In the wake of the financial crisis, one idea that gained currency was to impose a tax on transactions. Typically, these proposals called for a 0.25 percent tax on the value of the shares purchased. A $100 stock would carry a tax of 25 cents. That doesn't sound like much, but it would add up fast, especially for high-frequency traders.

Wall Street fought the idea bitterly, and successfully. Domestically, the idea seems dead. Proposals in Congress never made it very far. And in the current climate, any sort of new tax seems dead on arrival.

The industry is emboldened in Washington and ready to pounce on anything that smells fishy to it. Or would it? A Bloomberg opinion piece isn't quite ready to give up on the idea of a tax. "What would new taxes on Wall Street discourage? High-frequency trading and over-leverage. Hmm. They just might be the rare taxes that the public would support."

What do you think? Would this fly with the public? A recent IMF report notes that a global transaction tax was feasible but wouldn't get to the root causes of the financial crisis.

But the more direct solutions seem just as unpalatable to Wall Street. "These include demanding higher margin and collateral. Or taxing debt on the balance sheet, which would encourage companies to sell shares to pay down debt," notes Bloomberg. "Or limiting the deductibility of corporate interest payments so companies are no longer encouraged to load up on debt."

So, it's increasingly likely that the only sort of solution that has any chance may be a market structure solution. The SEC is taking a long hard look at this now, and the stakes seem to go higher every year.

For more:
- here's the column

Related Articles:
Transaction cost analysis goes to the next level
Time to tax high-frequency trades?
SEC to launch new Flash Crash-inspired rules
A securities transaction tax, for real?