Talk:Tobin tax/Archive 2

Please contribute your ideas on a new structure for this article which provides historical context

Please contribute your ideas on a new structure for this article which provides historical context. Economic situations are constantly changing -- both regionally and globally. Therefore I propose that we need a better structure for this article to reflect that reality of constant change.

Some parties who supported the Tobin tax in the past are no longer supporting it. (ie. the Government of Canada)....and some parties who did not support the Tobin tax in the past are now supporting it. Also, no one knows the future. (not even all of us wise Wikipedia editors)

At present the article is not set up for readability because it is not set up chronologically. Should we set it up in a strictly chronological way? If so, then that would mean reorganizing existing contributions.

Providing context is crucial to enable the readers to understand the arguments both for and against the Tobin tax.

Please contribute your thoughts on this. Thank you.

Is there a Wikipedia guideline or formula for this problem?

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a new article called "Financial transaction tax"

There's a new article called "Financial transaction tax."

Evidence for the need for this article: The category of "Financial Transaction Taxes" is more broad than the existing article on "Tobin tax."

The need for this new broader article became especially apparent in the "Debate" section of "Tobin tax": I discovered that the debates were "comparing apples with oranges." It is important to instead compare apples with apples. That is the only way that we will be able to have a clear debate that makes sense.

For example in this section some Wikipedia editors where providing sources who were discussing the Swedish experience of a transaction tax on the purchase or sale of equity securities, fixed income securities and derivatives. They were not even discussing a tax on global international currency trading, which is what this "Tobin tax" article is about.

In light of the need to compare apples with apples, some of your arguments would be more appropriately placed in the new article. Why? Because it covers the more general topic of all types of financial transaction taxes instead of only the more specific topic of currency transaction taxes.

(By the way, even within the topic of currency transaction taxes there are also subdivisions. For example, the Spahn tax is a second type of currency transaction tax.)

For those of you who want to provide sources which are debating the more general topic of all financial transaction taxes, there is now a new place to provide those sources: Click here to go to the Debate section of the article called "Financial transaction tax"

A clear debate is a better debate.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Boyd,

Funny you should single out the Swedish experience, i.e. the abolished tax case (and there were other examples of that - waiting to see the sunlight here) while forgetting the British one, exclusively applied to stocks, and the US DeFazio proposal, which includes stocks as the main source of funding projections. A tax on currencies is a pure theory as far as I know, because this is the most global, most OTC, most professional market, and margins are thinnest, i.e. evasion would be easiest and revenues would be lowest - yes, it is much easier to tax the sheep, i.e. individual investors "like you and me".

A propos of "you and me", to the two articles on the subject, provided by myself a few lines above (which I still hope you will kindly notice one day), I ask you now to provide a third one, and probably the most autoritative of the three:

http://www.houndbite.com/?houndbite=22866

I hope it is permissible to link such audio material on Wikipedia? I have some grounds to think that it was posted by the presenter himself.

Thanks!

WWWords (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Boyd,

I turns out that the distinction between the Tobin tax and 'other' transaction taxes is redundant, and so is probably the newly created separate Wiki article for these taxes... The distinction was based on the premise that Tobin wanted to tax currencies alone (as opposed to other instruments such as stocks, futures, etc.). Nothing could be further from the truth. Tobin (1978) intended to tax *all* financial instruments (a tax 'on currency' is quite distinct from taxes on on 'financial instruments *denominated* in another currency' proposed by Tobin). More importantly, Tobin proposed to tax international trade payments as well, i.e. services and real assets (property etc.):

"I must remain skeptical that the price signals these unachored markets give are signals that will guide economies to their true comparative advantage, capital to its efficient international allocation, and governments to correct macroeconomic policies. This is why I think we need to throw some sand in the well-greased wheels. [..] It would be an internationally agreed uniform tax, administered by each government over its own jurisdiction. [..] The tax would apply to all purchases of financial instruments denominated in another currency - from currency and coin to equity securities. It would have to apply, I think, to all payments in one currency for goods, services, and real assets sold by a resident of another currency area. I don't intend to add even a small barrier to trade. But I see offhand no other way to prevent financial transactions disguised as trade [..] I do not want to claim too much for my modest proposal. It will, I think restore to national economies and governments some fraction of the short-run autonomy they enjoyed before currency convertibility became so easy."

Source: Tobin, James, 1978. A Proposal for International Monetary Reform. Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 506, Cowles Foundation, Yale University, p. 158-159 [ URL: http://ideas.repec.org/p/cwl/cwldpp/506.html ]

And this is probably a more relevant quote for the lead section, don't you agree?

WWWords (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings WWWords,

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Two heads are always better than one.

Point one

Since the concept of financial transaction taxes existed before Tobin (with Keynes), this means that the "Tobin version" is only one version of its mother. Because of the sequence of events, the "Tobin tax" is a child of its parent, "financial transaction tax." The Tobin tax is a more specific term under the "umbrella" of the more general category of "financial transaction tax." In other words, the sequence of events created a situation in which "financial transaction tax" is the genus and "Tobin tax" is the species.

Point two

The Tobin tax article "lead section" has a quote from Tobin himself which summarizes his concept. This Wikipedia policy states that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic...." Based on that Wikipedia policy, any variations that Tobin added to his core concept, and any detailed explanations of those variations belong in later sections of the article instead of in the lead section.

Point three

I have read your above quote from Tobin. It is important that we read that quote properly. For that reason, I have copied and pasted the exact same quote, but I have made certain words bold in order to draw attention to its core meaning. (For those following, part of the quote is on page 159, first paragraph at this link)

"The tax would apply to all purchases of financial instruments denominated in another currency - from currency and coin to equity securities. It would have to apply, I think, to all payments in one currency for goods, services, and real assets sold by a resident of another currency area. ..."

Thank you again for your contribution to this discussion.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings WWWords:

A clear debate is a better debate:

In the pursuit of clarity, we must first define what we mean by "Tobin tax."

Tobin may have suggested many different types of financial transaction taxes in his lifetime, but what has society associated with the term "Tobin tax?" Has society associated the term "Tobin tax" with specifically a currency transaction tax?

If so, then this article is about a term which society has created. The article is not about all of the transaction taxes that have been proposed by Tobin in his lifetime.

This is similar to the term Crohn's disease which was named after Burrill Bernard Crohn. Burrill Bernard Crohn did other work in his life besides work on Crohn's disease. But he is known for that disease. Therefore it was society which made the traditional association, not Crohn himself.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My Jan 21, 2010 edits

My Jan 21, 2010 edits of the Tobin tax article are supported by the following Wikipedia policies:

Policy 1

The Wikipedia policy on Naming conventions, and deciding on an article name has this quote:

Begin Quote:

"... the ideal title is:

• Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
• Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
• Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
• Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)

(end Quote)

In the Tobin tax article, we have a conflict between the above first two items and the last two items: "Recognizable" and “easy to find” are conflicting with “precise” and “concise.”

This is occurring because the term “Tobin tax” means different things to different people in society. Some people in society view the Tobin tax as a “currency transaction tax,” whereas some people view it as a more general “financial transaction tax.”

Policy 2

This Wikipedia policy outlines the “No original research” guideline. It should be used as a guideline to help editors reflect the views of society on the Tobin tax (as opposed to the views of Wikipedia editors). This means reflecting all the views, and not just some. This means that we must reflect the fact that some people in society view the Tobin tax as a “currency transaction tax,” whereas some people view it as a more general “financial transaction tax.”

Policy 3

This Wikipedia policy gives ideas on how to format evaluations of a given topic. This will help us with the “Debate” section. In order to reflect Wikpedia policy, I propose that we change the name of the “Debate” section to “Evaluation”

Some people in society view the Tobin tax as a “currency transaction tax,” whereas some people view it as a more general “financial transaction tax.” Therefore I propose that we create two sections:

• Evaluation of the Tobin tax specifically as a currency transaction tax (CTT)

• Evaluation of the Tobin tax as a general financial transaction tax (FTT)

Other helpful policies

Here are some other Wikipedia polices which will help with the Tobin tax article:

This Wikipedia policy cautions against “threads of conversation”

This Wikipedia policy cautions against “pros and cons lists”

This Wikipedia policy discusses words that may advance a point of view

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of section heading

Keynes developed his transaction tax in 1936, 18 years after Tobin was born. Therefore the Keynes transaction tax did not come “before Tobin” as the previous section heading suggests. Rather the Keynes transaction tax came before the Tobin “tax on foreign exchange transactions”

Also, Tobin used the words “tax on foreign exchange transactions” to describe his idea. That phrase is more specific and accurate than simply using the word "Tobin."

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reason for removal of Keynes personal life info

Note to the person who added info about Keynes personal life:

Not myself, but a different editor, cautioned us about the length of this article. (see this edit)... This Wikipedia policy on article size states that if an article is too long then some personal computers experience technical difficulty in opening it. That's why editors should be aware of "priorities of relevance" even in footnotes. I propose that information about Keynes personal life is not relevant enough to the Tobin tax to be included. I suggest that this content would be more appropriate in a different article in Wikipedia, perhaps in the article on Keynes himself.Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Should there be two separate independent headings for the evaluations of FTT and CTT?

(Acronyms explained: "Financial Transaction Tax" is FTT and "Currency Transaction Tax" is CTT)

Should there be two separate independent headings for the evaluations of FTT and CTT even though CTT is a subset of FTT?

I propose that there should be two separate independent headings.

Wikipedia policies used in the below rationale

The Wikipedia policy on Article titles has the following quote: "This guidance also applies to Section headings."

That Wikipedia policy on Article titles also contains the following quote:

"Article titles should conform to Wikipedia's naming conventions"

The Wikipedia policy on naming conventions contains the following quote in the section on "deciding on a name":

"the ideal title is ....precise"

Rationale

In the article on "Financial transaction taxes" you will notice that there is a section which lists all the types of "Financial Transaction taxes." Among those types of Financial Transaction Taxes are Currency transaction taxes such as the Tobin tax.

The hierarchy from that article is shown in the following diagram:

MAIN CATEGORY: Different Types of Financial Transaction Tax

• Currency Transaction tax:

• • Tobin tax

• • Spahn tax

• Stamp Duty Reserve Tax

• Swedish

• Peruvian

Unlike the above diagram, this article is about the "Tobin tax." It is not about "Financial Transaction Taxes."

Therefore the concept of "subset" is applied to the Tobin tax as follows:

MAIN CATEGORY: Different "Interpretations" or "Types" of Tobin tax:

• Interpretation one - Financial transaction tax

• Interpretation two - Currency transaction tax

Different parts of society have adopted different interpretations of a "Financial Transaction tax." In the same way, different parts of society have adopted different interpretations of a "Tobin tax." Just as we categorize the different interpretations of "Financial Transaction Tax," we should also likewise categorize the different interpretations of "Tobin tax." After we do so, the complete diagram looks like this:

MAIN CATEGORY: Different Types of Financial Transaction Tax

• Currency Transaction tax:

• • Tobin tax:

• • • Interpretation one - Financial transaction tax (evaluation as such)

• • • Interpretation two - Currency transaction tax (evaluation as such)

• • Spahn tax

• Stamp Duty Reserve Tax

• Swedish

• Peruvian

In response to the above, one might ask, "Then why not create two separate articles?

For example: The first article could be called "Tobin tax (FTT)," and the second article would be "Tobin tax (CTT)."

Answer:

The Wikipedia policy on Naming conventions, and deciding on an article name has this quote:

Begin Quote:

"... the ideal title is:

• Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for :the topic of the article.
• Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to :which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
• Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the :article unambiguously.
• Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that :part brief.)

(end Quote)

In the Tobin tax article, we have a conflict between the above first two items and the last two items: "Recognizable" and “easy to find” are conflicting with “precise” and “concise.”

This is occurring because the term “Tobin tax” means different things to different people in society. Some people in society view the Tobin tax as a “currency transaction tax,” whereas some people view it as a more general “financial transaction tax.”

In an ideal world we would never be this confusing. But as is the case with all eponyms, there is a historically recurrent lack of clarity concerning eponyms. This is explained in the section called, The lack of clarity over the definition of the Tobin tax. Please take a moment to read it. Thank you.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation as the primary concern when establishing section hierarchy

If the "evaluation" of different types of taxes is more important than their "subset classification," then clarity is better served to organize sections according to their "evaluation" instead of their "subset classification." A reader looking for a tax that functions properly would then find it more quickly. With evaluation as being the primary concern for establishing hierarchy of sections, then below is a diagram showing that priority:

MAIN CATEGORY: Tobin tax:

• History

• Projects

• Evaluation:

• • Evaluation of Interpretation one - Financial transaction tax

• • Evaluation of Interpretation two - Currency transaction tax

The above hierarchy is fine with me.....except it has a technical problem: At present we have three levels of hierarchy. If we create a fourth, then the font in the lower levels of hierarchy become indistinguishable from each other, and it becomes difficult for the reader to navigate. (especially on such a long page).

Additional Rationale: Can an attribute be applied to everything within its section?

Consider the section entitled "Is there an optimum tax rate?" Can its answer, as "a descriptive attribute" of everything within its parent section, be applied to everything within its parent section? If not, then clarity and precision is not best served with that hierarchy.

Here is a detailed explanation: Let us refer to the answer to the question "Is there an optimum tax rate?" as "descriptive attribute 'A'"

If the evaluation is unbias, then, in our section hierarchy, we must allow for possiblity that the answer to the question in that heading may be "no" for FTT, but "yes" for CTT.

Therefore "A" may be an attribute of one but not the other.

We must allow for the possibility that "A" is not an attribute of both FTT and CTT.

That is why FTT and CTT must be in two separate sections which are completely independent of each other.

That remains true regardless of whether or not CTT is a subset of FTT.

Extension of the above rationale

The above rationale is true not only for "attribute A" but it is also extended to other evaluative questions. Perhaps that rationale cannot be extended to all evaluative questions, but it can be extended to enough evaluative questions so that clarity is best served when the two sections FTT and CTT are separate.

Clarity is a part of the "precision" which is described in the Wikipedia policy on "deciding on a name"

Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In the financial world, "Tobin tax" and "Financial Transaction Tax" are used interchangeably; they generally mean the same thing. Of course, Tobin's original idea was specific to currency transactions, but when someone says "Tobin tax" today they usually mean "financial transaction tax", probably because anyone that likes the idea of a currency transaction tax also favours transaction taxes on a broader group of financial transactions(except Tobin himself?). In fact, I don't think I have heard ANYONE arguing for a currency transaction tax that doesn't also favour a more general financial transaction tax, even if such proposals do not include every financial transaction (regular bank transactions (transfers etc) are probably exempted, government bond transactions also exempted due to government's need for liquid bond markets to finance their own debts at the lowest possible borrowing cost).

Benwm (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Benwm:

Thank you for your interest in this important article. Two heads are always better than one.

You mentioned that "I don't think I have heard ANYONE arguing for a currency transaction tax that doesn't also favour a more general financial transaction tax"

With all due respect, I must remind you that just because you haven't heard of anyone like that, doesn't mean that there is no one like that. (See Argument from ignorance)

Also, regardless of whether or not there is anyone like that, it is still important to make distinctions and clear definitions: Without a consistent and clearly defined definition of what the Tobin tax actually is, it then becomes impossible to use the scientific method and economic impact analysis to evaluate the Tobin tax.

You will find that large numbers of people are very concerned that the currency transaction tax is put place without any other financial transaction taxes put in place. For example, consider this quote and see its source: "The tax is designed to help stabilize exchange rates by reducing the volume of speculation. And it is set deliberately low so as not to have an adverse effect on trade in goods and services or long-term investments."source (Click here to see those words in this section of the article.)

The distinction between currency transaction taxes and other financial transaction taxes is further explained in the section called, The lack of clarity over the definition of the Tobin tax. Please take a moment to read it. Thank you.

Without a consistent and clearly defined definition of what the Tobin tax actually is, it then becomes impossible to use the scientific method and economic impact analysis to evaluate the Tobin tax. In order to clarify this, Spratt divided his work into two sections:

• Evaluation of the Tobin tax specifically as a currency transaction tax (CTT) source

• Evaluation of the Tobin tax as a general financial transaction tax (FTT)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Boyd. I take on board your points. But I wonder what makes currency transactions a special case from other financial transactions. Should there therefore be a separate page for equity transaction taxes, housing transaction taxes, bond transaction taxes, commodity transaction taxes, mortgage transaction taxes, bank account transaction taxes, options transaction taxes, futures transaction taxes, derivatives transaction taxes,etc? Every one of these is type a financial transaction tax. The list is endless if you want to break down all of the different possibilities for financial transaction taxes, I am not sure what makes 'currency transactions' unique from other types of financial transactions, aside from the fact that Tobin's original idea was specific to currency transactions. Perhaps this is relevant. From a practical point of view though, it might be better to have a single page for financial transaction taxes that encompasses all of the relevant information and experiences with financial transaction taxes. It would be interesting to hear other editors opinions on this matter.

Benwm (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Benwm:

Wikipedia policy has no minimum size for articles: This Wikipedia article section on stub articles contains this quote: "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion." :So I suppose that yes, there could conceivably be an article on all of those types of taxes you mentioned. Please read Wikipedia:Stub for more guidance on that.

As you can see, there is already a substantial article on Currency transaction taxes and its sub categories, such as Spahn tax etc.

The reason for a separate section within "Tobin tax" that has the distinct heading Evaluating_the_Tobin_tax_specifically_as_a_Currency_Transaction_Tax is because of this discussion on society's mixed definitions of Tobin tax, and the resulting confusion that occurs when we try to evaluate each of those many definitions. Please read all these links. Thanks.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another point: Let's analyze your list of financial transaction taxes: "equity transaction taxes, housing transaction taxes, bond transaction taxes, commodity transaction taxes, mortgage transaction taxes, bank account transaction taxes, options transaction taxes, futures transaction taxes, derivatives transaction taxes."

In the present article on financial transaction tax, the second [defining] sentence reads as follows: "This term has been most commonly associated with the financial sector, as opposed to consumption taxes paid by consumers." Consumption taxes are for goods and services. I suggest that we should remove "bank accounts" from your list because it is a service. Also, I suggest we remove "housing" from your list because it is a "goods." Neither is associated with the financial sector.

Mortgages are financial transactions and are essentially already effectively taxed in many jurisdictions with Land Transfer taxes.

Also in your list, I should point out another distinction: Commodities trading would fall under the category of "financial transaction tax," but would not fall under the category of "currency transaction tax" because commodities are not the same as currencies. Here is one of the differences (among others): commodities are "goods," whereas currencies are not "goods."

Wikipedia already has a section on "kinds of taxes."

Subcategorization and clarity are Wikipedia policy (along with precise headings). (See above links to those polices.)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect Boyd, your logic is muddled. Are you not a consumer, when as an individual you seek the services of a bank or a firm or individual employed in the financial sector? Please tell me makes bank account transactions different from any other financial transactions? We are all consumers of the financial sector, as you know. And how can you say that housing is not associated with the financial sector? The housing crisis is inextricably linked with the financial crisis, mortgage lending is a central arm of most bank's activity. Most of us cannot purchase a home without being 100% reliant on the financial sector when we seek out a mortgage to finance the transaction.

And whilst commodities delivered here and now are goods, the same cannot be said for commodity futures, which are used by farmers to hedge their financial risks. The only difference being that one is purchased today (spot) and the other is purchased tomorrow (future).

There is also not such a rigid separation between commodities such as Gold, and currencies. For many, Gold is considered to be a de-facto currency, the ultimate store of value. An excellent book on this subject is "The Goldwatcher, Demystifying Gold Investing", by John Katz & Frank Holmes. In truth, the distinction between unbacked fiat (paper) currencies and Gold backed currencies (100% convertible into Gold) is blurred. It is is only in recent economic times that currencies have NOT had received the full backing of Gold, which is perhaps why you consider there to be such a distinction. Indeed, some argue that many of the modern economic problems began in 1971 when US President Nixon took the US dollar off the gold standard.

Benwm (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

General Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) or specific Currency Transaction Tax (CTT)?

See also: Financial transaction tax and Currency transaction tax

The term "Tobin tax" has sometimes been used interchangeably with the idea of a general financial transaction tax (FTT). Other times it has been used interchangeably with the idea of a specific currency transaction tax (CTT). here and here and here A look at history helps us understand this ambiguity:

The concept of a general financial transaction tax did not originate with Tobin: In 1936, John Maynard Keynes proposed that a transaction tax should be levied on dealings on Wall Street, where he argued that excessive speculation by uninformed financial traders increased volatility. For Keynes (who was himself a speculator) the key issue was the proportion of ‘speculators’ in the market, and his concern that, if left unchecked, these types of players would become too dominant. Keynes writes:

"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the situation is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation."

"The introduction of a substantial government transfer tax on all transactions might prove the most serviceable reform available, with a view to mitigating the predominance of speculation over enterprise in the United States."

In 1971, Tobin transferred Keynes' idea to exchange markets, as we see in this 2001 quote from Tobin:

"I am a disciple of Keynes, and he, in his famous chapter XII of the General Theory on Employment Interest and Money, had already prescribed a tax on transactions, with the aim of linking investors to their actions in a lasting fashion. In 1971 I transferred this idea to exchange markets."source

Today, there are examples of the term "Tobin tax" being used interchangeably with both a "financial transaction tax" (FTT), and also a "currency transaction tax" (CTT), as we see in these quotes:

An example of the term "Tobin tax" being used interchangeably with the idea of a general "financial transaction tax" is shown in the following media description of a 2009 European Union summit:

European Union leaders urged the International Monetary Fund on Friday to consider a global tax on financial transactions in spite of opposition from the US and doubts at the IMF itself. In a communiqué issued after a two-day summit, the EU’s 27 national leaders stopped short of making a formal appeal for the introduction of a so-called “Tobin tax” but made clear they regarded it as a potentially useful revenue-raising instrument.

On the other hand, an example of "Tobin tax" being used interchangeably with "currency transaction tax" is shown in the following excerpt from a 2001 publication:

"The concept of a Tobin tax has experienced a resurgence in the discussion on reforming the international financial system. In addition to many legislative initiatives in favour of the Tobin tax in national parliaments, possible ways to introduce a Tobin-style currency transaction tax (CTT) are being scrutinised by the United Nations...."source

The scope of a "currency transaction tax" focuses specifically on currency, whereas the scope of a "financial transaction tax" refers to all aspects of of finance in general. Therefore the evaluations of those two will likewise have two different breadths of scope. This difference was recognized by Stephen Spratt in his writings where he indicates that a currency transaction tax is a subset of financial transaction taxes in terms of scope. This difference in "breadth of scope" is also described by Linda McQuaig when she refers to both "the Tobin tax – or its ... broader version, the financial transaction tax" source

Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)