Why a Tax on Wall Street Trades is an Even Better Idea Than You Know - By Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Reich's reasoning, and it comes from a faulty premise. The purpose of taxation is to fund the constitutional duties of government, not to engineer outcomes or punish/reward taxees.
-----------------

One of Bernie Sanders’s most important proposals didn’t receive enough attention and should become a law even without a president Sanders. Hillary Clinton should adopt it for her campaign.

It’s a tax on financial transactions.

Putting a small tax (It always starts small.)

on financial transactions would:

1. reduce incentives for high speed trading, insider deal making and short term financial betting. Buying and selling stocks and bonds in order to beat others who are buying stocks and bonds is a giant zero sum game. It wastes countless resources, uses up the talents of some of the nation’s best and brightest and subjects financial markets to unnecessary risk. (We labor to ascertain the legitimate government interest. "People are doing useless things" is not a reason for government intervention.)

2. generate lots of revenue. Even a one tenth of 1% transaction tax would raise $185 billion over 10 years according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. (I doubt it would raise anything. Tax increases never deliver as leftists promise, because taxees always shift their behaviors. And can we note that $185 billion over 10 years is chunk change, a mere .07% of the government's annual budget?) 

It could thereby finance public investments that enlarge the economic pie rather than merely rearranging its slices. Investments like better schools and access to college. (That is, expanding government is its own virtue.)

3. it’s fair. After all, Americans pay sales taxes on all sorts of goods and services, yet Wall Street traders pay no sales tax on the stocks and bonds they buy, which helps explain why the financial industry generates about 30% of America’s corporate profits, but pays only about 18% of corporate taxes. (Dr. Reich, why not decrease the tax burden on "all sorts of goods and services" to make it "fair," instead of increasing taxes on others?)

Wall Street’s objections are baloney.

Wall Street says even a small transaction tax on financial transactions would drive trading overseas since financial trades can easily be done elsewhere.

Baloney. The U.K. has had attacks (sic. Must be a Freudian slip.)

on stock trades for decades, yet remains one of the world’s financial powerhouses. (I thought Dr. Reich wanted to "reduce incentives for high speed trading, insider deal making and short term financial betting?" So either he wants less trading or he wants us to be a financial powerhouse. Which is it?)

Incidentally, that tax raises about 3 billion pounds yearly. (Since finance is not a zero sum gain, what would happen if Britain did not impose that tax? This is not a zero sum equation, economies are dynamic. Would it be more of a "financial powerhouse" as a result?

Information on the British tax system is complicated regarding stock trading. Dr. Reich doesn't identify what tax he is referring to. There's CGT [Capital Gains], SDRT [stamp tax], and income taxes. Perhaps others.)

That’s the equivalent of 30 billion in an economy the size of the United States, which is a big help for Britain’s budget. (We need to note the UK Stamp Tax is .5%, but Dr. Reich told us he wanted a "one tenth of 1% transaction tax" in the US. That's .1%. If this is the same as the UK Stamp Tax, then essentially he's telling us a lower tax rate will yield better results here than a higher one in the UK. Whaaa?)

At least 28 other countries also have such a tax and the European Union is well on the way to implementing one. (Economic powerhouses all, I'm sure.)

Wall Street also claims that the tax would burden small investors such as as retirees, business owners and average savers.

Wrong again. The tax wouldn’t be a burden if (Wait, "if?" Dr. Reich imperiously pronounces critics "wrong," then says "if?" In what universe do government initiatives actually do what they're promised to do?)

it reduces the volume and frequency of trading, which is the whole point. In fact, the tax is highly progressive. (Maybe the proposal is, but the implementation will not be, we can be assured.)

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 75% of it would be paid by the richest 5th of taxpayers and 40% by the top 1%. (More faulty projections. You can be sure that the average taxpayer will end up paying these taxes, either directly as the tax expands, or indirectly via cost-shifting.)

So, why aren’t politicians of all stripes supporting it? (Maybe because the government doesn't need to get more money to waste? Maybe because the government already exerts too much power over the private sector? Maybe because the tax will not deliver as promised? Maybe because government is providing a solution to a non-problem? Or maybe because punishing people via the tax code is antithetical to liberty? I could go on and on.)

Because the financial transactions tax directly threatens a major source of Wall Street’s revenue. And if you hadn’t noticed, the Street uses a portion of its vast revenues to gain political clout. Which may be one of the best reasons for enacting it.