Quote from listedguru:backed enthusiastically by the French and German governments.
Perhaps they should find some time to read the Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital.
"It provides for a
general prohibition on such taxes, notably capital duty, though certain countries may continue levying it for the time being" (see:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/taxation/l25098_en.htm ). Article 5 par. 2 clearly states that "2. Member States shall not subject the following to any form of indirect tax whatsoever:
(a) the creation, issue, admission to quotation on a stock exchange, making available on the market or dealing in stocks, shares or other securities of the same type, or of the certificates representing such securities, by whomsoever issued;
(b) loans, including government bonds, raised by the issue of debentures or other negotiable securities, by whomsoever issued, or any formalities relating thereto, or the creation, issue, admission to quotation on a stock exchange, making available on the market or dealing in such debentures or other negotiable securities." (see:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Directive&an_doc=2008&nu_doc=7 )
This Directive article was later cited as a legal
argument against the introduction of an EU-wide financial transaction tax in the written answer from 3 September 2009 of Commissioner Kovacs (for Taxation) to a Parliamentary Committee, where he stated that "Besides the economic arguments, the introduction of such a tax must be reviewed with regard to its compatibility with the 2008/7/EU7 guideline from February 12, 2008. In article 5 (2) of this guideline it says that "The member states will not levy an indirect tax of any kind on... the trading of stocks, shares, or other similar financial instruments as well as the certificates of such financial instruments ... on borrowings including pensions." " (apologies for nested quotations).
Kovacs concludes his answer: "The commission is therefore of the opinion that stabilisation and regulation of the financial markets should take place more effectively via an optimised international financial market oversight and has prepared corresponding suggestions in this regard. At the current time, 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: www(dot)greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/302/302464.introduction_of_an_euwide_financial_tran@de.pdf ).
"The European Commission, however, is not planning any measures at present and for the time being is
just following the international debate, as "we don't know to what extent it will affect speculation, stability", said Alexander Wiedow, the European Commission's director for taxation and customs union, during a public hearing held by the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee on 3 December 2009 (see press release:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/...IPR65915-03-12-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm)
Even such overtly anti-capitalist t(h)inkers as Stiglitz, while pronouncing the end of history (not again), still do not propose "Tobin-style" taxes, not even in his latest post-crisis crop called "Freefall", where he restricts himself to:
- not allowing banks to use incentive structures that encourage excessive risk-taking,
- forcing more transparency,
- requiring banks that engage in high-risk activities to put up much more capital and to pay high
deposit insurance fees,
- limiting leverage "much more",
- placing restrictions on particularly risky products,
and of course:
- the federal government should reinstitute some revised version of the Glass-Steagall Act (see: www(dot)impactlab.com/2010/01/25/joseph-stiglitz-explains-why-we-have-to-change-capitalism/ and apologies for the in-text ad for "Hybrid Mini
Crank Lantern 3Pk at $18.99"
(I still recommend you give the "Freefall" a thumb down and instead use your illicit speculative gains to lavish your Valentine with some of Evan Davis' quality publications, because the BBC has apparently managed to oppose both Brown's and Oxfam's spin-doctors. Yes, where's that 0.005% Madonna? Definitely not on Radio 4!
So guys, these sources are probably more indicative of future events, not those second-hand essays of organizations whose main stated objective is to put Tobin's reheated cabbage on the G7 agenda (these include Stamp Out Poverty, Halifax Initiative, and of course that Baker's firm whose name escapes me, as well as many, many others, even more "progressive").
You might have noticed I changed my mind about Mr. Baker - this is because I've just heard a nice chat by his favorite Nobel winner Prof. Stiglitz (see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qgvzt)
It was live, and without too many buzzer interjections, so Stiglitz is clearly innocent - not a single utterance of a 'tax' or even 'levy' for an entire 45 min. duration of the programme! And all that from a hardly pro-capitalist panel, where Enron's leveraged gamblers were the most benign depiction of what we did to society (I believe "Nero" and "666" were actually mentioned once
So it is again the followers/hijackers like Baker who are to be feared most - not the irresponsible thinkers like Nietsche or Marx or James "They hijacked my name" Tobin (or indeed Joseph "I predicted that crisis" Stiglitz).
Maybe once prof. Stiglitz is satisfied with the proceeds from his anti-capitalist book and is done with bankers bashing, he would use some of that Sveriges Riksbank Memorial Prize money to come over here to the truly Eastern Europe (not the New Jersey idealized version thereof) and visit SocLand- a little neo-commie equivalent of Auschwitz (see e.g. their movie archive at
http://www.socland.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=67 ).
