Topic: Tobin Tax. Anyone want to help me build the Tobin Tax website? (Read 10224 times)

1 improvement I've added to the proposed tax.

T-Bills would be exempt or have a greatly reduced tax, like 0.1% rather than 1%.

Thank you, that is all.

Fantastic find.  Thanks for the link.  This appears to have shut up anyone who could argue against the Tobin Tax with their fanatically simple notions of 'freedom' and 'free markets'.

So how do you propose a tobin tax is implemented? And for what currencies?

BTW Here is an interesting article from Themis Trading about the negatives of HFT.

http://www.themistrading.com/article_files/0000/0348/Toxic_Equity_Trading_on_Wall_Street_12-17-08.pdf

LIQUIDITY REBATE TRADERS

To attract volume, all market centers (the exchanges and the ECNs) now offer rebates of
about 1⁄4 penny a share to broker dealers who post orders. It can be a buy or sell order, as
long as it is offering to do something on the exchange or ECN in question. If the order is
filled, the market center pays the broker dealer a rebate and charges a larger amount to the
broker dealer who took liquidity away from the market. This has led to trading strategies
solely designed to obtain the liquidity rebate.

In this case, our institutional investor is willing to buy shares in a price range of $20.00 to
$20.05. The algo gets hit, and buys 100 shares at $20.00. Next, it shows it wants to buy
500 shares. It gets hit on that, and buys 500 more shares. Based on that information, a
rebate trading computer program can spot the institution as having an algo order. Then,
the rebate trading computer goes ahead of the algo by a penny, placing a bid to buy 100
shares at $20.01. Whoever had been selling to the institutional investor at $20.00 is likely
to sell to the rebate trading computer at $20.01. That happens, and the rebate trading
computer is now long 100 shares at $20.01 and has collected a rebate of 1⁄4 penny a share.
Then, the computer immediately turns around and offers to sell its 100 shares at $20.01.
Chances are that the institutional algo will take them.

The rebate trading computer makes no money on the shares, but collects another 1⁄4 penny
for making the second offer. Net, net, the rebate trading computer makes a 1⁄2 penny per
share, and has caused the institutional investor to pay a penny higher per share.


PREDATORY ALGOS

More than half of all institutional algo orders are “pegged” to the National Best Bid or
Offer (NBBO). The problem is, if one trader jumps ahead of another in price, it can cause
a second trader to go along side of the first one. Very quickly, every algo trading order in
a given stock is following each other up or down (or down and up), creating huge, whip
like price movements on relatively little volume.

This has led to the development of predatory algo trading strategies. These strategies are
designed to cause institutional algo orders to buy or sell shares at prices higher or lower
than where the stock had been trading, creating a situation where the predatory algo can
lock in a profit from the artificial increase or decrease in the price.

To illustrate, let’s use an institutional algo order pegged to the NBBO with discretion to
pay up to $20.10. First, the predatory algo uses methods similar to the liquidity rebate
trader to spot this as an institutional algo order. Next, with a bid of $20.01, the predatory
algo goes on the attack. The institutional algo immediately goes to $20.01. Then, the
predatory algo goes $20.02, and the institutional algo follows. In similar fashion, the
predatory algo runs up the institutional algo to its $20.10 limit. At that point, the predatory
algo sells the stock short at $20.10 to the institutional algo, knowing it is highly likely that
the price of the stock will fall. When it does, the predatory algo covers.
This is how a stock can move 10 or 15 cents on a handful of 100 or 500 share trades.

AUTOMATED MARKET MAKERS

Automated market maker (AMM) firms run trading programs that ostensibly provide
liquidity to the NYSE, NASDAQ and ECNs. AMMs are supposed to function like
computerized specialists or market makers, stepping in to provide inside buy and sells, to
make it easier for retail and institutional investors to trade.

AMMs, however, often work counter to real investors. AMMs have the ability to “ping”
stocks to identify reserve book orders. In pinging, an AMM issues an order ultra fast, and
if nothing happens, it cancels it. But if it is successful, the AMM learns a tremendous
amount of hidden information that it can use to its advantage.

To show how this works, this time our institutional trader has input discretion into the algo
to buy shares up to $20.03, but nobody in the outside world knows that. First, the AMM
spots the institution as an algo order. Next, the AMM starts to ping the algo. The AMM
offers 100 shares at $20.05. Nothing happens, and it immediately cancels. It offers
$20.04. Nothing happens, and it immediately cancels.


PROGRAM TRADERS

Program traders buy or sell small quantities of a large number of stocks at the same time,
to trigger NBBO or discretionary algo orders, so as to quickly juice a market already
moving up or down into a major drop or spike up.

Because so many algo orders are pegged and are being pushed around by other high
frequency traders, program traders are like a fuse. When they light it, that’s when things
get really going. This is especially so in volatile markets when things are very shaky and
people are very nervous like they are now. Keep in mind that many algo orders must
achieve a percentage of volume that matches the market in the stock. So if the program
traders can increase the volume on an individual stock just enough, they will trigger even
more algo buying or selling.

Program traders profit by having an option on the market. Their objective is to push that
option into the money by a greater amount than what they used to get the market moving.

MARKET CENTER INDUCEMENTS FOR HIGH FREQUENCY TRADERS

Most high frequency trading strategies are effective because they can take advantage of
three major inducements offered by the market centers and not typically accessible to retail
or institutional investors.

1. Rebate traders trade for free. Because they are considered to be adding liquidity,
    exchanges and ECNs cover their commission costs and exchange fees. This makes it
    worthwhile for rebate traders to buy and sell shares at the same price, in order to
    generate their 1⁄4 penny per share liquidity rebate on each trade. Exchanges and ECNs
    view the order maker as a loss leader in order to attract the order taker. In addition, the
    more volume at different prices, even if that means moving back and forth a penny, the
    more money the market center makes from tape revenue. Tape revenue is generated by
    exchanges and ECNs from the sale of data to third party vendors, such as Bloomberg
    for professional investors, and Yahoo for retail investors.

2. Automated market makers co-locate their servers in the NASDAQ or the NYSE
   building, right next to the exchanges’ servers. AMMs already have faster servers than
   most institutional and retail investors. But because they are co-located, their servers
   can react even faster. That’s how AMMs are can issue IOC orders – immediate or
   cancel – sometimes known as “cancel and replace.” They issue the order immediately,
   and if nothing is there, it is canceled. And that’s how AMMs get the trades faster than
   any other investor, even though AMMs are offering the same price. AMMs pay large
   fees to the exchanges to co-locate, but it obviously has a decent return on investment.
   According to Traders Magazine, the number of firms that co-locate at NASDAQ has
   doubled over the last year.

3. People often wonder whether it is fair or legal for program traders to move the market
   the way they do. Everybody forgets, however, that in October 2007, just a little more
   than a year ago, the NYSE very publicly removed curbs that shut down program
   trading if the market moved more than 2% in any direction. The NYSE said it was
   making the change because “it does not appear that the approach to market volatility
   envisioned by the use of these ‘collars’ is as meaningful today as when the Rule was
   formalized in the late 1980s.” On a more commercial level, the NYSE had been at a
   competitive disadvantage because other market centers that didn’t have curbs were
   getting the program trading business.


What Is The Effect of All This Toxic Trading?

1. Volume has exploded, particularly in NYSE stocks. But you can’t look at NYSE
   volume on the NYSE. The NYSE only executes 25% of the volume in NYSE stocks.
   You’ve got to look at NYSE listed shares across all market centers, such as ECNs, like
   the NYSE’s own ARCA, or dark pools, like LiquidNet. Traders Magazine estimates
   high frequency traders may account for more than half the volume on all U.S. market
   centers.

2. The number of quote changes has exploded. The reason is high frequency traders
   searching for hidden liquidity. Some estimates are that these traders enter anywhere
   from several hundred to one million orders for every 100 trades they actually execute.
   This has significantly raised the bar for all firms on Wall Street to invest in the
   computers, storage and routing to handle all the message traffic.

3. NYSE specialists no longer provide price stability. With the advent NYSE Hybrid,
   specialist market share has dropped from 80% to 25%. With specialists out of the way,
   the floodgates have been opened to high frequency traders who find it easier to make
   money with more liquid listed shares.

4. Volatility has skyrocketed. The markets’ average daily price swing year to date is
   about 4% versus 1% last year. According to recent findings by Goldman Sachs,
   spreads on S&P 500 stocks have doubled in October 2008 as compared to earlier in the
   year. Spreads in Russell 2000 stocks have tripled and quoted depth has been cut in
   half.

5. High frequency trading strategies have become a stealth tax on retail and institutional
   investors. While stock prices will probably go where they would have gone anyway,
   toxic trading takes money from real investors and gives it to the high frequency trader
   who has the best computer. The exchanges, ECNs and high frequency traders are
   slowly bleeding investors, causing their transaction costs to rise, and the investors
   don’t even know it.

I found this bill that Peter DeFazio and Paul Wellstone introduced in the year 2000.

U.S. Congress Concurrent Resolution
 on Taxing Cross-border Currency Transactions to Deter Excessive Speculation
 (H.Con.Res.301)
Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
 (Introduced April 11, 2000)


It is the sense of the Senate and the House of Reprentatives that the United States should show leadership by enacting, in concert with the international community, transaction taxes on short-term, cross-border foreign exchange transactions to deter speculation. The adoption of such Tobin-style taxes should be done in coordination with a large number of nations, in a fully transparent and accountable manner, with the revenue dedicated to urgent global needs.

A. Introduction

WHEREAS every day over $1.8 trillion in currency exchanges moves across national borders, a volume far greater than in the last decade; and

WHEREAS such rapid movement of foreign currency has created some additional opportunities for legitimate productive investment, but also has created the potential of triggering national currency collapses and resulting financial crises;

I. Currency Market's Volume and Volatility

WHEREAS daily trading in currency markets increased from $0.2 trillion to over $1.8 trillion in just over a decade, from 1986 to 1998; by comparison, the trade in goods and services for all countries for an entire year is only $4.3 trillion; and, therefore, in less than a week, foreign exchange transactions exceed the entire annual volume of world trade in goods and services;

WHEREAS over 85 percent of these transactions are of a purely speculative nature where investors bet on whether currency values and interest rates will move up or down, and thus bear little or no relationship to the production and trade in goods or services;

WHEREAS more than 40 percent of all these transactions involve round trips of fewer than three days; and over 80 percent of global foreign exchange transactions involve round trips of less than a week;

WHEREAS the vast majority of transactions take place in relatively few financial centers, particularly the United Kingdom (32 percent), the United States (18 percent), Japan (8 percent), Singapore (7 percent), Germany (5 percent), Switzerland (4 percent), Hong Kong (4 percent), and France (4 percent);

WHEREAS these speculative transactions themselves often cause short-term fluctuations of exchange rates, thus provoking more speculation;

II. Sovereignty and Stability of Nations Threatened

WHEREAS such volume and volatility of liberalized capital flows not only threatens national currency devaluation and financial crises, but disrupts the ability of nations to establish equitable and just economic policies; to intervene to protect their own currencies; and to provide support for needed social and environmental programs;

WHEREAS in the past, central bank reserves were sufficient to combat any speculation on their country's currency; now, however, financial speculators have created a daily market volume which dwarfs all of the world's central banks combined; and therefore, when a country cannot defend its currency, it effectively loses control of its monetary policy;

WHEREAS such speculative pressure on a currency results in higher interest rates than is warranted by internal monetary conditions; leading to a lowering of economic growth and an increase in domestic unemployment with the related social problems;

WHEREAS there is overwhelming evidence that the lack of stability helps to cause financial crises with increasing frequency (1992/93 Europe, 1994 Mexico, 1997 Southeast Asia, 1998 Russia, 1999 Brazil), even in countries where basic economic fundamentals are sound, and the market reacts irrationally to rumors ("herd behavior"), causing "speculative bubbles" to burst when speculators flee a particular currency;

WHEREAS such financial crises can have enormous impact worldwide; for example, the Asian currency crisis lowered the world growth projection for 1998 by one percent and increased worldwide unemployment by 10 million; and unpredictable exchange rate fluctuations create additional uncertainties for entrepreneurs, making rational planning more difficult;

WHEREAS such crises have not only economic impact, including exacerbation of global economic inequality; but also social impact including increased unemployment, price increases and disruptions, plant closures, poverty, human rights violations, diversion of resources from sustainable development, and social upheaval; which burden poor, indigenous, and middle-income populations most heavily;

WHEREAS such impacts in other nations have a spillover effect in the United States and elsewhere by contributing to increased trade imbalances, dumping of low-price products on overburdened markets, and contributing to increased unemployment, volatility in agriculture markets, and stagnant or falling wages;

WHEREAS de facto support by governments and international institutions of excessive financial speculation may undermine desired macroeconomic policies and contribute to moral hazard and irresponsible market behavior;

III. Transaction Taxes as a Partial Solution

WHEREAS excessive speculation could be curbed by a very small tax of between 0.1 percent and 0.25 percent on each cross-border currency transaction (now commonly called "Tobin-style taxes", as proposed in 1978 by Nobel prize winning economist James Tobin), or an alternate two-tiered version (proposed in 1996 by German economist and IMF consultant Paul Bernd Spahn);

WHEREAS such a tax reduces incentives for short-term speculation while remaining small enough to leave longer-term investments intact; with the resulting increased stability of exchange rates servings as a stimulus for productive trade;

WHEREAS the senior economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has written, "...if your goal is to limit short-term speculation, it is hard to beat the Tobin tax";

WHEREAS the revenues from such a tax, projected to be between $50 billion and $300 billion a year, would provide urgently needed resources to combat global and local crises;

WHEREAS concerns voiced about tax havens and the collection and enforcement of such taxes have been researched by economists, and plans proposed to answer these concerns, such as collection at settlement sites to ensure universality and to track derivative instruments, as proposed by Schmidt;

WHEREAS there is already an international movement in support of a transactions tax, including passage of a resolution in the Canadian Parliament, introduction of resolutions in the European Parliament, the French Parliament, and British House of Commons, substantive discussion of the issue in the European Parliament and the parliaments of Switzerland and Germany, plus a chapter in the current Finnish government rules;

Now, therefore be it resolved by the U.S. House of Representatives, that -

(1) It is the Sense of the House that -

(A) The United States should show leadership by enacting, in concert with the international community, transaction taxes on short-term, cross-border foreign exchange transactions to deter speculation. The adoption of such Tobin-style taxes should be done in coordination with a large number of nations, in a fully transparent and accountable manner, with the revenue dedicated to urgent global needs;

(B) The United States should build support for and advocate this position at the World Bank and the IMF, as well as within other regional and international organizations, including the OECD, the G-8, and the newly established G-20;

(C) This should not be done in isolation of other initiatives for reform of global finance. Instead, the United States should continue to explore other options together with the international community. These options include, but are not limited to: tougher transparency rules, tighter reserve requirements, creation of exchange rate "target zones", national currency controls, cash requirements for mutual funds, and stronger source-country measures such as disincentives for short-term lending.


 The office of Congressman DeFazio is located at:
 2134 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC 20515
 202.225.6416 ph
 202.225.0032 fx
 E-mail: [email protected]
 Web: www.house.gov/defazio/index.htm

 The office of Senator Wellstone is located at:
 136 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510
 202.224.5641 ph
 202.224.8438 fx
 E-mail: [email protected]
 Web: wellstone.senate.gov

 For further information, contact Tom Vinson
[email protected]

Tobin Tax Initiative
CEED/IIRP, PO Box 4167
Arcata, CA 95518-4167
phone: (707) 822-8347, fax: (707) 822-4457
e-mail: [email protected]

Home | Who Are We | What are Tobin Taxes | Tobin Tax Policy | Tobin Tax Bibliography
US Campaigns | Campaigns Around the World | Contact the Initiative

 The Tobin Tax Initiative is a project of the Center for Environmental Economic Development.

These ideas are very romantic yet so scattered that I don't know where to begin. This post continues the ongoing opinion in these 'free market' circles of the futility of working to do good using force.  All of this I've already harped on repeatedly on this thread, so I won't do it again.  Moreover you don't even counter the previous arguments I've made to this point, basically repeating what as already been hashed over as if I'm to reword my arguments for every person unwilling to read the entire thread.

On a side note, as it would take dozens of pages to even decipher what you specifically mean by much of this I'll just say the following:

I just hope that you'll continue to read all manner of historical, political, social, economic and other books of academic pursuits and be willing to abandon ideas and beliefs held now to the fairness and trust of your own ability to reason.  Some people have so much stake in their beliefs that they feel they have to hold them long past where a reasonable person would otherwise cast them off.  If you have any books to which you think would convince me that what I've specifically said on this thread is incorrect please link them here and I'll be sure to read them if I haven't already, but 'avalanche' style posts like this in which you try to make more than 1 or 2 points in a handful of sentences doesn't well make your point and shows that you either are lacking in effort to fully explain what you mean or lack an understanding of what you actually believe with any depth.

This post is so discombobulated that I really don't know where to begin.  Proposing that you somehow know what 'my system' is based off a snippet quote that lacked a voluminous explanation of the sake of brevity is laughable.  Yet, as it is so common in forums, if you leave an opening for where there is even the slightest ambiguity regarding what someone is implying then all manner of other positions that were never proposed and never held by the author are inferred based off of what the respondent seeks to identify with things they've heard other people saying that hold beliefs to which they believe are of a similar political or social persuasion. 

Please do not make this mistake with myself.  My ideas are my own and I use language very carefully.  I strive to pick and choose ideas from people based on their merit alone.  You probably identify me as someone holding a host of beliefs that I do not.  I would be willing to bet that I know more about topics to which you've never posted, inferred from the things you have posted than you could derive from me based on what I've posted - BUT, I wouldn't ever make an argument based on such assumptions.  Blindly swaggering into the 'arena' of ideas and imposing what you believe your 'oppositions' ideas on them isn't a way that either of us can learn anything from each other.

What that we are standing at the hilltop of some 'slippery slope' that is so often cited around here?

I hate to inform you of this but this already being done by people without the moral qualm against doing so, (i.e, creating and molding law) in their own best interest.  Is it your argument that only people with nothing to gain in a system are impartial enough to be fair mined?  Then who should govern the affairs of men?

To step into the realm of questioning what is moral and what is antithetical to civilization is the responsibility of all persons wanting to exist in a civilized society.  If any of the past great philosophers would have such a squeamish disposition regarding the topic of morality and law we would be living in much more primitive conditions.

So yes.  I do want to go down 'this road'.  To determine what is moral and not is not only a social imperative, it is our highest calling as citizens.

Sorry for my tardiness in my response. I need a way to aggregate my answers so I can know who I responded to in what thread and when.

Firstly, my "system" isn't a system, it's a set of axioms which define the laws regarding the interactions between men. They determine when and if a forceful response is warranted.

To answer your question about a banking system. That's rather easy. Devise your own banking system and convince people in a non-coercive way to join you. I could care less whether or not you have reserve requirements, issue insurance policies against loss or other whatnot. It's your problem if your system fails or succeeds. Assuming you use your clients property in an non-fradulent way (as per a contract), do as ye will. However if you think you can force a specific economic system on everybody, I would not advocate that in any way.

I don't believe it's necessary to "gather" revenue for the "government". I believe it's possible to find your own means of defensive protections just like you can shop for shoes or groceries. It's about choice. Notwithstanding that, I do see the difficulty in some aspects of the application of law, being voluntary, that could cause confusion if there wasn't a standardizing body. Either way centralizing force into the hands of the few is not my idea of a sustainable justice system. I'd like to try a free market of competing governing bodies vying for yours and my business.

Hopefully the best will come out on top.

The economy has already been screwed up from government intervention, capital must shift away from things like student loan debt, housing, service sector. Yes the repeal of Glass-Stegal, while keeping the government-backed FDIC insurance was a major factor in allowing the leverage and bubble to form.

See, in your system, we would just shift the money to the already-in-a-bubble education system, temporary employment measures, and more government bureaucrats (often just as parasitic as the finance industry). The free market is already shifting back to an almost-forgotten-system of apprenticeship. I can't think of anything that would fuel real job-creation more than the spirit of entrepreneurship through apprenticeship.

My only response will be to ask you whether you really want to start down the road of making judgment calls about who is and who is not benefitial to society, and structuring policy and tax laws to reflect those judgments.

Entrepreneurship and taxes/regulations are often at odds with each other. Taxes and regulations are barriers where you often need to seek legal professionals for compliance help and is a barrier to market capital wise and effort wise. They often create a protection "moat" around your established competition as well.

Reminds me of the argument that if you eliminated the income tax then all the tax preparation services would go out of business.  To me, this is as near a perfect example of the 'broken window theory' you can get in practice.  There is a large group of 100,000 or more people probably involved in preparing taxes and writing tax prep software.  If we eliminated this need or greatly reduced this need by only passing income taxes past a certain threshold then they would be out of a job, no doubt.  But they are already employed whatsoever from the government largess doing work with 0 productive capacity, scant justification for social necessity,  much of which basically involves trying their hardest to defraud the treasury by a maximum degree of tax avoidance, etc.  We must ask ourselves do we allow for the slow drain on our economy by fearful indecision in the face of the clearly wasteful enterprise that is solely propped up by government in the first place?  I would argue not.  Much of this argument applies to the financial services industry.

Our financial services industry needs to shrink.  It has been growing at the expense, not at the benefit of the 'real economy'.  It made 40% of corporate profits in the past few years.  I've heard statistics that it is roughly 17% of our entire economy now.  This is much too high and has only been allowed to exist through: the unsustainable financial deregulation that has been unmitigated disaster, nearly 0% interest showered on the too-big-to-fail banks, bailouts, regulatory capture, quantitative easing etc.

In my system though, there would be job-retraining programs and massive public works and research programs as there is no shortage of these things that need to be done.

I am much for ending the global empire too, but not in favor of dumping a million solders on the streets with no path for rejoining the workforce.

This isn't a problem that "arises rarely" it's chronic, it's widespread, it's perpetual.  It's going on everyday without exclusion.  How is that "rarely"?  How is implementing a law that stops parasitical activities "ham-handed"?


Nice selective quote mine collapse there by the way.  But you're avoiding the question I posed.
 



You start by convincing people, the politians usually play catch up.  This isn't execlusively for my own self interest, a foriegn concept on a forum such as this, I know.  If people are reasonable they'll be convinced, if they are ideologically driven on some market founded faith-based doctrine, then perhaps not.  But I'll never know if I don't try.




Quaint how you cede to me in this statement that you believe that you or I shouldn't be heard by our government for a redress of grievances but seem to hold tenable that there is no problem with that.  First of all how is anything to do with being 'entrepreneurial' related to taxation and regulation?  History provides testament argument against your second statement.  Mass movements are never easy but they only happen for those 'foolish' enough to believe they can change the system.

I don't disagree that politics and economics cannot be separated. But do you agree that the law is a ham-handed tool to resolve issues that arise rarely?


Ludwig Von Mises's book on interventionism and the real life experience of India's absolutely horrid license raj are full of examples of laws that have been passed ignoring economic effects and resulting in great suffering.


You should consider the cost-benefit analysis of the probability of your being able to convice a majority of the people in the government that affects your life and your ability to carve your own sphere of autonomy and voluntary trade.
And technological changes affect this, greatly. Before bitcoin, I was very skeptical of even the possibility of agorism. Now it seems really feasible.

I agree with patri freidman's ideas on this. The systems competing in the world are a function of the market for governance.


Not thinking of entrepreneurial solutions is the real relinquising of self determination.
Thinking "Oh this problem will be solved only if I have 1000000 people on my side" is relinquishment.

Why should retail trader be exempted from this tax?  I've read everything that you've posted so far and I'm unconvinced that you should be not subject to this tax.  Please explain what you feel you are adding to the economy by making these trades?  Why should your ability to buy and sell and make minor profits on short-term speculative market gyrations be viewed by anyone other than yourself as beneficial?  I can imagine the arguments that you are going to make but I'd much rather you make them than me impose what I think they're going to be on you.

 

Because it matters not whether I'm Goldman Sachs, Citibank, myself, or poor grandma Jensen from the farm in Idaho.  If I do a standard lot FX trade, I'm slapped with a $2,000 tax liability just like that.


Again I'll ask, why can there not be an exception for retail traders?

Not everything is going to be solved by the Tobin Tax, that is true.  There are other means for that I'm willing to discuss.  But how is a Tobin Tax 'taxing everyone equally'?  It's not.  It's effectively outlawing HFT in practice and not everyone has HFT server farms and multiple mathematician PhD's inventing custom exploitation algorithms to make gains on minuscule market moves.  Does everyone HFT?  No.  Do some people make their money off of frequently trading stocks in the short-term?  Yes.  These people it would have a variant impact on, but remember that 70% of the existing trades on the market wouldn't exist so it would be a massive shift in the existing system.  The Tobin Tax at a 'hefty' 1% returns more (what I would call) sanity to the markets: markets based on mid to long term investment to efficiently allocate capital.  The modern markets resemble more of a casino in their operation than a system to 'efficiently allocate capital'.  This would do a hell of a lot in returning to what it is supposed to exist for.

Are you just referring to the securities markets being a zero sum game or the entire economy (the larger Market) being a ZSG?  I disagree with both points, the latter more than the former, but both nevertheless.

Why do you think that a 'large bank' would be trading a making losses in these markets because they are the only one's who can afford it?  So by virtue of their deep coffers they are doing trades that net less than 1% profit?  Why would they do that?  Simply because they can afford to throw money down a hole?  Am I missing something in your argument?

Problem: how would you prove that someone is HFT?  Who would police it?  How would you pay for whomever would be policing it?

BIG Problem:  How would you prevent those charged with policing it from falling under the sway of those that they are supposed to police?

There was a reason I was in favor of this over the idea of just 'banning it', it is because these questions came to mind and there was no workable answer.

Perhaps you should be considering the following from your angle: how much would the tax need to be to eliminate HFT by implementation but "save" the retail traders?

In addition the big market worth going after is the currency markets, not the stock markets (as much).  Is that where you do most your trading?

If the world is filled with more than a small fringe minority that truly believe this then we can all expect to be very, very poor, very soon.

Perhaps these crude anti-historical ideas will die when people become so impoverished from their implementation that they'll be forced to pick up some books and read.