The Tiny Tax that Terrifies Wall Street
Robin Hood would not be happy if he happened upon our incredibly top-heavy modern world. But the new campaign to levy a tax on speculative trading would most certainly have him smiling.
The most lavishly paid bank CEO in America, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, sashayed back to Capitol Hill last Tuesday for still another congressional hearing on JPMorgan’s billions in speculative trading losses this past spring.
Dimon didn’t have much trouble fending off the few tough questions that came his way from lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee. But Dimon and his fellow Wall Streeters may have much more trouble handling a new campaign — for taxing financial speculation — that launched the same day Dimon testified.
The goal of this new “Robin Hood” campaign: a tiny tax on the ever-churning financial transactions that have made the Jamie Dimons of our time fabulously wealthy.
This Robin Hood campaign for a financial transaction tax actually began two years ago in the UK and quickly spread to over a dozen other nations. The U.S. branch of the campaign launched last week comes with some high-profile champions.
Actor Mark Ruffalo — a star in the hit film The Avengers — introduced the campaign on Tuesday with a video now bouncing all around the online world.
A follow-up came Thursday, when over 50 top financial industry professionals from around the world endorsed the financial transaction tax notion in a letter to the leaders of the world’s 20 top nations economically.
The volume of global speculative trading, these financial industry experts pointed out, now exceeds — by 70 times — the size of the entire real global economy, the actual goods and services that people use everyday.
This massive speculation endangers the entire world. But a tiny tax on every trade, the financial professional letter notes, could moderate that speculation.
The Robin Hood campaign is calling for a 0.5 percent tax on stock trades — the equivalent of a 50 cent tax on every $100 of trading — and a smaller levy on Wall Street's heavier-volume, casino-style trading in derivatives, currency, and other speculative instruments.
All told, this level of financial transaction taxing would raise over $300 billion a year from Wall Street, money, notes the Robin Hood campaign, that could “stop foreclosures, fund new jobs, and help repair the social safety net.”
Those Wall Streeters who would bear the vast bulk of the Robin Hood tax burden, nurses union leader Rose Ann DeMoro pointed out last week, can certainly afford to pay a new tax. The pay pools at JPMorgan Chase and the nation’s six other largest banks totaled $156 billion in 2010.
JPMorgan CEO Dimon alone last year pulled in $23.1 million, a sum that Adriana Vasquez, a 37-year-old janitor at the JPMorgan Chase tower in Houston, would have to work over 2,400 years to match. Vasquez and her union confronted Dimon in Washington last week after his congressional testimony.
Vasquez took home $9,000 in 2011, and the contractor that manages JPMorgan janitorial work in Houston is currently offering only a 10 cent-an-hour raise over the next five years.
In Europe, the Robin Hood campaign has already gained serious political momentum, even support from Angela Merkel, the conservative German chancellor. In the United States, two lawmakers — Rep. Peter DeFazio from Oregon and Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa — have a transaction tax bill pending.
A tax on speculative trading, DeFazio said last week, would dampen Wall Street volatility and “drive some of these hedge fund speculators out of the market.”
“These people are getting filthy rich by driving up the price of commodities,” added DeFazio. “They don’t care how they affect the real economy. They don’t care if they drive up the price of oil. They’re just there to trade something 1,000 times a minute with super-computers.”
DeFazio’s financial transaction tax bill calls for just a 0.03 percent tax on speculative trades, a tax rate that runs 321 times smaller than the typical sales tax on a tube of toothpaste.
Most all movers and shakers on Wall Street, not surprisingly, oppose any tax whatsoever on financial transactions, no matter how tiny. They contend that any such tax would cripple investment.
But the United States has a long history of taxing financial transactions. The federal government started taxing stock trades and transfers in 1914 and had a financial transaction tax on the books until 1966.
Getting the tax back on the books will take real effort. GOP leaders in Congress remain dead set against the notion, and the White House is offering no support either. The push will have to come from the grassroots, and that pushing began last week with rallies at JPMorgan Chase offices all across the nation.
In San Francisco, pediatric nurse Martha Kuhl called on Wall Street's finest “to pay their share.” Added the activist: “If JPMorgan can squander billions in speculation, something is wrong.”
In Washington, D.C., activists protesting JPMorgan CEO Dimon’s Capitol Hill appearance last Tuesday put the matter a bit more rhythmically.
“Jamie Dimon, you’re no good,” the campaigners chanted. “The people need a Robin Hood.”
CONNECT














10 comments on "The Tiny Tax that Terrifies Wall Street"
June 26, 2012 12:37am
It'd be nice to carry this Robin Hood campaingn to other Corp Industry sectors to help curb and regulate them.
June 25, 2012 2:42pm
Interest happens before and in spite of real world economic activity. Investment dividends occur only after the real buying and selling has happened. So charging interest is NOT investment: interest IS inflation.
;-)
June 25, 2012 10:04am
The high volume trading is not real investment, but could fall under the concept of market making. The high volume of trading increases market liquidity and serves the purpose of reducing the difference between the bid and asked prices. This typically increases overall investment in the security.
Currently investment houses and derivatives in particular are popular whipping boys because they are so poorly understood. They did not cause the market crash as much as they provided liquidity to the economy so that it could continue to expand through two unfunded wars. Only to the extent it put off the day of reckoning, can it be blamed.
Speculators power to drive up prices is over rated. Only to the extent that they can corner the market can they temporarily move prices. These attempts typically fail, and when prices come back down, speculators on the long side take their losses, just like speculators on the short side lost on the way up.
A tax on trades is a good idea as long as it is not big enough to drive the trades offshore or diminish market making activities.
June 25, 2012 3:00am
. . . Dimon didn’t have much trouble fending off the few tough questions that came his way from lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee
Being supplied with the answers beforehand . . . the ceo's know which side of the bread is buttered on -.- and which palm to grease. . .
..you have to think of it along the lines of a "presidential debate -.- which both sides decide what to ask which answeres to give. . . all rehearsed for a great show...
smoke . . . . mirrors . . . lies . . . fraud . . .
June 24, 2012 10:39pm
This proposal has been nearly universally rejected because its implementation would not have the desired effect. How would restricting the amount of transactions (the effect of a per transaction tax) prevent speculative investing? Institutional investors would be at an advantage and it would be a further barrier to entry for smaller investors as we would invariably see the bundling of securities to reduce transaction costs by big banks. Also, all investments are speculative. We don't need Robin Hood. We need a tax system that makes sense. We don't need another flat tax.
June 24, 2012 2:01pm
who do not think this will not chase the market from wall street to singapore? all idiots raise your paw
June 24, 2012 12:32pm
When we all call Dimon and co. by the right name, thieves, we will begin to break their hold on us. There is no justification for what these people do and what they pocket. It is an outrage pure and simple. We have a system for dealing with thieves in this country yet we have put none of these people in jail but the hapless Madoff. The great show of respect shown to Dimon in congress made me wonder who the heck would offend the great keepers of the people's democracy. I call out any and all purveyors of slime that I see hawking their their snake oil on MSM who only kisses their behinds as well. Slime is slime no matter who is presenting it. The media doesn't respond any more than my elected officials when I say what the hell but my sanity depends on my doing it.
June 26, 2012 10:39am
CCrown, I'm with you. But realistically, if GW & parties could not be held accountable by their actions (and sent to jail by a World Court, if not our own) I doubt we'll see those on Wall Street or the Banks headed to the pen-they have bought too many of our legislators to be sent there.
Until the public really wakes up (and it might take the quake of financial collapse) to insist that the regulations passed after the Great Depression, repealed over the last 30 years, are re-instated we can only cross our fingers and hope that eyes begin to open. Those regulations kept corporations, banking and Wall Street from pulling off real disasters that 2009 brought us, and at the same time while taxes on the upper 1% were around 50%, this country had the greatest prosperity for all ever seen and a huge leap out of poverty into the middle class which grew enormously. Also, at the same time, the wealthy were still very wealthy and new people moved into that level as well. But after a real economic collapse, it may be too late. I have to recommend a book I just read, "Pity the Millionaires" by Thomas Frank who ably describes how the recent financial disaster has been distorted so easily by the Right, not into their failing, but as if they are now our saviors! If this were not so terrible, I would laugh instead of cry at the culpability of the American public! His book, "the Wrecking Crew" is also very good. His best seller, "What's the Matter with Kansas".
June 24, 2012 11:11am
The Wall St royalty say that this will stifle investment. Investment is where you buy a stock and hold it because you believe that a company will be successful in the future. Wall St is no longer investment, it a gambling casino where stocks are purchased and then sold seconds later, also known as high frequency trading. This is not investment.
To protect the small REAL INVESTORS, there could be an exemption for the first 100 trades in any given year. This would protect the real investors, but do nothing for the speculators and gamblers that have taken over. I guess that is why they are so afraid of this.
This is a great way to get our money back!
June 26, 2012 10:25am
Amen to you Endtheilllusion! Right now, hedge fund managers are betting so heavily on the loans Greece and Spain and others are involved in that it is raising those interest rates to levels that really affect how those countries will manage to pay them and get their countries stabilized. Every little glitch in that ability in the ability of those countries to do this, hits our own Wall Street and the investments millions of middle income retired people count on when the market plunges. If that tax (and it sounds like it should) inhibits the 'gambling' of those hedge fund managers it cannot but HELP not only those countries, but our own economy.