The proposal uses fairly standard percentages recommended by economists. The revenue is a happy side effect. The main point of the tax is to reduce leverage, bubbles and to some extent volatility. If you don't agree that a financial transaction tax is a worthwhile way to accomplish those goals then say so. But I can't see how one can intellectually support the idea of such a tax, but see the size as too large. In any theory in which a transaction tax is a source of stability rather than merely a means of raising revenue, the size if the proposed tax is on the conservative end of what is normally proposed for that purpose.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:58 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > * *"Korey Hartwich" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I’m writing to ask for your help in building support for an important step > to get the U.S. economy moving again and cut the risk of future financial > catastrophes. *Will you join an open **letter from economists** and > financial analysts to President Obama, Treasury Secretary Lew, and Members > of Congress proposing a financial transaction tax?* > > > > > After looking at HR1579 (Rep. Ellison's bill), I don't see any reason to > support it. > > I haven't seen a rational argument for such a large transaction tax > although the > the things that would be financed are laudable. > > It would be much better to support a VAT that would help the balance of > trade. > > -- > Ron > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
