Robin Hoood Tax

[hibsbollah]

Seems a good idea:thumbsup:
http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/ (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/)

[Bookkeeper]

:thumbsup: Hard to argue with it, but who would bring in such a tax? Government (of any persuasion) ceased to be for the people a long time ago. They're the government for big business now.

[IndieHibby]

Isn't tax meant to be fair and proportionate? How are you going to decide which 'Bankers' should be taxed? The one's that earn more than £x? Isn't that what the 50p rate is for?

Reactionary, populist nonsense, imo :greengrin. No offence.

BTW:

Does it bother anyone else that they (whomever they are) are justifying the tax by claiming it could be use to pay for fighting climate change?

You can't stop the climate changing!

Ah heck... If you can't beat them, join them.

Please donate to my new website:

www.thesunmustbepreventedfromrising.org.uk (http://www.thesunmustbepreventedfromrising.org.uk)

You cannot argue that the sun is causing the climate to warm/change every day. You do? DENIER!!! DENIER!! Burn him at the stake! etc :blah:

[Bookkeeper]

Isn't tax meant to be fair and proportionate? How are you going to decide which 'Bankers' should be taxed? The one's that earn more than £x? Isn't that what the 50p rate is for?

Reactionary, populist nonsense, imo :greengrin. No offence.

BTW:

Does it bother anyone else that they (whomever they are) are justifying the tax by claiming it could be use to pay for fighting climate change?

You can't stop the climate changing!

Ah heck... If you can't beat them, join them.

Please donate to my new website:

www.thesunmustbepreventedfromrising.org.uk (http://www.thesunmustbepreventedfromrising.org.uk)

You cannot argue that the sun is causing the climate to warm/change every day. You do? DENIER!!! DENIER!! Burn him at the stake! etc :blah:


I understood it to be a tax on transactions not involving personal banking and not a tax on individual bankers.

What is "populist nonsense"? A democratic government is meant to represent the wishes of the majority of the population, hopefully for the greater good. Sometimes we have to rely on them to curb our baser instincts (ie regarding hanging) but I can't see why this is nonsense. Why should our government protect the elitist banking 'industry' at the expense of attempting to alleviate poverty, hunger, ill health etc either here or elsewhere.

On climate change - i'm with you. Load of cobblers thats got only anecdotal evidence and no real proof. Yet another case of the few lining their pockets at the expense of the many.

[hibsdaft]

Isn't tax meant to be fair and proportionate? How are you going to decide which 'Bankers' should be taxed? The one's that earn more than £x? Isn't that what the 50p rate is for?

Reactionary, populist nonsense, imo :greengrin. No offence.

read it again. but properly this time :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Isn't tax meant to be fair and proportionate? How are you going to decide which 'Bankers' should be taxed? The one's that earn more than £x? Isn't that what the 50p rate is for?

Reactionary, populist nonsense, imo :greengrin. No offence.

BTW:

Does it bother anyone else that they (whomever they are) are justifying the tax by claiming it could be use to pay for fighting climate change?

You can't stop the climate changing!

Ah heck... If you can't beat them, join them.

Please donate to my new website:

www.thesunmustbepreventedfromrising.org.uk (http://www.thesunmustbepreventedfromrising.org.uk)

You cannot argue that the sun is causing the climate to warm/change every day. You do? DENIER!!! DENIER!! Burn him at the stake! etc :blah:

i dont think you even read it:greengrin

[Beefster]

Seems a good idea:thumbsup:
http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/ (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/)

Everyone loves the idea of higher taxes if it doesn't involve them having to pay any more.

I'd believe it was all for the greater good if it wasn't piggybacking on the current demonisation of bankers and if the charities and unions involved weren't wasting millions every day.

[hibsbollah]

Everyone loves the idea of higher taxes if it doesn't involve them having to pay any more.

I'd believe it was all for the greater good if it wasn't piggybacking on the current demonisation of bankers and if the charities and unions involved weren't wasting millions every day.

Interesting...I'd say that bankers have had a very easy ride by the media and politicans for bringing the economy to its knees. It was perhpas lucky for them that the politicians expenses scandal erupted when it did, as it took the spotlight off them for a bit.

[Barney McGrew]

Everyone loves the idea of higher taxes if it doesn't involve them having to pay any more.

I'd believe it was all for the greater good if it wasn't piggybacking on the current demonisation of bankers and if the charities and unions involved weren't wasting millions every day.

:agree:

And if any government was to bring in such a tax, all that would happen would be that the banks would recoup the money in a different way.

[Beefster]

Interesting...I'd say that bankers have had a very easy ride by the media and politicans for bringing the economy to its knees. It was perhpas lucky for them that the politicians expenses scandal erupted when it did, as it took the spotlight off them for a bit.

It's way off-topic but the bankers were far from the only factor in didn't bring the economy to its knees, despite what the press would have you believe.

The over-heated housing market (which you, I and millions of other non-bankers are just as responsible for - although I blame Sarah Beeney for it), the fact that manufacturing has declined so much in this country meaning that we are utterly dependent on financial services and the astronomical personal debt of a lot of folk were big factors too.

Some folk will blame bankers for the overheated housing market and high personal debt but that just absolves the individuals affected of any personal responsibility.

PS I don't want to get into a protracted debate on the reasons for the recession and I'm not absolving what some rich ********s did - just trying to point out that the politicians/press needed a group to demonise. It's easier all round to have someone to blame, especially when they weren't particularly liked in the first place.

[CropleyWasGod]

:agree:

And if any government was to bring in such a tax, all that would happen would be that the banks would recoup the money in a different way.

Agree with that.

It's also worth saying that it's good for our economy when our banks (banks, not bankers) are making lots of money.

[ancient hibee]

Absolute guff.Who would this money be paid to?The"government"?And they would do what with it?They would do good.Aye right.

[Bishop Hibee]

Agree with that.

It's also worth saying that it's good for our economy when our banks (banks, not bankers) are making lots of money.

And it costs our government billions to bail them out when the banks muck up while the bankers roll on their merry way raking in the bonuses unhindered.

Just do away with democracy and let private business run things, they'll see us right :rolleyes:

[Bookkeeper]

Absolute guff.Who would this money be paid to?The"government"?And they would do what with it?They would do good.Aye right.

Have we really reached the stage where we the people have become so disenchanted with government that we let big business ride roughshod over us, because a) we dont trust politicians to stop them and b) we dont trust politicians to do the right thing even if they did stop them?

What a desperate state of affairs. Sadly you may be right Ancient Hibee but I don't think we should discount the idea just because our elected representatives aren't man enough for the job.

[CropleyWasGod]

And it costs our government billions to bail them out when the banks muck up while the bankers roll on their merry way raking in the bonuses unhindered.

Just do away with democracy and let private business run things, they'll see us right :rolleyes:

Like it or not, the fact that we live in a capitalist society means that banks are central to the economy. Sure, it sticks in the throat that the taxpayer has to bail them out in bad times. But the economy, and the taxpayer, benefits when the good times return.

[Bookkeeper]

Like it or not, the fact that we live in a capitalist society means that banks are central to the economy. Sure, it sticks in the throat that the taxpayer has to bail them out in bad times. But the economy, and the taxpayer, benefits when the good times return.


Surely you're not implying that the banks were responsible for the 'good times'? The taxpayer had to bail them out because they were incompetent, reckless and greedy beyond belief. Banks should be the oil that keeps the engine of industry, business and commerce working by responsible lending. They're struggling still to do even that because they're propping up their balance sheets with our money.

Banking takes money out of the economy not put it in.

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely you're not implying that the banks were responsible for the 'good times'? The taxpayer had to bail them out because they were incompetent, reckless and greedy beyond belief. Banks should be the oil that keeps the engine of industry, business and commerce working by responsible lending. They're struggling still to do even that because they're propping up their balance sheets with our money.

Banking takes money out of the economy not put it in.

Not implying that they are solely responsible. But they are central to whether an economy functions well or not.

And I can't agree with your last statement. Properly managed banking ("responsible" as you correctly put it) will allow the creation of businesses and jobs, and hence increased tax receipts and reduced spending on benefits.

So that we can then go and blow it all on nuclear missiles. :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Taxation should be a) fair and b) progressive. In my opinion this tax fits both criteria far more than any other form of taxation and should be considered. Its not about 'demonising the bankers' either, it functions in two ways; a)raising money and b)acting as an incentive to minimise the non-core activities of banks. Speculative, non risk-managed lending is what got us into the current mess, although I agree with beefster that individuals also had a responsibility.

Ancient, your argument against this particular tax seems to be 'it goes to the government':confused:

[johnbc70]

Surely you're not implying that the banks were responsible for the 'good times'? The taxpayer had to bail them out because they were incompetent, reckless and greedy beyond belief. Banks should be the oil that keeps the engine of industry, business and commerce working by responsible lending. They're struggling still to do even that because they're propping up their balance sheets with our money.

Banking takes money out of the economy not put it in.

Banks in the "good times" were by far the biggest tax payers in the country. A certain bank called RBS was the biggest taxpayer in the UK so while they have taken a hell of a lot out the economy in recent years they did put a lot in when they were making a profit.

[LiverpoolHibs]

It's way off-topic but the bankers were far from the only factor in didn't bring the economy to its knees, despite what the press would have you believe.

The over-heated housing market (which you, I and millions of other non-bankers are just as responsible for - although I blame Sarah Beeney for it), the fact that manufacturing has declined so much in this country meaning that we are utterly dependent on financial services and the astronomical personal debt of a lot of folk were big factors too.

Some folk will blame bankers for the overheated housing market and high personal debt but that just absolves the individuals affected of any personal responsibility.

PS I don't want to get into a protracted debate on the reasons for the recession and I'm not absolving what some rich ********s did - just trying to point out that the politicians/press needed a group to demonise. It's easier all round to have someone to blame, especially when they weren't particularly liked in the first place.

I occasionally wonder what's actually mean in all the criticism of bankers. I'd always hoped that people were using it in a metonymic or synecdochical way - as a substitution for the machinations of capital as a whole.

Presumably no-one actually thinks investment bankers, hedge-fund managers et. al. were actually operating outside of their re-mit or really doing anything particularly stupid or irrational, do they? They were, essentially, taking the only path that they could and their actions were perfectly rational within the (fundamentally irrational) system.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though, and people are actually partaking in this 'greedy bankers' stuff at face value. Of course they're greedy, but that's not really the point.

Similarly, the personal debt stuff is hugely disingenuous. The loosening of credit and encouragement of personal debt was absolutely integral to keeping the boom cycle going for as long as it did. Without this, the drop in demand in the early 2000's would have gone uncorrected; again, the only rational step for a fundamentally irrational system to take was to provoke people into buying on credit and to take out mortgages (including sub-prime) to take up the slack. The problem is, of course, exacerbated by competition between institutions to offer increasingly crazy credit - which is, again, the rational thing for them to do. Riccardo Bellafiore called this build up of debt, "privatised Keyenesianism" - which is a rather brilliant observation.

All the demonisation of the banks and bankers achieves is to play into the narrative of this crisis as being 'fatherless', a one-off and entirely avoidable, rather than absolutely integral to the way in which capitalism operates.

N.B. Oh, I just read the bit about not wanting to get into an argument. Sorry. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Will nobody think of our children?

[hibsbollah]

I occasionally wonder what's actually mean in all the criticism of bankers. I'd always hoped that people were using it in a metonymic or synecdochical way - as a substitution for the machinations of capital as a whole.

Presumably no-one actually thinks investment bankers, hedge-fund managers et. al. were actually operating outside of their re-mit or really doing anything particularly stupid or irrational, do they? They were, essentially, taking the only path that they could and their actions were perfectly rational within the (fundamentally irrational) system.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though, and people are actually partaking in this 'greedy bankers' stuff at face value. Of course they're greedy, but that's not really the point.

Similarly, the personal debt stuff is hugely disingenuous. The loosening of credit and encouragement of personal debt was absolutely integral to keeping the boom cycle going for as long as it did. Without this, the drop in demand in the early 2000's would have gone uncorrected; again, the only rational step for a fundamentally irrational system to take was to provoke people into buying on credit and to take out mortgages (including sub-prime) to take up the slack. The problem is, of course, exacerbated by competition between institutions to offer increasingly crazy credit - which is, again, the rational thing for them to do. Riccardo Bellafiore called this build up of debt, "privatised Keyenesianism" - which is a rather brilliant observation.

All the demonisation of the banks and bankers achieves is to play into the narrative of this crisis as being 'fatherless', a one-off and entirely avoidable, rather than absolutely integral to the way in which capitalism operates.

N.B. Oh, I just read the bit about not wanting to get into an argument. Sorry. :greengrin

I suspect this is where you and I differ ideologically:greengrin.

There is plenty of evidence that capitalism can adopt moral structures, and that marketing of commodities can take place on an equitable and community-centred basis. There are lots of kinds of capitalism, and i'd argue that it is the anglo-saxon or neo-liberal model that needs consigning to the dustbin of history, not necessarily the principle of private capital itself.

[hstn747]

Why is there an assumption that increasing tax revenue is a 'good thing'? All it does is redistribute money from one group to another. For it to be good, there would need to be an assumption that the Government will get more value from spending it than an individual or company.

When I think of the QUANGOS and other layers of bureaucracy the Government creates, I find it hard to believe that the Government is better at spending our money than we are.

[jonty]

if it's going to raise so much in taxes then they can stop taxing joe public then.

Seems to good to be true......what are we not being told?

[hstn747]

The tax would be good if it simplifies the process; reduces the cost of collection and increases the level of compliance while still providing the same revenue to the Government. This increase in efficiency should leave the individual with more disposable income.

[CropleyWasGod]

The tax would be good if it simplifies the process; reduces the cost of collection and increases the level of compliance while still providing the same revenue to the Government. This increase in efficiency should leave the individual with more disposable income.

... and, as has been said, the banks will recoup the tax by charging the consumer more.

Result? Less disposable income.

[hstn747]

With the savings in the cost of collection the Goverment wouldn't need to take as much tax & with increased compliance the burden would be spread around more. Would that not leave the individual with more disposable income?

[CropleyWasGod]

With the savings in the cost of collection the Goverment wouldn't need to take as much tax & with increased compliance the burden would be spread around more. Would that not leave the individual with more disposable income?

.. these are the operative words. They still would collect it though, since the apparent motive is to use it to "combat climate change".

[RyeSloan]

Sorry if I'm being slow here but are they suggesting a tax on financial transactions as some sort of panacea....is this not exactly what Stamp Duty and SDRT are..i.e the tax is already being levied?? If so I'm mighty :confused: as to why this is now being touted as some sort of blue sky thinking.......

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry if I'm being slow here but are they suggesting a tax on financial transactions as some sort of panacea....is this not exactly what Stamp Duty and SDRT are..i.e the tax is already being levied?? If so I'm mighty :confused: as to why this is now being touted as some sort of blue sky thinking.......

One of those phrases that deserves summary execution :greengrin

Seriously, though, you are right..there are already taxes in place. But then when did blue-sky thinkers ever consider what was already on the ground? :wink:

[RyeSloan]

One of those phrases that deserves summary execution :greengrin

Seriously, though, you are right..there are already taxes in place. But then when did blue-sky thinkers ever consider what was already on the ground? :wink:

Ha ha knew I wouldn't get away with that comment!! :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

i dont think you even read it:greengrin

Fair cop, gov.

I thought I had the jist of it from a previous article. Clearly not!

Apologies to all..............

[PeeJay]

:thumbsup: Hard to argue with it, but who would bring in such a tax? Government (of any persuasion) ceased to be for the people a long time ago. They're the government for big business now.

If you ask me a case could well be made for stating that "big business" simply doesn't care what any government legislates for: they get round it through various means, be it lobbying, cheating, fraud, bribery, threats, creative accountancy etc. What chance does an elected government have against big business, I ask you?

[LiverpoolHibs]

I suspect this is where you and I differ ideologically:greengrin.

There is plenty of evidence that capitalism can adopt moral structures, and that marketing of commodities can take place on an equitable and community-centred basis. There are lots of kinds of capitalism, and i'd argue that it is the anglo-saxon or neo-liberal model that needs consigning to the dustbin of history, not necessarily the principle of private capital itself.

Pah, social democratic running-dog. :wink:


... and, as has been said, the banks will recoup the tax by charging the consumer more.

Result? Less disposable income.

This is dangerous territory, you might as well stop any form of corporate tax in that case. Every corporation will attempt to pass on costs in whatever form they come, if they can; but that's not an argument against the tax, it's an argument for resisting them attempting to do so.