Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Advocates Tax On Financial Transactions
First time accepted submitter wanzeo writes "With the current G-20 summit dominated by global financial uncertainty, previously unsuccessful tax strategies are getting new attention. In a short interview with the BBC, Bill Gates explains his support for a potential tax on financial transactions. The concept is sometimes called the Tobin tax after its originator, Nobel Laureate economist James Tobin, who first put forth the idea in 1972. Gates points to the success of Britain's Security Settlement Tax, and suggests that large economies like Germany, France, and the U.S. have expressed interest in his plan."
This might be one of those rare times when I actually agree with Bill Gates. A tax on financial transactions should reduce or stop some of the most exploitive behavior in the financial world. "High frequency" trading would become much less profitable, as would the even less ethical exploit of attempting to generate out of date quotes by overloading a trading system system.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
... but the government needs to overhaul the system of taxation to a simple system without loopholes, and stop trying to figure out a way to tax everything we do. Once upon a time we didn't even need income taxes; times change, but having the government intrude on every aspect of our lives so that they can tax every little thing is not the way to go.
You have to ask what is the purpose of taxes to begin with; why do we need them and what's the most effective way to accomplish that, not keep coming up with new schemes that likely can have negative impacts on the economy. Every time the government creates a new tax, the cost of compliance adds to the amount that the government collects; more accountants need to be paid, more paperwork needs to be filled out.... the cost of compliance for the current system (not the taxes paid, but the resources spent figuring out what to pay). The tax foundation projects compliance costs to be in the hundreds of billions (Total Federal Income Tax Compliance Costs, 1990-2015).
There's got to be a better way - overhaul the tax system, don't keep adding to the mess it already is.
If we don't stop this nonsense, we're going to be taxed for every action we take and the fourth amendment will be a joke. You'll have a federal tax on food (eat beef? Well, beef causes global warming, so you'll have to pay), a commute to work tax; have coffee break tax; drive anywhere tax (this will be beyond what we already pay in gasoline taxes). Every time money changes hands? Is that what you really want? Lend me $20 and pay a tax? How about both of us? Lender tax and borrower tax, and then a pay-you-back (loan repayment) tax. How about a tax on getting money from your ATM? Or transferring money from one account to another? Or every time you pay a bill? It's simply ridiculous to continue along this path.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
There are no Nobel prizes for...economics.
While, strictly speaking, that's true, it's close enough to the truth as to make little or no difference. There is a periodic prize that's awarded at the same time the Nobel prizes are awarded. This particular prize is given for achievements in economics, and the decision as to whom to award the gift to is made by the same people who award the Nobel prizes. It's called The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Your statement is little more than an exercise in pedantics.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I don't know about Gates, but Buffet is well-known for bemoaning the fact that he pays less (as a percentage) in taxes than his secretary does. I have never heard of him advocating any changes that would increase the tax burden on the Middle-class relative to his own. Quite the opposite, actually.
Here's my economic theory of taxing the wealthy. You won't find it in any textbook. It may be right, or it may be crazy...
There are two types of wealthy people: the ones that actually create economic value (the Buffets, Jobs, and Gates of the world), and the ones who don't.
The latter became rich, not because of what they accomplished, but because they knew the right people. Went to the right schools. Had executive hair. Had charisma, but no actual ability hiding behind it.
If you're actually a source of economic value, taxes don't affect you as much as you'd think. Government takes, gives to the poor, makes them a bit richer, and they end up buying more of your product. There may not be a 1:1 correlation, but $1 in new taxes probably ends up being far less than $1 out of their pocket when all is said and done. It may even make you more money.
If, on the other hand, you're rich purely because of luck, then a higher tax rate affects you a lot more, because you can't count on the wealth you lose being recirculated to you. It will end up going to an actual value creator and not you.
That's why the Buffets and Gates of the world don't sweat higher taxes too much, and why you hear so much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Wall Street types over the very idea.
My 2 cents, anyway.
No, my problem is that all the government seems to want to do is find new ways to tax people..
"The" government? I pay taxes to more than one government. There's Federal tax, state tax, and local tax. As to the Feds, Federal taxes are lower than they've been in 60 years. TFA is a red herring; rather than taxing financial transactions, why not simply tax Capital Gains as income (as well as get rid of loopholes like the mortgage deduction and the charity deduction)? Why should someone who "earns" $75k gambling on the stock market pay half the tax of someone earning $75k working as a roofer? The stock answer to that is "the stock market investor has huge risks!" Really? He's only risking money, the roofer risks his very LIFE.
The stock market gambler should be paying twice the tax the roofer pays. The roofer is creating wealth, the gambler simply shuffles it around and leeches off of it. TAX WALL STREET.
Free Martian Whores!
It should not be limited to large trades.
Right now the high-frequency traders are basically stealing. They jump in front of other peoples' trades by milliseconds, holding no trade position at the end of the day. It has nothing to do with the purpose of a stock exchange. It does not create capital, value or liquidity. It's a hack, pure and simple, and it's costing the rest of us a ton of money by increasing volatility where there would otherwise not be volatility. They are the griefers of the financial sector.
All you'd have to do is make this a very small tax for it to have a very positive effect, both on the bottom line and on the health and stability of the marketplace.
Plus, since we're talking about a very small amount, it would not hurt all of the retirees who were suckered into 401ks and Roth IRAs instead of proper pensions.
You are welcome on my lawn.
We get so excited about the debate of "should we tax or shouldn't we" -- we forget the debate about; "Why do we have a 'Wall Street' to begin with?"
Turning over a stock in anything less than three years, and definitely less than 1 year is NOT an investment in a company -- it's an attempt to "play the market." One or two day traders might win at this -- but the professionals, who have machines that can trade in nanoseconds and shave time with the competition by using shorter network lengths to WS computers for trades are going to win. Market manipulation is also too lucrative to worry about the SEC and such -- much better to buy the regulators (as we've seen).
>> However, when we consider the Trillions more that our Government had to bail out Wall Street more than just the public "TARP funds" -- and that banks like Bank of America might be posting bigger losses in the range of $75 Trillion with the FDIC backing them. So a few pennies a trade will require a few hundred years just to PAY BACK expenses they've incurred -- much less "cover" future risks.
Another way to say this is; who is MORE crazy? The person who wants to tax the Mafia or the person who thinks you cannot trust the mafia in the first place? There is no way a group that can get the FDIC to cover $75 Trillion in "bad bets" after the fact, and AFTER a bail out for the same "mistake" (I call it fraud), is a group that CANNOT get around any tax. The Day Trader will see a tax, but if there is enough of a fee to stop the market manipulators -- be sure that they will get compensated where you are not looking.
Wall Street's EXCUSE to suck up 40% of all profits is that they help provide funds to let companies grow -- having seen the rampant leveraged buyouts, the VC funds used to sell away parts of companies, and the shuttering of tens of thousands of businesses to provide "fodder" for Hedge Funds -- it's a bit like allowing a Mercenary to continue to operate in a country after wiping out a town, because you've seen him walk a little old lady across the street once.
I once made my living with Financial Services companies -- but it felt a bit like carrying ammunition for a mercenary. Biting the hand that feeds you should be a mark of integrity, and I'd like to make a living building something or making the world a better place. ALL Financial services are a ruse, because they are predicated on "investing wisely" -- which is always a pitch of "getting back more than you put in." For every wise investment to do better than just the average of stocks, SOMEONE has to lose. By the time a company has stocks on Wall Street, it's either on someone's menu or it has all the money it needs -- and some VC firm reaped that benefit before you did.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
The original Tobin Tax was targeting currency trading, but other economists since have proposed it for securities trading as well.
It tends to hit mostly the high-frequency traders and the big hedge funds who are constantly shuffling huge sums of money around. It has very little effect on somebody who makes a few trades a year as part of a smaller individual investment portfolio.
I am officially gone from
While I'm on the fence about the tax, I am definitely with you on making high frequency trading as difficult and least profitable as possible.
Most people know this and the only people who like high-frequency trading are those who profit from it directly. The markets work for these traders and these traders work for the markets.
Normal people and the companies listed on the markets are hurt by this arrangement. They would gladly take their business to another market that had more sane trading rules.
Which gets to the actual problem - regulations on securities markets. We have a classic example of regulatory capture here, so starting a competing market is effectively impossible. NASDAQ couldn't happen today.
Like anything else there needs to be a market in markets (sup, dawg), and this has been prevented from happening, so we wind up in this surrealistic position with markets that hurt most of its participants to enrich the very few (a net transfer of wealth). The 1% isn't just on Wall Street - their accomplices in Washington are essential to the mechanism.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If that's the stock answer you get, then I suppose you are asking the wrong person. The right reason why capital gains are taxed lower is because they've already received an additional tax before being distributed. Capital gains, are subject to a corporate income tax before they are distributed, so they are taxed both before and after distribution. Salary, on the other hand, is NOT subject to corporate taxation (contrary to what Joe the Plumber would have you think), so the only taxation it receives is the income tax after it's paid out. The lower value of capital gains tax is supposed to even this out.
Now, capital gains can come in a few different forms. It can come in the form of a dividend, which clearly works as described above. On the other hand, it can also come in the form of an increase in the stock value, and that's not so clearly tied to the corporate assets. In theory it should be somewhat reflective of the corporate assets, and those assets have likewise been reduced by the amount of the corporate tax, so to that degree, the above holds true. However, stock value also has a large component that ISN'T tied directly to corporate assets, but rather just to the whims of the market, and I think it's fair to say that portion of it is only subject to the capital gains rate.
Note, I'm not saying I believe the capital gains rate is too high, too low, or just right. I'm merely explaining the logic behind it being lower.