ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY

Joint determination in Europe?

The Euro countries living in a state of insolvency, whose leaders increasingly succeed in sacrificing even law and order to the decline of the Euro, have now created a surprising island of co-determination in the midst of the dictatorship of the financial markets: The transaction tax. At least it could be seen as such, and there are certainly government leaders who believe that, but in the eternal cover-up of the actual value of the Euro, and about how much all Euro countries are bankrupt, this tax can only be another parlour trick – which it undoubtedly is.
Even the recommendation of such a tax by the EU Commission must cause scepticism, first the negotiations over the official introduction, which lasted a whole year, then the rationale of the introduction, which is supposed to be: Calming of the market. In addition, the tax is old hat, it exists already in at least ten countries, but is simply called something else, or has no name. Now it has an official European name, and Finance Minister Schäuble cherishes it “in order to curb speculation on Europe’s capital markets”, and we can guess who will pay for these taxes in the debt union of Euro-Europe – the ordinary citizen, whose pension has suffered under the Riester regulations, because pensions also count as financial investments, and are also taxed as such. Neither the insurer nor the fund manager nor the fund company pay the taxes, so the only one to suffer is – the investor himself. But to take it in order: The tax is to be levied on all bank transactions of a European Bank, from stock exchange trading to the direct transfer of funds (although contractually agreed foreign exchange transactions on the so-called spot market remain unaffected as well as the initial issue of shares). This all benefits the country from which the transaction originates: it earns 0.1% on the shares or bonds market; 0.01% on foreign exchange transactions. Since financial services in Europe are exempt from VAT, these tiny percentages are hardly likely to come into the balance or bother the financial predators of the Euro league. They remain a kind of outlet for the crisis, for the monetarily wrecked future of Europe.
Ultimately we must even ask the question of whether this tax is not even to a sort of blackmail, because due the fixed prices which are bound to specific goods, speculation can abound, speculation on oil, food, everything that is traded in a particular market (or segment). The buyers, who are dependent on the goods, must pay the prices demanded, and these rise and fall according to the mood and the greed of the supplier for a high return. And that means: The markets are not calmed, but unsettled, and the investor ends up having to pay for it.
No wonder therefore that there are Governments that do not long so much for this type of trading, and even reject it, such as the Sweden do, the Dutch do, and especially the British do. The foolish thing above all is: The British have created a very effective financial market in their attractive London, which has existed for a hundred years, and will certainly not disappear very quickly, and have little trust in this tax, because it does not regulate the market, it does not calm the market, but only softens it. And all praise the Governments and advocates of the transaction tax will backfire, such as the new Banking Act, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1994, conjuring up the financial crisis and the crisis of the Euro. All this can only mean: Germany must oppose this transaction tax with all its strength. The uncertain regulation of the market by itself, from which the state also makes money, corresponds to the next step in exacerbating the crisis of the Euro, reducing the value of the Euro and increasing the debt of all Euro countries to immeasurable levels – a mistake which scientists and economists will be able to confirm with numbers in ten years, but by then it will be late – unfortunately.