> I mean, there is no reason for Company X to move their trading to another country as the (non-hedgefound) owners of it do not gain anything from it I imagine

> I mean, there is no reason for Company X to move their trading to another country as the (non-hedgefound) owners of it do not gain anything from it I imagine the tax would be assessed according to the location of the exchange where the trade occurred, not based on the location of the corporate entity. Relocating to a different region would not affect the tax obligation in this case. > the financial industry does not create any value through high volume trading, so while there is much to gain for the individual, for us as a society there is nothing positive about it at the risk of higher volatility and rapid market reactions While the financial sector indisputably creates a large amount of value for the economy, a substantial portion of it is reliant on the ability to trade assets with as minimal friction (i.e. time spent seeking a counterparty, the cost of such a search, and the expense involved in transferring the assets) as possible. High volume traders ensure that liquidity is more available in the market. These traders avoid speculating on the long term value of the asset, as they profit from the bid/ask spread (the price to buy or sell the asset). Ideally, this is as small as possible, which is beneficial to the end users of the asset. With smaller spreads, these traders need to perform more transactions to remain profitable. In general, we'd like markets to incorporate any material information into the price of assets as quickly as possible, since markets are a mechanism for determining value and associated risk of products. This only occurs if trades actually occur, and there are very rarely buyers and sellers meeting at identical times. Market makers stand in the middle ready to ease this friction by acting as counterparty on both sides. Their role ensures liquidity in the market, which helps minimize the impact of any individual trade. By providing liquidity, these high volume traders generally help reduce market volatility. Ignoring the previous two paragraphs, one can simply ask, "Why do these entities exist if they add no value? Why would financially sophisticated end users tolerate unnecessary leeches on their profit margins?" > why should I as someone with 100 GE or EADS shares be against a FTT? As an individual, you likely purchased those shares through you brokerage for a relatively small commission, which you observed, plus the bid/ask spread, which you likely did not observe. If GE's mid-price is $100, its stock may be trading at $90/$110 or $99.99/$100.01. Clearly you, the individual, benefit from the latter pricing versus the former. A financial transaction tax of 0.1% would simply widen $99.99/100.01 to $99.89/$100.11. I assume you may invest your savings or retirement fund in mutual funds, which charge fees on the order of 0.1% to 0.2%. Due to their need to rebalance their holdings frequently, the fee they assess to you will increase, likely by more than the FTT. Additionally, you, as an individual investor, benefit from the ability of companies to issue dividends and bonds to fund them. The risks (like interest rate fluctuations) to a company taking such actions are often mitigated by derivatives where the bid/ask spread can be as small as 0.002%. A FTT of 0.01% on these transactions would be 5 times the possible profit on these transactions, removing any incentive, or at a minimum increasing the cost, of making them at all.