As I recall, P. Hanson had an idea for a flat tax of some sort on financial trading, as a replacement for income and a host of other taxes, and was pilloried for it.
I've always wondered though, could it work? Could a fixed tax on every transfer of funds by anyone, no exceptions, really harvest significant sums? Enough to replace other forms of taxation?
Here's a really interesting take on one aspect of that, pertinent to the current situation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/opinion/13herbert.html

A .25 tax on what the average person spends or saves would be far cheaper than the current regime, and the numbers involved at the top end of town would surely be golden, tax-wise?

Max,
The idea came from an architect she 'championed' it. At the time it was pillared.

I doubt it would work under the current corporate structures. tax havens, etc give net no tax so why would people who made an entire life from manipulating more would be able to change these habits/attitudes mindsets.
Even if you eliminated all deductions those able would say thanks but still hide the money on the argument it's only illegal if you're caught.

Sorry pal but capitalism as it's practiced encourages cheats and the the Western world have plenty of those.

The problem with this sort of punitive tax is that it discourages the activities that create the revenue stream it is supposed to produce.

The article you refer to does actually mention this. Sort of.

"The fees, though small, could amount to a big deal for speculators because in addition to the volume of their trades they often make their money on very small margins. Someone who buys an asset and then sells it an hour later at a one percent appreciation might feel quite pleased. He or she would be less pleased at having to pay a quarter-percent fee to purchase the asset in the first place and then another quarter percent to sell it."

The author fails to join the obvious dots here.

If the trades are made on small margins, then they will very quickly be taxed out of existence. And instead of raising "$100 billion annually", it merely adds another layer of taxation.

In the case of Australia, it would apply mostly to our Super Funds, reducing - even further - their attraction as a vehicle to save for our old age.

i think its a great idea,..those paying expensive lawyer's and accountants to avoid paying any tax at all dont.

but it makes basic sense..[those who use the money pay]..and everyone must pay...no egsemptions..its called a transaction tax..and simply goes on top of every transaction..[no egsemptions]..those who got money pay as they go

those huge monetary transphere [moving the same money arround to pretend twice the ammount of cash simply cant cheat..[see currently if you do it right..[you move your money os while you sleep]

[next day it magiclly is there..[but during the night it wasnt]...there is huge lies being played out..and the transaction fee may just stop some of them clever decievers playing games with our money

[games that are seeing us wear the total cost]..while they disappear it or make it appear..in virtual time instantly..[but it disappears just as fast]..at least with a transaction tax they pay their way

Pericles, I wonder how much though?
Let’s face the fact that it was all the games with financial instruments that caused the mess we’re in, so they’d be no loss. Wouldn’t it tend to simplify the approach of the big-money, simply to reduce it’s tax?
Superfunds could perhaps be granted exempt-status, but as I am no tax-expert, I’m unsure what long-term effect that would have. When you factor in the stock-market and business transfers, plus the money-market itself, surely trading wouldn’t slow that much?
Look at the numbers with banks and insurance etc lending to each other, .25% of that would carry quite a few zero’s!

Exam’, I think the whole point of this approach is to make it more difficult to cheat successfully, once it was in place there would be no exemptions, other than those legislated for, so they would seem to be stuck with paying it, for a change.
It seems attractive because it’s simple, which ultimately guarantees nothing. But isn’t the complexity and confusion of the current system exactly why the wealthy can evade/avoid so much tax?

A flat tax is a good idea since the poor who take on 2 jobs and work long hrs to secure a nest egg ,then get rewarded.The progressive system of taxation punishes hard work and achievement.

The role of Govt should not be to social engineer everything to the satisfaction of minority groups.

We need a lot less Govt/regulation and again let the individual take responsibility for their own destinies.