8 comments on “Anyone seen the FTT details?

  1. FTT is one of many worries if Oh Jeremy “Grandpa Death” Corbyn wins

    Back to the Seventies doesn’t come close, back to 1930s or even more appropriate

    Henry Deedes: Behold, his finest creation! Hate, bile, spiel… and barrels of class envy: Jeremy Corbyn’s personality shining through Labour’s manifesto

    Dominic Sandbrook: A suicide note to make the ’80s loony left blush. 36 years after Michael Foot’s infamous manifesto, Jeremy Corbyn’s dark vision goes even further – and will kill off either Labour… or Britain

    A frightening prospect

  2. To point out the bleedin’ obvious:

    A globally agreed FTT would be merely another government-inspired, idiotic disaster. But a UK-only FTT would be a genuine catastrophe for the City of London, 90% of which would have to close in the face of untaxed competition from other global trading centres. Where would Jezza’s tax revenues come from then?

  3. While I agree with some of the goals of the FTT, the extent of the implementation proposed in the manifesto by Labour and Intelligence Capital is a complete disaster waiting to happen for the free markets and for the average person.

    After Labour’s recent defeat, I have e-mailed both Persaud and McDonnell with my thoughts on it. I hope Labour has reconsidered its stance on this tax by the time voters are asked to return to the ballot box.

  4. To be more specific, the tax rates and classification in the costings appear to me to be artificially designed to rake in as much tax as possible (on paper – in reality it would cause an exodus of participants from the market).

    While Persaud claims to be conservative in its estimate of the tax intake, he is anything but. The process used to estimate the tax in the FTT by Persaud is based on taxing people 50% of the transaction cost (defined as the spread between the bid and ask price) for entering or exiting a trade.

    While this is extreme, it is not completely unreasonable on a first glance, until you realise that Persaud is imposing upon you what the spread is instead of letting people report the actual spread at the time of execution to define a real tax liability.

    I ran the numbers, and for the markets I trade the calculations would result in a tax rate more than 50 times than the tax based on the real spread, i.e. the manifesto costing assumes a spread that is a factor of 50 away from the real world.

    If it was a benign tax rate, on the scale of 0.001% for entering or exiting it would be workable and reasonable without crippling the markets. Further, if the tax was limited to large, extremely frequent and highly leveraged transactions (the kinds of trade which epitomise rampant market speculation and which lead to kind of market instability it might be desirable to curb), it would be reasonable. If the costings allowed for users to report their actual transaction cost and tax partly based on that, it might be reasonable.

    As the proposals stand however, saying they are looney would be understating my thoughts on the matter.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.