World Leaders Push for Global Transaction Tax, a Massive Transfer of Wealth

Promoted to control stability and reduce risk, a “Tobin tax” would actually fund world government and plunder taxpayers

by Rick Brinegar


Since 1972, when Nobel laureate economist James Tobin came up with the idea of a tax on currency speculation, consideration of the “Tobin tax” concept has come and gone several times. Since the recent financial crisis, however, several governments have urged support for a global transaction tax to reduce instability, create a fund for rescuing failing banks, and pay for fighting climate change. Many opponents, on the other hand, see a global transaction tax as hurting everyone who invests, passing costs down to the taxpayer, gravely wounding the financial markets, and plundering the taxpayers into servitude to the private banks owned by the globalists.


British Prime Minister Gordon Brown originally proposed the idea of an international levy on financial transactions at a November 7, 2009 meeting of G20 finance ministers in St. Andrews, Scotland. The global transaction tax idea would mean that all major financial centers would have to pass a similar transaction tax to avoid making one country’s stock exchange disadvantaged. No matter where a person wanted to buy stock, for example, they would have to pay the new tax.


The transaction tax on banks, experts believe, is necessary to discourage them from involvement in risky trading practices, making them more accountable to the taxpayer. On January 25, 2010, Brown claimed that the British reform agenda proposals are “gaining traction” around the world. Emphasizing social responsibility, Brown said,


“I think the proposals that I made at St Andrews for an international levy … are now gaining currency around the world. I think you will probably see further moves to get an international agreement about some international levy to deal with the responsibility banks owe to society.”


Brown’s proposal is similar to a deposit-insurance plan. Fees collected would be placed in a fund. In the future, banks that need state support to survive would draw from that fund. The G-20 governments are committed to determine “how the financial sector could make a fair and substantial contribution…associated with government interventions to repair the banking system.”


Recently, at a weekly press briefing, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi commented on the American version of the financial transactions tax bill (HR4191), currently before Congress. She endorsed the idea of a global tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying that the billions from such a tax could be used to help fund stimulus spending. Pelosi emphasized the need for the transaction tax to be global, saying,


“I believe that the transaction tax still has a great deal of merit. The concern that many of us or others have had is that it will send transactions overseas. … The fact is, what we are talking about is a global transaction [tax], something that we would do in conjunction with other G nations, whether it is G8, G20, whatever the current G number is. Because it is really a source of revenue that has really minimal impact on the transaction, but a tremendous impact on helping us meet our needs. I think there would be a market for it among the American people to say that we are all participating in the economic prosperity of our country, and we are all pitching in to continue that prosperity.”


As Britain continued to push for the global tax, there were concerns that the US would act alone. In fact, the United States may be the main obstacle to the so-called “Tobin tax.” On January 14, 2010, United States President Barack Obama proposed levying a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on top US Banks to raise 90 billion dollars in ten years. His goal: recoup “every single dime” of the Wall Street bailout. This was seen as the biggest Wall Street shakeup since the Glass Steagall reforms after the Great Depression. However, as recently as October 2009, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that imposing a global financial transactions tax to pay for the cost of future banking crises “is not something we’re prepared to support.” One US Treasury official commented that the President’s plans “address specific problems in the US, where there are large investment banks. They [international transaction levies] would not be appropriate here.” Chancellor of the Exchequer Darling, of Great Britain, is skeptical of Obama’s banking reform plans. He believes they would not have prevented the crisis, and warns that the American reforms risk undermining the global consensus.


Since Wall Street is largely blamed for the recent financial crisis, the global transactions tax has been promoted as a way to make Wall Street pay for the current economic mess. The bill introduced in the US Congress has been actually nicknamed the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act.”


The estimated revenue from a global transaction tax is impressive. Currency trading is a huge, volatile market, and currency speculators trade over 1.8 trillion dollars each day internationally. A global transaction tax would collect 10 to 25 cents per hundred dollars, generating $100 to $300 billion per year. One anticipated use of this revenue is redistribution of wealth to poorer countries.


A United Nations Development Program report from 1994 states,


“We must seek a new role for the United Nations so that it can begin to meet humanity’s agenda not only for peace but also for development.”


“There must be a ‘New World Social Charter’ where the world will redistribute wealth as it cannot survive one-quarter rich and three-quarters poor, and where the UN must become the principal custodian of global human security and help with basic education, healthcare, immunization, and family planning.”


“Global taxation may become necessary in any case to achieve the goals of global human security. Some of the promising new sources include tradable permits for global pollution, a global tax on non-renewable energy, demilitarization funds and a small transaction tax on speculative international movements of foreign exchange funds.”


We can’t naively assume that Wall Street will bear the burden of the presumed $150 billion tax. The global transaction tax, like most business taxes, would simply be added to the cost of business, passing the cost down and increasing the burden of all investors, including anyone with a retirement plan or mutual fund. A “Dear Colleague” letter, signed by house Democrats, says that a tax on transactions “would affect every single person who owns and invests in stocks from small business owners to senior citizens.” Professor Simon Johnson of MIT has said that the “financial transaction tax is more of a tax on regular people like you and me.” According to The Wall Street Journal, “It is hard to imagine a piece of legislation that would have more damaging unintended consequences.”


A similar proposal was pushed in Copenhagen under the guise of fighting global warming. The final Copenhagen draft agreement would have prepared the way for the biggest tax hike in human history. But the global transaction tax didn’t go away. The International Monetary fund is due to publish a report about the feasibility of a “global financial transaction levy” in April. The report will outline what the IMF considers to be the best way to tax financial institutions as they trade internationally. Many see this as a ploy to bankroll the system of world government that Brown, the EU and IMF have always wanted.


Companies are not allowed to get together to fix prices. It is considered to be an anti-trust violation. But when countries get away with conspiring to set the tax rates of other countries, it is called “international cooperation.” The last time British politicians saw it as their business to determine American tax policy, we all know what happened. It may take a similar, but, hopefully, peaceful revolution to prevent the power to tax from slipping away from our elected representatives into the jurisdiction of foreign politicians.


The financial crisis and global warming scare were openly exploited by globalists in 2009, to accelerate their grasp for control over the whole world. EU President Van Rompuy declared that the Copenhagen conference was, “The first step toward global management of our planet.” Al Gore said that CO2 emissions control would be driven through “global governance and global agreements.” While failing to enact the entire global government agenda, the Copenhagen agreement laid the foundation for the introduction of the global transaction tax, now vigorously promoted by several governments including Canada, Britain, France and Germany. This is a critical time in modern history, as we must determine how to respond to the advance of tyranny, as foretold in the Bible, during the final days of human government on earth.