Talk:Financial transaction tax

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we split this article into two articles: National, and International?

Should we split this article into two articles: National, and International?

The two headings could be these:

• Financial transaction tax (national concepts)

• Financial transaction tax (international concepts)

I am of two minds about this question:

On the one hand, I would say "Yes, we should split this article into two."....because it is a better way to carry out analysis. Analysis is the process of breaking things down into smaller pieces in order to think more clearly about them.

But on the other hand, if we break this into two articles, then how would we compare the two? How would we then compare the successes and failures of each? Consider the people who are working on both of these projects in the world. Could they benefit from knowing about each other's successes and failures? I would say yes, in some ways (but not in all ways).

This (above) explains the dilemma on the question of whether or not we should split this article into two articles.

One possible solution to this dilemma would be to create a third article entitled, "The comparison between national and international financial transaction taxes."

Or perhaps we could have that "comparison" as a section heading in both of these two articles:

• Financial transaction tax (national concepts)

• Financial transaction tax (international concepts)

I look forward to hearing thoughts from other editors. Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was me, Id keep it as one page at least until it grows beyond about 60K. Most of the information will be redundant for both types of tax. You might find it hard to find sources that describe international transaction taxes in the general case, I dont think Ive even encountered a formal explanation of the national / international distinction – perhaps writers on the subject dont feel a need as there are no implemented examples? Reading between the lines after hearing a few presentations on Tobin, id guess an international transaction tax has to meet at least one of two criteria. 1) The revenue accrues to an international body, such as the UN. 2) Its uniformly applied by several nations so financial markets dont just shift operations to another tax jurisdiction.

I dont think the buyer and seller being of different nationalities counts, as this is common in capital control taxes like the ones Brazil has just implemented, but that would be a national tax as Brazil gets the revenue and the tax is unique to Brazil (the purpose being not so much to raise revenue as to slow capital inflow that was causing currency appreciation)

If I come across a good source to define the difference I'll add it to the article. Just some ideas, I think you should organise it however you like. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood Tax vs Tobin Tax

About the Robin Hood Tax, the article says: "It is similar to the Tobin tax" wich is not completely true. In fact, the Robin Hood Tax is inspired in the Tobin Tax, but it's more general. Tobin Tax only covers "spot conversions of one currency into another". Robin Hood Tax should cover every bank transaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloscapote (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

revenue

A section on "revenue" was recently added. It needs clarification and better sourcing.

Currently it's: Institute for Policy Studies states revenue of $177. billion dollars/year in the US. with the reference [1]

There's a few problems with that. A blog isn't generally a good source, and how it's stated is unclear. Both of these could possibly be solved by following it back to it's source. The blog links to the Institute for Policy Studies study, and that study actually sources its numbers to a Center for Economic and Policy Research paper here. There the number $176.9 billion was used, but with a fair amount of elaboration. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Content moved from Bank tax

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Bubbles" in the Keynes' quote

I removed the linkage of the word "bubble" to Financial bubbles in the Keynes' quote. He was simply referring to bubbles on the surface of a water stream for comparing the volatility component vs. the growth component. --65.105.195.14 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-government supporters and opponents

There is an entry under 2011 that reads:

• October 10, 2011 - Charity group Oxfam, which is campaigning for a financial transaction tax, sought court action to ban a pensioner from one of its shops, asking him to pay a £10,000 legal bill after he complained about a poster which highlighted Oxfam’s call for a “Robin Hood” tax of banks and financial institutions. Pensioner Barry Nowlan, 63, of Taunton, says he has a legitimate complaint about Oxfam’s “political campaigning.”

It seems like this should be either changed or removed as it is not relevant to the purpose of this section. This entry describes a quarrel between a person and a charity organization's use of advertising and not the support or opposition of the idea itself. I have flagged this section as cleanup for now. Adrian (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How about a map?

How about a map that indicates which countries support/oppose a FTT? Maybe that would also need a third category, indicating countries that only support a FTT if it is introduced on a regional/global level. --spitzl (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

sorting out the article's structure

I have tried to give the article a bit more structure. Nevertheless it is still a big mess. The problem imho is that the lemma "financial transaction tax" is to broad to cover all aspects of it (that is each individual's perception of what a FTT is or should be) in one article. To solve the problem I suggest this article sticks mainly to the theoretical concept of FTT and outsource specific (proposals of) implementations to separate articles (see e.g. EU financial transaction tax). Otherwise we will never get anywhere.--spitzl (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a good plan, looks like you've already improved the article considerably. You might find you have the article mostly to yourself, econ and finance articles arent useually very popular. With tax articles you do sometimes get editors with very strong opinions having a go, which can be pesky... FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)