I have no idea how anyone is disagreeing with you. Looking it up in the dictionary, government imposed fees are absolutely taxes.

Sure its a tax, but its not paid from "general funds that every taxpayer contributes.

We could call postage for the usps a tax too, but nobody thinks of it that way.

Eh, that's kind of moot since most "tax payers" have no idea where there money actually goes and money is fungible. Do it implies that tax payers only care about part of their money. What is actually accomplished if we don't see the link? Of course there are all sorts of ways to hide taxes from the end payer, such as gas tax. If someone is looking to reduce taxes, then they must also look for the hidden ones. Continuing to think of tax payers as only the general fund contributors only allows the deception to persist.

Sure, but what's the end game?

Arguably, the will of the people (not the corporations) is to lower individual taxation—working class joe schmo isn't upset that companies and the wealthy have to deal with the SEC, he's upset about the income tax that he personally pays.

Ok, so, maybe you argue removing this tax will indirectly help jo schmo because corporations, banks, stockbrokers, hedge funds, and their leadership are such nice fellows who, given some extra cash flow always let it funnel back to the economy and ultimately to the actual workers and producers in the economy, who, after all, sweat for them and deserve a living wage, right?

I don't see how this form of cut and deregulation is supposed to help the majority of people unless you believe in trickle down style economics, an idea based on the moral rectitude and good will of the wealthy, which, at this point I think you have to be a complete and utter fool to believe in. Part of the entire reason the SEC exists is precisely because you cannot rely on the individual morals of financiers to protect the country from financial exploitation and overall collapse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecora_Commission

If this is a "tax" it's one of the few taxes we actually have on the rich and on corporations, and any reductions stand to make them even more untrammeled and powerful. It's a mistake to assume this will have any positive material benefit on the average citizen.

I'm not sure how you think this is a tax only on the rich and the corporations. Many middle class people have 401ks, IRAs, 529s, and brokerage accounts. These must be held at SEC institutions, and their fees are part of the cost. I'm not saying the SEC should be reduced, as I don't know if they have a surplus. But I am saying if you want to reduce taxes, this is still something that is a tax and can be looked into for efficiencies.

Are you ignoring context for some pretense, or do you not understand that statements have contextual meanings?

Its a Tarif!

...although, by this logic, so is the entire financial system.

How so? Not everything is a government imposed fee. If it was, then there would be no way to transfer money if the entire system was a tax as all the value would go towards the tax leaving none to transfer for goods or services.

The parent post is making the point that a transaction fee is literally a tax. The financial sector is nothing but transaction fees. Their whole revenue model is interspersing themselves into the mechanics of moving money between a buyer and a seller, and charging a cut for it. A world where everyone pays cash for everything, or even has a centralized ledger where balances are credited and debited by the government, or a decentralized ledger on a blockchain where the same happens, has no transaction fees and no financial sector.

They do perform a service for the transaction fees they charge, but then, so does the government.

It's often the government that makes you use the financial system.