Any time an article mentions 'Robin Hood Tax' we bombard them with details of the 'Robin Hood Foundation', mentioning that it was founded by Paul Tudor Jones, legendary speculator.
An interesting tidbit in that article is 36 members of congress signed the "Dear Colleague" letter blasting the tax. There was much less than that the last time it was mentioned in the press.
What's missing from this rock star rant is top-level scientific modelling that shows both up and down sides of the ledger, at 0.05% (job losses, business closures, reduced personal tax revenue etc). The all-defining viability of this rests on scientific modeling on how 0.05% (or less for starters) would impact total global projected returns despite what proponents suggest. Its about the bottom line. "The Time is Now" timeline document omits circuitious downside detail. That document assumes trading would continue at present volumes. Scientifically researched projections will be revealed in April so it's a painful wait and see. (I had pondered G-20 internal bargaining: eg. a juicy profit cut in return for compliance.) Don't these entertainment people know they are "fat cats"? Most of this is hate-driven, it has nothing to do with noble social goodness, its self-congratulatory narcissism. If they felt any personal responsibility, they would sell and distribute the bulk of their own (considerable) assets to the causes of choice.
It doesn't matter if they propose a tax at (0.00000000001%) It's not happening. This is just another leftist plot using their new angle of the week (celebrities) to try an influence the IMF for their report that is expected out in April. I'll admit the timing of that Haiti thing gave these idiots another cause to rally around for a global transaction tax, but it will slowly pass without a problem, just like the demands for the tax to deal with climate control at the Copenhagen conference . Next week, it will be some other reason. Why does the left keep coming up with new causes for the FTT, and new rates to tax it (0.25%, then 0.02%, then 0.005), etc........? Because there in desperation mode, and know they aren't going to succeed.
We should use that marketing tactic on our side. Over the weekend, let's all come up with some nice catchy names for the transaction tax. Not just for their proposal, but all of them, including Defazio & Harkin's variants. "Main Street Transaction Tax". "Retirement Robbing Transaction Tax". Monicker's like that. But catchy. A few words that frame the tax as instantly appalling to the casual non-financial minded reader.
some ideas (maybe someone can build on these) "Granny Tax"...rhymes with Tranny! Granny is short for grandmother in UK - is this understood in US? SIMS (Small Investor on Main Street) Tax? STIMS (Small Trader & Investor on Main Street) Tax? yes they're shit I know, just trying to get the ball rolling... Of course any "Tax" = "Legalized Theft"!
Funny that Paltrow and Madonna are both mentioned here: http://trueslant.com/marinfeldman/2009/07/02/gwyneth-paltrow-you-ignorant-slut/
Harkin is going to bring a bill to the floor to end filibusters (so a simple majority would pass legislation in the Senate). The good news is that it takes 67 yes votes in the Senate to change Senate rules so we know that ain't happening. Still scary nontheless: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...m-headed-for-senate-floor-faces-uphill-battle "Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) intends to introduce legislation that would take away the minorityâs power to filibuster legislation." "Democratic leadership aides say Harkinâs bill is unlikely to succeed and that the idea hasnât been seriously considered in light of Brownâs victory." âIn light of the fact that it takes 67 votes to change the Senate rules, it does not look likely that a rule change would happen anytime soon,â said a senior aide. -Guru