Notice that in more precise sources "Tobin taxes" are used in plural (e.g. "Tobin tax ideas" here: http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/finance-economy.2u6 ), and some parties are again trying to exploit the confusion between a "bailout insurance premium" - a targeted levy on systemically important bank liabilities and a simplistic tax on financial transactions, including also those "disguised as trade" (Tobin 1978) and also normal transactions of funds where "regular investors like you and me" have to keep their pension money (recall the Malkiel and Sauter WSJ article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574579903734883292.html). It has been tried before (and as recently as in September last year) in the very same way. It is unlikely that any emotionally-motivated policy option is ever adopted, seeing that EU Parliamentary questions on this tax were previously answered by the Commission (in the negative) in an evidence-based manner (see the written answer from 3 September 2009 of Commissioner Kovacs /for Taxation/ to a Parliamentary Committee, cited earlier here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2726020&highlight=European#post2726020 ), with due reference to academic papers (and we have already assured ourselves that there is virtually no evidence supporting any volatility dampening or indeed revenue raising potential of FFT taxes). The FTT tax (as opposed to an Obama-Borg levy) is precisely one of those emotionally-motivated options of the "Tobinesque tax ideas", because out of the two motives cited by its proponents are 1) behavior modification (to "dampen speculation") and only secondarily to 2) pay for the crisis. (see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/...IPR69367-23-02-2010-2010-false/default_en.htm ). Little wonder, because the tax has not been designed by Tobin (1978) to raise revenue (it includes a negative feedback loop between the tax base and the tax rate), but in fact the opposite - to chase away any taxable volume from the currency markets and let central banks regain monopoly control over the newly introduced flexible exchange rates. So the impact assessment the Commission is once again asked to conduct will have the same aim as the job rejected by the IMF (by both Strauss-Kahn and Lipsky), i.e. to assess any volatility-dampening effects of financial transaction taxes ("to see how far it could contribute to stabilising financial markets and prevent a similar crisis by targeting "undesirable" transactions"), which we can probably aid with: - a link to the "Empirical evidence" section of the Tobin tax Wikipedia article (currently at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax#Research_evidence_on_transaction_taxes_-_effect_on_volatility , but subject to constant BR-induced volatility. - a few useful google search keywords: Tobin tax volatility result in site:edu , - and for a novelty seeker, that search phrase suggested by Guardian's Tim Worstall - "onion futures" - that's even purer experimental design than the Swedish experience with derivatives, and replicated by the U.S., of all places
One should probably avoid using that verb in the past tense, unless we want to be lumped together with 80% of ET posters or worse still, with Joseph "I predicted that crisis" Stiglitz BTW, the European Parliament's Economic Affairs Committee is hardly "the EU", not even equivalent to the House's Ways and Means Committee in "the US", because it is the European Commission which proposes EU legislation and checks it is properly applied across the EU. Yes, the Commission has to submit legislative proposals to the Parliament (and Council), and although the European Parliament has legislative power, it does not have legislative initiative, as most national parliaments do (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature_of_the_European_Union#Ordinary_legislative_procedure ). So if the Commission rejects the FTT tax once more after proper evaluation of evidence (as it did in September 2009), then it just can't be done in Europe, much to Robin' Hoodie's dismay (see also http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/index_en.htm ) But initially all Asian faces looked exactly the same - they truly have some of the most skilled spin doctors in town. But I think that their little red webfeet plying frantically underneath the surface can always be detected, just give the swan a decent nudge, never accepting at face value what they shout at you via the media tubes. So if I were a predicting man, I'd say we should expect a repeat of the same seasonal performance around... September? But I won't, simply because it is just too difficult to make any predictions, especially those about the future (see: http://www.larry.denenberg.com/predictions.html ) (I hope that answers -Guru's "Thoughts?" request
".Expect short sale limitations first" same is true for US. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191605&highlight=short
Notice they are again manipulating you into beleving that a change has already happened (like with that previous spin on the IMF staff report). How skillfully, with just a single phrase, they led us to believe that some lurch to the left has happened over the past 6 months in the Commission's stance on FTT: "Nevertheless, the new European Commissioner for financial services, Frenchman Michel Barnier, is a professed backer of so-called 'Tobin' tax ideas." And once you notice those two anchors, you immediately forget the relevant details: 1) that it is not the correct Commissioner (as any other tax, FTT comes within the purview of the Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, not for Financial Services, which could deal at best with the Obama-Borg bank levy), and 2) that personal opinions do not matter here (László Kovács - the man who already rejected EU-wide FTT at least once - in his national career in the 70's used to be a proper communist, Deputy Head of the Department for International Relations of the Hungarian Socialist Workersâ Party, later rising even to the rank of the Chairman of the Hungarian Socialist Party, which I reckon beats even being a Frenchman. And yet his (former) political beliefs did not allow him to cloud his professional judgement and submit anything other than an objective, evidence-based analysis (quoting Umlauf 1993, i.e. the "Swedish experience" among others), concluding that "a transaction tax appears to be an unsuitable instrument due to the potential risks, the low degree of verified knowledge about its effects as well as the legal imponderability.", see: http://www(dot)greens-efa.org/cms/t...troduction_of_an_euwide_financial_tran@de.pdf)
Bill Nighy and Richard Curtis take Robin Hood tax campaign to Parliament: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...take-robin-hood-tax-campaign-to-parliament.do Nighy told the Standard: âThe thing about the Robin Hood tax is we ourselves searched for the flaws and there aren't any. It's one of those simply brilliant ideas that works for everybody and it's slightly surprising that there should be any resistance from anyone.â --------------------------------------- Hilarious - what arrogance! Interesting too that an article on taxation is written by the Evening Standard's Chief Arts Correspondent!
Arrogance is also his cherry picking the group of organizations that'll receive the coerced donations via taxation.
so after 14 months of back and forth were to we stand on this tax? i know people are finding articles here and there but i see really very little in the mainstream us media.the key is will some type of bank tax pass? if it does then the tobin tax is dead
I think the Tobin tax is dead whether or not a banking tax passes but I would say it's probably a 50/50 shot a bank tax passes (not a Tobin Tax). Getting G20 global concensus on any sort of global banking tax will be difficult though... -Guru
Baker vomiting again. Too quiet lately for him. He also needs to take a few math lessons or just quit lying. forbes.com/forbes/2010/0315/opinions-trading-tax-financial-transactions-on-my-mind.html?boxes=businesschannelsections