advertisement

GUEST COMMENTARY: Ads alone won't rein in Wall Street

Monday, October 22, 2012 | 2:18 p.m. CDT; updated 12:32 p.m. CST, Thursday, November 8, 2012

All those political campaign ads flooding our airwaves are hitting on dozens of different targets. One particularly — Wall Street. Between mid-April and mid-September, Ad Age reports, $1 out of every $10 spent on campaign ads has blasted Wall Street bankers.

And these ads haven't just come from Democrats. The list of "big anti-Wall Street spenders" even includes the Republican National Committee.

Campaign strategists are placing these anti-Wall Street ads for an obvious reason. Wall Street's greed grab, they understand, has Americans angry and frustrated.

Last week brought still more cause for anger and frustration. New York's state comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli, revealed that average annual pay on Wall Street has shot up 16.6 percent over the last two years to $362,950.

And the gap between the pin-striped set and the rest of us is growing. Financial industry pay in New York City is now running 5.3 times higher than pay in the rest of the private sector. In 1980, Wall Streeters only averaged twice the private-sector take-home.

The typical employee on Wall Street isn't, of course, making $362,950. The Street's secretaries don't earn anywhere near that lofty sum. But investment bankers and traders are making millions above it, and Wall Street's "greater concentration" of these "most highly compensated positions," as New York's comptroller puts it, wildly skews the overall average.

What are these "most highly compensated" doing to earn their millions? They run a casino. They take bets on stocks, currency, commodities and ever more exotic financial innovations.

On every bet, Wall Streeters take a cut, just like the "house" at any casino. And sometimes they even rig the game and place their own bets on the sure-winners they've created.

This incessant gambling hurts us all. Wall Street has placed our entire economy on a roller coaster. Crashes, even Great Recessions, become inevitable.

Most Americans have at least a vague sense of all this, and candidates are seeking to exploit this unease with all those anti-Wall Street campaign ads. But we don't need ads from candidates. We need commitments from them to rein in our economic casino.

How could these candidates start reining? They could enact what analysts call a financial transaction tax, a tiny levy on every trade — every gamble — that Wall Streeters take.

All other gamblers in the United States pay tax on their bets, except those in the financial industry. There's a tax on every $2 racetrack bet. But Wall Street wheeler-dealers who can routinely bet billions pay no taxes on their wagers.

This could soon change. A growing number of lawmakers in Congress are aiming to make the status quo less 1 percent-friendly. More than a dozen financial transaction tax bills are pending in Congress. The latest, just introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison ,D-Minn., would place a 0.5 percent tax on every stock trade and a somewhat smaller tax on every trade of bonds, derivatives and currencies.

Wall Street movers and shakers, not surprisingly, are predicting economic doom should a financial transaction tax ever become law. Traders will merely, they argue, start trading abroad.

But if these traders should flee, they'll have a hard time outrunning financial transaction taxation. Eleven European nations — led by France and Germany — recently agreed to implement a tax on all trades of stocks, bonds and derivatives that will go into effect by 2014. This landmark victory for financial transaction taxation in Europe might give Ellison's bill substantial momentum. Some 130 organizations, part of a "Robin Hood tax" campaign, have already endorsed it.

These Robin Hood campaigners don't have a fraction of the cash spent so far on the 2012 election's anti-Wall Street ads. But they do now have powerful legislation to push and a determination to keep all those anti-Wall Street candidates honest.

OtherWords columnist Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much, the Institute for Policy Studies's weekly newsletter on excess and inequality. OtherWords.org


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Michael Williams October 22, 2012 | 3:09 p.m.

"They could enact what analysts call a financial transaction tax, a tiny levy on every trade — every gamble — that Wall Streeters take."
________________________

Tiny? That's BS and you know it.

Sam, when you have a somewhat legitimate gripe, don't destroy your argument by leaving out important parts.....that's called deception and "lying by omission."

Your article infers that ONLY Wall Streeters would pay the financial transaction tax. Not true. Here's why:

You state "... would place a 0.5 percent tax on every stock trade and a somewhat smaller tax on every trade of bonds, derivatives and currencies."

And then you infer that ONLY Wall Streeters would pay the tax.

NOT SO!

Every Joe and Jane Doaks in the US with stocks will be the ones paying the tax, both when you buy...and when you sell. If you trade...say 1000 shares at 5.00/share....within your 401K, you not only pay brokerage fees but would pay an additional $25.00 (25 x 1000 x 0.005) in financial taxes! BOTH WHEN YOU BUY AND WHEN YOU SELL!

How fun!

In the course of a year, this can added up to multiple thousands of dollars! Enjoying the performance of your IRA yet? Stick around....this tax will give you something to REALLY enjoy!

Some of these financial transaction fee proposals will also charge you EVERY TIME YOU PUT/TAKE MONEY IN/OUT OF A BANK! Presumably, the tax could be applied every time you pay your mortgage....after all, they are called "financial transaction fees", aren't they? What does that mean to you in plain English?

To me, it means if I transact something financial, I pay a fee.

Sam lies by omission and deception. He tries to convince you that only those big, bad Wall Streeters will get gigged. They may well deserve gigging, but the ones who will REALLY pay is.......YOU!

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders October 22, 2012 | 3:24 p.m.

Perhaps if the ponzi d.b.a the "Federal Reserve System" were allowed to die, then Wall St. wouldn't have the ability to "gamble."

Of course, it's easy to see that it ISN'T A GAMBLE AT ALL, as all of their bad bets are monetized, being paid in full by the "operations" of the Fed.

It's nothing more than a game of "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." Of course, ignorance of the real problem has never stopped the evil-do(good)ers (such as the author) before, because as we all know, taxation (a.k.a. "wealth transfer") has worked so well in the past, why it gave us this very system.

Funny, the more things are done to "even the score," the more out of balance it gets.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements