Just take a $100 bill and track it.

First you draw it from the bank ,taxed! Then you spend it and the recipient banks it, taxed! The recipient withdraws it to pay a bill, taxed! The bill collector receivs it in their bank, taxed! Then they go out for dinner and the restaurant owner banks it, taxed!

I am of the opinion that it is at the very least worth a full blooded enquirey to find out if it will in fact work.

Let's face it, the next genertation is in for a very tough time if nothing is done.

re the club<<$100 from the bank..First you draw it from the bank,taxed!>>one quater of a $[25..cents[not a $2 withdrawelfee

<<Then you spend it and the recipient banks it,taxed!>>,..25 cents not 2 bucks=total banking fees 50 cents not 4 bucks

<<The recipient withdraws it to pay a bill, taxed!>>no withdrawelfee

<<The bill collector receivs it in their bank, taxed!>>less than the bank fee

<<Then they go out for dinner and the restaurant owner banks it, taxed!>>100 $ dinner taxed 25 cents [not 10 percent[10 bucks gst]

<<I am of the opinion that it is at the very least worth a full blooded enquirey to find out if it will in fact work.>>...yeah me too

It was my understanding that big business were the ones who stopped it in the first place, as this type of tax is unaviodable for them as they do not deal in cash.

Unfortunately though, bank fees are not a form of tax and as such I doubt they would be replaced by any such tax. Would be great though as I pay in excess of 20 grand a year in bank fees.

I sill think any inquiery is what is needed.

The ability of financial institutions to move financial instruments around means that the institutions can spread risk, for example, when you buy insurance for your business or car etc, your policy is an instrument, and can be on sold to other institutions. This enable insurers to spread the risk of large policies or many policies in a particular area. It also ensures that competition on rates is as open as possible, and the most competitive insurer can offer policies to more people than his financial reserve dictates.

If done properly, the man in the street will get his policy at a competitive rate where the profit margins are as small as possible.

A transaction tax will add .25% each time the policy is sold, and where the margins are only a couple of percent, this will effectively stop the on selling.

The net effect will be that you will only be able to buy your policies from a few major insurers at significantly higher rates.
The consumer would end up paying considerably more than the .25%.

The same goes for mortgages etc. These transactions are far from non productive.

Secondly, some instruments exist as "pledges" to buy or sell, and can be traded off shore instead of actually trading the instruments or shares etc. These off shore instruments cannot be taxed, and can easily take the place of the standard instruments.

Thus, the tax is easily avoidable, and has serious consequences, which is why it has never been taken seriously.

democratus its interesting your raising insurance..[and other instruments..[noting each must have a cash/book/asset/market value,..thus it seems rather simple that the houses of settlement[ie bankers/lawyers/accountants]..tax these transactions..[trades]as they occure]

it might slow the rash of securitised and underwritten..debt equity swaps...currently made into insured AAA..securities..[where your unredeemable debt is swaped for my unredeamable debt..[as if both had real asseted worth...getting lol..a bonus..as if it were a real trade

further re the underwriters of insurance..[the practice is to offest the insured burden[as well as share the prenium..[but it must be noted no amnmount higher than the insured ammount..is normally insured[thus the ammount offset..cant exceed the insured sum total...

regardless it is a non issue..compared to the day traders getting their tax free ride gambeling..on which stock will rise..or fall in the next micro second..[making/losing trillions from adrenilin charged addiction..to speculating others funds]...

at least their transactions tax..off sets the other taxes..the suckers putting their trust in legalised..[tax free]corp/stock gambling]..ie slave wage tax payers..are burdoned with currently

[while the elites trade their income under the cover of their family trust's..[or get paid in bulion..at an artificially low face value to avoid paying tax]..or as non residents..or any of the thousands of under the harbour type/tax avoidance scemes

UOG

You have many misconceptions:

Profits from transactions are taxed as capital gains,

Your tax reduction methods are known as tax evasion, and attract a jail term,

Banking houses make a profit on the transactions by underwriting them. However, the banks are making them more valuable by making them more secure. (ie. if the original debtor defaults you can claim from the bank) which is not a tax, but a value added component.

Insurers can sell much more insurance than they have the financial backing for by re insuring with the likes of Lloyd's etc who buy the policies at a fixed actuarial determined rate. There is no limit to how much they can sell if they are cheaper than anyone else and charge a small premium to the actuarial rate. Thus big companies are forced to compete with the smaller resellers.

This is similar to Telstra owning the lines, but being forced to allow others to sell services on the lines, and being forced to compete on price.

A transaction tax facilitates monopolies.