Ok here's a suggestion you can add in your letters/emails to politicians and the media:
"In the United Kingdom in the 1990s, some of the privatised utilities found themselves making profits way above what was initially expected before the government privatised them. It was felt that there was an undeserved one-off "windfall" to the shareholders due to the government selling them too cheaply. As a result, the UK government passed a one-off windfall profits tax to claw back some of the excess.
Fast forward to 2009, and many feel that the Wall Street firms that got giant government bailouts, and are now making good profits, have benefited excessively from public largesse. This has inspired a move in some areas of society towards supporting a "transactions tax" on financial trades. Whilst this may at first seem appealing, allow me to raise some obvious negative and injust consequences it would have:
[add the normal anti-transactions tax points here e.g. putting small traders, brokers, commodity players out of business, who had nothing to do with the credit crunch]
Because of this, I and many others feel that a more targeted, equitable, and deserved tax would be a one-off "windfall profits tax" on Wall Street institutions that benefited from the public bailout (to which I as a tax-payer contributed). Instead of capriciously ending the careers of tens of thousands of small firms and independent traders overnight, for a credit crisis they had no involvement with or blame for (thus raising costs for farmers to reduce their crop price risks, mortgage borrowers to hedge their interest rate risk, and other legitimate economic activity), you would be targeting those most responsible for the crisis, those who benefited most from the public purse, and those who are now making billions a year. A transactions tax would punish small businesses as well as large, it would hit prudent operators just as harshly as reckless bank directors and CEOs, and would hurt those on moderate incomes as much as it would billionaires. Don't destroy an entire industry, and legitimate small entrepreneurs, to punish the reckless few. A windfall profits tax would accomplish all you and the public need, whilst letting the innocent and hard-working small businessman survive during these tough economic times, for the benefit not just of them and their families, but their employees, their clients, and the public at large. If we can continue making a living, we continue paying taxes and contributing to the public purse instead of becoming a drain on it. We can pay our mortgages instead of defaulting on them.
For these reasons I urge you to oppose a blanket transactions tax, and consider more just and sensible alternatives like a windfall profits tax instead."
"In the United Kingdom in the 1990s, some of the privatised utilities found themselves making profits way above what was initially expected before the government privatised them. It was felt that there was an undeserved one-off "windfall" to the shareholders due to the government selling them too cheaply. As a result, the UK government passed a one-off windfall profits tax to claw back some of the excess.
Fast forward to 2009, and many feel that the Wall Street firms that got giant government bailouts, and are now making good profits, have benefited excessively from public largesse. This has inspired a move in some areas of society towards supporting a "transactions tax" on financial trades. Whilst this may at first seem appealing, allow me to raise some obvious negative and injust consequences it would have:
[add the normal anti-transactions tax points here e.g. putting small traders, brokers, commodity players out of business, who had nothing to do with the credit crunch]
Because of this, I and many others feel that a more targeted, equitable, and deserved tax would be a one-off "windfall profits tax" on Wall Street institutions that benefited from the public bailout (to which I as a tax-payer contributed). Instead of capriciously ending the careers of tens of thousands of small firms and independent traders overnight, for a credit crisis they had no involvement with or blame for (thus raising costs for farmers to reduce their crop price risks, mortgage borrowers to hedge their interest rate risk, and other legitimate economic activity), you would be targeting those most responsible for the crisis, those who benefited most from the public purse, and those who are now making billions a year. A transactions tax would punish small businesses as well as large, it would hit prudent operators just as harshly as reckless bank directors and CEOs, and would hurt those on moderate incomes as much as it would billionaires. Don't destroy an entire industry, and legitimate small entrepreneurs, to punish the reckless few. A windfall profits tax would accomplish all you and the public need, whilst letting the innocent and hard-working small businessman survive during these tough economic times, for the benefit not just of them and their families, but their employees, their clients, and the public at large. If we can continue making a living, we continue paying taxes and contributing to the public purse instead of becoming a drain on it. We can pay our mortgages instead of defaulting on them.
For these reasons I urge you to oppose a blanket transactions tax, and consider more just and sensible alternatives like a windfall profits tax instead."
