Due to the diversity of existing financial instruments, there are many different FTT proposals. For example, the Inclusive Prosperity Act proposed by presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) lists a 0.5% tax on stocks, a 0.1% tax on bonds and a 0.005% tax on derivatives. Conversely, the Wall Street Tax Act of 2019 proposes a 0.1% tax on all securities. Other plans may exclude certain types of transactions altogether. This table presents the conventional estimate of TPC, which applies an interest rate of 1/10 of the base rate to derivatives transactions, based on the notional value. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has long been a supporter of the financial transaction tax. Its 2019 Inclusive Prosperity Act provides for a tax of 0.5% on shares, 0.1% on bonds and 0.005% on payments related to derivative contracts. Former Vice President Joe Biden has indicated that he is open to the imposition of a financial transaction tax, but has not yet gone into details. Although they are no longer running for president, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), as well as former mayors Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg, have proposed all FTTs of 0.1%. Senators Schatz (D-Hawaii), Van Hollen (D-Md.) and others have also proposed bills at this rate. There were some slight differences in assets, but in general, they included stocks, bonds, and derivatives.
This represents a break with the position of President Obama, who opposed European leaders` demands for a coordinated tax on financial transactions in the wake of the financial crisis. President Trump has never proposed this tax and has generally been skeptical of new corporate or stock market taxes.  Directional risk refers to the exposure to change in the price of a financial asset. If a financial transaction tax encourages the use of leveraged instruments, it will lead to higher directional risk. The same concept applies to how a financial transaction tax prevents portfolio diversification and hedging – both strategies reduce directional risk. Proponents of the tax believe it will discourage market activities that are unproductive and focused on pension plans. For example, the tax should eliminate certain high-frequency exchanges (HFT) for transactions that would not be profitable to pay taxes at this rate. HFT requires both a very quick purchase and estate sale, so they would pay the tax twice (buy and sell). Therefore, anything that makes less profit than $2 per $1,000 traded would no longer be profitable under a 10 basis point FTT. High-frequency transactions account for a large share of financial transactions, a trend that has increased significantly.
Some argue that HFT increases market volatility without contributing to significant prices, and that it is a good thing to discourage this trade. Others argue that HFT provides significant liquidity to the markets and reduces trading costs for everyone. This is why tax administrations in EU countries are looking for ways to tax the financial sector, for example by introducing bank levies and national taxes on financial transactions. Some proposals on the financial transaction tax have attempted to exempt investors of individual funds from the tax. However, regardless of its structure, such a tax could harm investors of individual funds and lead to market distortions that would reduce market efficiency for all participants, including fund investors, by reducing market volume, affecting liquidity and distorting prices. A financial transaction tax hurts U.S. financial markets and retail investors The original concept behind modern financial transaction taxes (FTTs). But, Sweden! There are examples of FTT failure, such as Sweden`s dismal failure in 1984, but well-designed FTTs generally work well. After New York, the world`s three largest financial centers (London, Shanghai and Hong Kong) all impose a tax on financial transactions.
Other major economies are doing the same. And some countries, such as Italy, Spain and France, which previously repealed financial transaction taxes, have since reintroduced new ones. Spain`s new financial transaction tax came into effect in 2021. Opponents of the FTT argue that the tax would not have the expected impact on risk management. Opponents also argue that there is great uncertainty about its ability to increase revenue, and that its impact on transaction costs and its potential impact on volatility and prices make it unsafe to implement. This paper discusses the history and current implementation of the Financial Transaction Tax, as well as the economic impact it can have on decision-making and market quality in the United States. The paper will also describe how policymakers should take into account the unpredictability of the revenues generated by the tax and the impact it has on the market when deciding on the benefits of ftT. While the magnitude of the decline in transaction volume would depend on interest rates and the basis of a feed, the data suggest that FTTs reduce the volume of transactions and thus limit the revenues that such a tax could generate. .