Forget about friction: how much money would this really bring in? Some time ago I read that Switzerland instituted a stock market transaction tax ... and their market quickly lost a very large fraction of its business. US based multi-nationals would e.g. follow all those oil services companies that have moved their headquarters outside of the country (curiously, to Switzerland (and note that this happened before the BP spill)).
Obviously there would be a mass exodus out of instruments that are taxed in this way. People and companies would game the system like mad, descend upon D.C. for exceptions for their "critical" industries, etc. etc.
And destroying or chasing out of the country a large fraction of the US financial sector---which all too many people unwisely desire---could easily result in a net loss to the government, especially when you count secondary effects like a decreased ability to raise capital and vastly less efficient capital markets.
My favorite not so quick fix is the government selling off a very large fraction of the land it owns. What's the compelling reason for it owning this much of these top ten states I just randomly found on the net:
Obviously there would be a mass exodus out of instruments that are taxed in this way. People and companies would game the system like mad, descend upon D.C. for exceptions for their "critical" industries, etc. etc.
And destroying or chasing out of the country a large fraction of the US financial sector---which all too many people unwisely desire---could easily result in a net loss to the government, especially when you count secondary effects like a decreased ability to raise capital and vastly less efficient capital markets.
My favorite not so quick fix is the government selling off a very large fraction of the land it owns. What's the compelling reason for it owning this much of these top ten states I just randomly found on the net: