Home | About | Donate

Progressive Tax Takes Aim at Wall Street Transactions, Financial Crashes


Progressive Tax Takes Aim at Wall Street Transactions, Financial Crashes

Eoin Higgins, staff writer

Democrats on Tuesday proposed a tax on Wall Street transactions which could stop another financial crash and bring in $777 billion over the next decade.



Another cave before even starting. Nothing like the $300B per year originally proposed by Tobin.



How can this resolve our problems when the money collected is given to Wall Street owned politicians to spend on war and corporate welfare?

Cap wealth and distribute the cap excesses equally among all citizens.


Direct Democracy:



I don’t understand Wall Street transactional systems. However I do get that taxes, especially now with the new tax scam, are still wildly skewed toward the wealthy and need to be drastically restructured. AOC’s 70% is too low. Corporate tax is now a joke. In the 1950’s corporations paid more tax than citizens. Time for them to pay up, so to speak. Stopping insane military spending should also be a high priority.



This would be a ‘common sense’ tax, far from progressive. Even a full % is hardly unreasonable. I pay 6% for groceries, these heavy frequency traders (via computer) pay nothing. If that would help stabilize the market, it’s a good thing.



It is called consolidation: strengthen corporations and governments while weakening individuals.
With taxes this has been done imperceptibly over time.



As Wall Street plays a big part in the information in the following video, please take the time to watch.

Greg Palast on the Jimmy Dore Show, March 5, 2019.



Try this for another progressive Wall Street tax idea. The Trump tax cut that mostly went to corporations, was sold on the idea that corporations would put that windfall back into the economy in the form of investment, hiring and improved employee compensation. What really happened, however, was that those corporations put about 80% of the tax saving windfall into stock buybacks, thereby concentrating wealth in the investors, with virtually nothing going to new investment and employees. It would seem that a substantial tax, maybe 50%, on stock buybacks might incentivize corporations to use earnings and tax windfalls for investment and employee benefits, thereby enhancing long-term, rather than short-term, returns for corporations, and improving the situation of employees and those in which the corporations invest. If I am not seeing things correctly, please let my know by way of comment.



Wall Street has been nickle and diming the way a magnet aggregates iron filings. These are then forged (gotta love the double entendre there) into instruments along with the decades of failed mortgage re-re-re-whatever-it-is with needle against the bubble as 21st century nuclear threat. That of course is only part of the auto-erotic champagne bath shrinking real economy till its so small it can be sent down the drain to rehypothecate a renewed slavery, same components different labels.

Note how important centralized, monopolized, sliced, diced, divided, poisoned, impoverished mendacious, malign conditioning is for this “model” of [life?].

Tax Wall Street? you betcha. there might be one itty bitty complication: things might actually rebalance. Be ready to reorganize at the local level.



Great ideas, but do you have sufficient funding to purchase, as chattel just like the big money corporations and individuals do, a sufficient number of senators and representatives, aka whores, to get your ideas out there?



A simple flat one dollar tax on all stock purchases and sales (seller pays $1, purchaser pays $1, would bring in well over a billion dollars a day.



Sarah Anderson sez:
“In a rational political world, Congress would’ve adopted this type of tax immediately after the 2008 crash …”

In a rational political world, Congress would not have abolished in 1966 an already existing financial transaction tax that had been in place in the U.S. since 1914.

These “progressive pie-in-the-sky wish list” stories would be better served by pointing out how many of the proposed policies have historical precedent (and/or current functioning examples abroad).



Support and encourage your Congress person to support HR1 - that “socialist” bill that McTurtle was whining about. It’s a small step in the right direction - truth is WE need public funding of elections with NO PAC money period! It would keep them more honest to US.



The .1% is way too small.A tax intending to slow market volatility should be something that can be felt!

1 Like


$77 billion a year is too small. The Chicago Political Economic Group, CPEGonline.org proposed a $900 billion per year tax (but due to problems of sabotage to their web page the report and others have been removed). That was in 2010, I believe. They have an article on the LST tax, La Salle Street Tax,
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/30e282_df49bf89cfff488eae9122116314c20f.pdf – for what it’s worth, an $11 billion per year tax on $900 trillion in annual trades in derivatives. The financial system needs downsizing, and this would help. The household net worth in U.S. grew from $48 trillion in Jan. 2009 to $104 trillion today, up $56 trillion in ten years (see Fed’s Flow of Funds, page 2). The U.S. government’s expenditures 2018 were $4.1 trillion. So wealth has grown by about $5.6 trillion a year, the fed. government spent about $3.5 trillion each of the last ten years. A wealth tax could have paid for all federal expenses including Social Security, and still the wealthy would have gained $2.1 trillion more wealth each year. Let’s just tax wealth outright, along with a transaction tax. My blog: http://benL88.blogspot.com Note the article by Nick Hanauer at the top of this blog, his article “Tax the Rich”.



A worthwhile start. But the bigger question is what will the revenue be spent on?