Your source says $360 billion,
I stand corrected, that is their reported figure:
which is a reasonable number.
In regard to a differential burden placed on a small sector of the people. I would beg to differ that that is a reasonable burden on the folks who have to pay it and the planning, accounting, litigation overhead that goes along with it.
I hope you have seen this problem
As well as they do. Not even counting the overhead burden imposed on the individual, the administrative costs in collect the tax imposed a larger tax burden on everyone, if their figure of $360billion worldwide is not a net figure after administrative costs to government taken out of gross Tobin revenues received.
Our current economy stands at 8 Trillion per year, that provides at least 12 Times that figure, $96Trillion as a US Tobin tax base, (The US has cash transaction flow much larger than any other economy in the world thust the factor of 12 is quite conservative)
Appling a Tobin tax of 0.5% to the more than $96 Trillion transaction flow, yields $480 billion burden on the US alone, the arithmetic of the source leaves a little to be desired. They appear to be prone to understatement of the negatives to their proposals.
I suspect the $360billion quoted by the euro & world government folks, is actually a net figure after costs of collecting and administering the tax are removed from the gross tax revenue collected. Even then, based on US experience the overhead experienced by the private sector in such taxes adds 65% of the gross collection to the total burden on the economy.
Your "minisule" tax is anything but "miniscule" in regard to anyone, much less the small minority of persons you propose to impose it on in addition to an NRST.
The unproductive financial sector of the US took $650 billion out of the economy last year.
And a tax on this "unproductive" sector ,that is also very necessary for the conduct of orderly commerce, is not going to increase the burden on the economy? I think not, the expessed purpose of the tax is to control and slow down financial activity. You figure the economy is not affected by controls on flow of funds through it. I suggest you take a good refresure course in economics if you believe that. Assuming of course that you have ever been exposed such a course in your experience.
Moving the finances in payment of production, may termed "unproductive" in terms of manufacturing. Its loss to the economy and ability to deliver payment for goods and services would be of great negative impact to any economy.
I do not deny that such a tax would curtail a significant portion of what currently takes place.
Transfer of payments for goods services and debt service.
That is because the value to many of these transactions is virtually nil.
Tell that to those looking for a loan individuals and corporate, or needing capital to start or grow a business, or those wanting payment for their goods and service from their customers.
Some of the activity will be curtailed, while the rest of it will be taxed. I’m fine with that.
Spoken as a true socialist.
Your assertions [that the wealthy pay a lower % of wealth in taxes than the poor or middle class] are mere repetition despite strong and clear evidence counter to what you want us to accept on the basis of your mere words.
Assertions? Mere repetition? You are denying the obvious! Show me ONE reputable source that even attempts to deny this. The “evidence” you offer uses the value of a person’s home as a proxy for his wealth. This would be laughable even if your calculations didn't stop at a $60,000 income level.
I suggest you take a good refresher course in economics… assuming of course that you have ever been exposed such a course in your experience.
Actually, I’ve read and written extensively on the financial sector.
Moving the finances in payment of production, may termed "unproductive" in terms of manufacturing. Its loss to the economy and ability to deliver payment for goods and services would be of great negative impact to any economy.
You don’t recognize a parasite when you see one.
Deuce: Some of the activity will be curtailed, while the rest of it will be taxed. I’m fine with that.
Geezer: Spoken as a true socialist.
Curtailing some activity that can’t bear a ½ of 1% tax while taxing that which can constitutes a socialistic position to you? What is your criteria for considering something socialist?