the ordinary people with some insignificant amount of money to invest and suppliment their income or the ones who struggle to make a living from trading stocks. You are confusing the Main Street's "six-pack Joes" with this hardworking investment "six-pack Joes" who have to pay 12.5 times more taxes than too big to fail banks. And there are many of them who will have to pay for the crimes they never committed with being put out of business. It is exactly like the healthcare bill. The "six-pack Joes" of the Main Steet will have to buy mandatory insurance from the insurance companies to be covered whether they can afford buying it or not. And you think the congress is not doing anything for us and is trying to punish The Wall Street.
To those who favor this tax I would say keep on dreaming if you ever thought anything good will come out of the congress and these practitioners of the second old profession in the world.
This law proposes 0.25% taxes on the amount of trade(not profit which is already at 35%)of stocks and 0.02% on options and future trades. Folks, the banks and brokerage houses are professionals and usually trade options and futures without risking the whole amouht of cash trades. Those who trade cash are ordinary people who trade for a living or supplimental income in stocks, bonds and mutual funds. They are not filthy rich people.
So suppose six-pack Joe put $10,000 of his/her cash money at risk for 1 or 2% gain to "speculate" on the market and gets in and out fast. Half of the time at least he/she is wrong on his/her "speculation" and loses money; but his round trip of $20,000 will be taxed at 0.25% nevertheless. So after a few tries and paying extra taxes he quits and leaves the field to professionals to speculate on options and futures with 0.02% tax which will be passed to the public anyhow to be added to $750 billion dollars that we alrady paid to these banks because they were too big to fail and now they are much bigger than before. And there are many many ordinary folks who play this game for a tiny profit while the big institutions are making huge profits on top of $750 billion and you thought that big brother is looking after you. Dream on.
"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the Obama administration is opposed to the idea as is Wall Street's influential banks and investment houses"
Well FUCK YOU Mr. Geithner and the horse you rode in on. Your pals are going to get this Tobin Tax in spite of all your thieving chicanery.
We are going to track all these nefarious activities so they can't be denied when the investigations come. The tax money will help, of course, but what you wall street assholes really fear is the accountability. Congressman Welch from Vermont is for this tax. The people want it.
I wouldn't mind the tax on this but not giving them the bailouts in the first place would prevent another can of worms from opening. The problem I see with this tax is it will be fudged to discriminate which transactions to actually tax vs which ones to not tax in a negative way. We already have enough of a complicated tax system as it stands. Add to it, like Big Oil, Wall $treet will be ready to use plenty of corporate trial lawyers at its disposal to exploit any legal loopholes so that they'll pay next to nothing in taxes and then use their "lawyer costs" excuse to further gouge Main Street. I hope I'm wrong though.
I hear you Jennifer but if Geithner is against it, it must be a good deal for common people.
If this guy can raise a tax on Wall $treet speculators and I don't mind, then a better idea would be to stop giving Wall $treet bailouts or at least tax them at 50% just like unemployment benefits have been taxed ever since Raygun with no one in Congress proposing to repeal that unfair tax against the unemployed.
They are lucky we don't arrest them and have them hanged.
The only jobs we will lose will be the greedhead face-sucking squiddy position known as brokerage monkey. Let them lose their jobs. Any loss of a brokerage monkey means twenty to one hundred real jobs for actual humans.
Unlimited growth is impossible.
Stock markets should not be allowed to operate more than one day per month.
Two tax policies have to be created to regulate anti-social investment schemes.
1. A tax on short term, speculative 'gaming' of the market by playing a 'fast money' time-frame scam --- as recommended by Tobin, Krugman, DeFasio, Harkin, et al --- because the time-frame of speculation can and has dropped down to the micro-second range. Nothing except tax policy regulation can stop this global octopus of anti-social speculation (which drives out real sustainable investment)
2. A tax on negative externality cost dumping 'gaming' of the market system playing a 'dirty money' scam --- as recommended by Greider, Korten, Daly, Monks, et al --- because the hiding-frame of externalized costs can and has (in this last crash) expanded from industrial and consumer physically 'dirty products' like asbestos, coal, cigarettes to the financial WMDs of more ethereal 'debt bombs' (which also drives out positive investment with scam investments/ Ponzi investments based only on making phony profits by externalizing/socializing costs).
Neither of these well known and well practiced perversions of the term 'investment' can be allowed to continue without placing massive counter-balancing tax liens on their social criminality.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
The exact same tax is part of HR676, the Medicare for All bill. It's a great idea. It taxes mainly speculators who usually have some extra money to throw around, and redistributes it to those who need a boost.
If i'm supposed to pay taxes on stuff I sell at yard sales (at 15+%!), then these fuckers can pay .02% on their multi-billion dollar speculation games. Enough is enough.
It is going to take a lot more than just a tax on speculation.
Would you care to speculate on what that might be?
Curtis, yes, it's going to take more, but a transaction tax on the 'fast money' scam is a good 1st step ---- here's the other shoe to make the dance really working, and put the heel to the criminal aspects of crony capitalism.
Two tax policies have to be created to regulate anti-social investment schemes.
1. A tax on short term, speculative 'gaming' of the market by playing a 'fast money' time-frame scam --- as recommended by Tobin, Krugman, DeFasio, Harkin, et al --- because the time-frame of speculation can and has dropped down to the micro-second range. Nothing except tax policy regulation can stop this global octopus of anti-social speculation (which drives out real sustainable investment)
2. A tax on negative externality cost dumping 'gaming' of the market system playing a 'dirty money' scam --- as recommended by Greider, Korten, Daly, Monks, et al --- because the hiding-frame of externalized costs can and has (in this last crash) expanded from industrial and consumer physically 'dirty products' like asbestos, coal, cigarettes to the financial WMDs of more ethereal 'debt bombs' (which also drives out positive investment with scam investments/ Ponzi investments based only on making phony profits by externalizing/socializing costs).
Neither of these well known and well practiced perversions of the term 'investment' can be allowed to continue without placing massive counter-balancing tax liens on their social criminality.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
.
I speculate we need to restore the Glass-Steagal Act. I further speculate we'll need to vote out a lot of incumbents first.
FOLKS -- take a read at this:
a story about a shop-owner - a muslim - showing mercy to a man that tried to rob his store to feed a family ...
--====================
Storeowner: A little compassion changed would-be robber's lifeBy Evan Buxbaum, CNNDecember 3, 2009 10:50 p.m. EST
Shopkeeper Mohammad Sohail says he recited an Islamic oath over the would-be robber after he broke into sobs.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Would-be robber sends letter of thanks, $50 to shopkeeper who gave him food, money, let him go
Man broke into sobs, said he was trying to feed family when Mohammed Sohail pulled out gun
Letter begins with, "You change my life," says Sohail inspired him to become a "true Muslim"
New York (CNN) -- Six months ago, a Long Island convenience store owner turned a would-be robbery into an act of compassion. On Wednesday, the shoplifter made amends with a $50 bill and a thank you letter for saving him from a life of crime.
The story began in May 2009, when Mohammad Sohail of Shirley, New York, was closing his Shirley Express convenience store one night. Security camera footage from that evening shows a man wielding a baseball bat barging into the store and demanding money.
Sohail had a rifle ready and quickly aimed it directly in the robber's face, forcing the man to drop the bat and lay on the ground. Unbeknownst to the man, Sohail never loads his gun.
According to Sohail, the man immediately started to plead with him, tearfully saying, "I'm sorry, I have no food. I have no money. My whole family is hungry. Don't call the police. Don't shoot me."
"When I see him starting crying [those] things, I really feel bad for him," said Sohail. "I say, oh man, this is something different."
Sohail made the man pledge never to rob anybody ever again, then gave the man $40 and a loaf bread. Sohail, who is from Pakistan, said the man then wanted to be a Muslim like him, so he recited an Islamic oath and gave the would-be robber the name Nawaz Sharif Zardari.
Sohail went to get some milk, but when he returned the man had fled with the money and food.
Video: Robber returns a favor RELATED TOPICS
Robbery
Suffolk County Police Department
Islam
Both Mohammad Sohail and Suffolk County Police have no idea who the man is. After the May incident, Sohail explained that he will "absolutely not" be pressing charges, though police are still investigating the case.
Over the past six months, Sohail's story of sympathy and kindness has inspired many across the country.
The Shirley Express store has received numerous letters of admiration.
"No person has ever moved my spirit the way you did. From your biggest admirer," one letter says. "Great men are capable of great acts. You are a great American," another reads.
He has also received several checks with such messages for "a couple hundred dollars" in total, says Sohail. He has made a point to give this money "to the people" by offering free bagels, rolls and coffee in his store every night after 9 o'clock.
But the envelope that arrived on Wednesday came as a surprise. Postmarked November 11 without a return address, it enclosed a $50 bill and a note apparently from the would-be robber.
The typed letter begins, "You change My Life (sic)," and goes on to say that the man is sorry for his actions six months ago.
"At the time I had No money No food on my table No Job, and nothing for my family. I know that it was wrong, but I had know (sic) choice. I needed to feed My family. When You had That gun to my head I was 100% that I was going to die," reads the letter.
The letter says Sohail's acts inspired him to become a "True Muslim" and that his life has changed dramatically.
"I'm very happy that somebody got to change his life," Sohail said. "If he is a maybe criminal, maybe is not anymore. So now he is a good person in this community and I'm very glad for that. He's staying out of trouble, he's not in a jail, he's taking care of his family."