EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Virtuous Tax
One prime cause of the financial collapse is that financial trading markets have become speculative worlds unto themselves. Instead of adding efficiency to the real economy, they mainly add risk that the rest of us now have to pay for.
There are many ways to damp down financial speculation, but a very effective strategy is to tax it. Given the huge costs of the clean-up (now being borne mainly by taxpayers) it would make a lot more sense to require financial markets to pay for their own bailout.
One very neat way of doing this is through a very small tax on all financial transactions. Ordinary retail sales are taxed, as are wages. But oddly enough, financial transactions are exempt from tax.
This idea was first proposed in modern form by the Nobel Laureate James Tobin in 1972, after the collapse of fixed exchange rates led to massive increase in currency speculation. Tobin proposed a small tax on short term currency trades to make extreme speculation less profitable.
Since them, short term speculation and the invention of exotic securities that lend themselves to speculation has become the dominant activity of Wall Street. So a Tobin-style tax on all financial transactions has three big things going for it.
First, a very small tax in all kinds of financial transactions, say one tenth of one percent, would not be felt by legitimate long-term investors. But in the case of traders who get in and out of exotic derivatives minute by minute, making huge numbers of quickie trades, it would add up to a lot of money and would cut into both their profits and their entire socially destructive business strategy. So a universal financial transaction tax would discourage purely speculative activities and encourage investing for the long term.
Second, such a tax could pull in hundreds of billions of dollars a year, at a time when large deficits are giving the political right (and center) an excuse to cut social spending, and no form of taxation is popular. But this tax would be the least unpopular. It would not just fall primarily on the very, very wealthy. It would fall on the least socially defensible part of Wall Street, the people who make their billions from speculative short term trades. And that raises the third benefit.
What's missing from the entire debate about financial reform is a progressive brand of populism. Regular people know that they got done in by excesses on Wall Street, and they see a Democratic administration shoveling trillions of dollars to the same Wall Street banks that caused the mess. No wonder people are confused about whether government is on their side. What is overdue is a little bit of populist retribution against the people who brought down the system -- and will bring it down again if the hegemony of the traders is not constrained.
Do we have a shot of injecting the case for a Tobin Tax into the debate? In the past few weeks, Adair Turner, the head of Britain's Financial Service Authority, cautiously expressed support for the general idea.
Peer Steinbrueck, Germany's finance minister, explicitly called for such a tax last week, as did the AFL-CIO. In an unguarded moment early in his career, even Larry Summers, President Obama's market-friendly chief economic adviser, embraced the idea, as throwing some salutary sand in the gears when financial markets "worked too well."
The Group of 20 meetings next week in Pittsburgh are not likely to produce very much in the way of real reform, because even after the disgrace of Wall Street, the usual suspects are still making policy in most nations. But a global campaign for a Tobin Tax should begin in earnest now. It could bear early fruit, as speculative excess continues and as government finds itself searching for defensible taxes.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


10 Comments so far
Show AllThis tax is so overdue it's not funny.
A couple pennies per trade on all speculative markets could pay for health care for all each and every year.
The tax will work only if it is not considered a substitute for meaningful regulation of the financial industry.
Governments have a history of encouraging bad behavior when that bad behavior results in additional tax revenue.
This idea came to my mind a while back when I learned about the extent of the Wall Street gambling mentality that has been terribly disrupting the economy lately.
Unlike income taxes and sales taxes (you gotta have an income and buy stuff), such a transaction tax would only affect those who CHOOSE to play the commodities markets.
i always wondered when i would read an article calling for a tobin tax, well done. webster tarpley has been advocating this for years. the only tax that really makes absolute sense in my book, overdue is an understatement.
It probably can't even be considered. Speculation fueled all the easy money used to give the CEO's of the banks their take home bonuses. If the subject of speculation is broached, they will be recognizing that our financial system has no clothes. They might as well be playing Monopoly, based on the value of the money that is being tossed around.
the populist rebellion bit is the important issue in this. people around my town are talking about sending 'packages' to certain corporate players. this is extreme, of course, but maybe it harbinges the needed awakening.
OK but this has been proposed repeatedly. Here's something more bold, a repeal of the JFK tax cuts. That's right a return of 92% tax on incomes in excess of $2million/yr. Will you get behind this Dr Kuttner?
This would, in action be less of a tax as a ceiling on incomes. These excessive incomes drain money out of corporations into the hands of a few rather than paying those funds to stockholders, or better yet, would spur hiring, research and development and capital investment. Since the money couldn't be taken out, it would be put to work.
Tax rates on exceedingly high incomes ranged from 70-92% on income over $200K/yr from WW2 through the Carter years. Reagan lowered this top rate to 28% on $28K/yr. This said that middle income earners are fat cats are in the same boat. That has resulted in a gutting of our industry, and our country. Where are the economists here? Am I crazy or are they cowards? Give us some ammunition to push this debate.
No, you are not crazy and yes the economists are cowards. They are also paid for that. Check the Article: "How The Federal Reserve Bought The Economics Profession"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html
You made good points. The money pouring into private individuals instead of their enterprises drain the economy from investment. This situation provides every incentive to suck the enterprise dry or even destroy it for the chance to get rich quick - in the manner of "After me, the deluge".
Another very important problem is that such funds quickly end up in the pockets of the politicians as "campaign contributions", aka bribes. The current case before the supreme court is designed to allow corporate contributions and hide the individuals behind the funds. So the politician gives bailouts and stimuluses, the corporation returns kickbacks in the form of "donations". The circle is closed, everyone got his, the taxpayers got robbed, it's dream-system.
scottindallas September 14th, 2009 7:39 pm
You want some ammuntion? Here it is!
How the Federal Reserve Bought the Economics Profession: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html
the gummint may be powerless to cap billion dollar salaries and bonuses but they could tax the hell out of them if they did what scottindallas said as well as the transaction tax.