Robin Hood Tax.

[format]

What do guys think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNw...layer_embedded


I'm no financial expert but 0.005% seems quite reasonable. Any reason why this is a bad idea?

[oolon]

Robin ... one letter out... Tobin. Seems like another way for the government to get more tax income and in the end the customer will have to pay. I know great length is gone to say end customers do not have to pay, however it would be a nightmare working out which transactions have to pay and which don't. The film gives the impression this is "free" money, it is not the money would have gone to someone, I would prefer it to be available in my pension as the company did better than my government coffers.

[TheAnimus]

idoitic idea by someone that clearly has either no idea how the interbanking world spins or more worryingly has an idea, and a very cunning agenda....

Anyway the people who would pay would be everyone. The middle and higher classes might be hit most because generally speaking they have a pension which would suffer too.

That said some might figure a way out, like with the dividend tax, instead of money going to government or to the pension fund, it instead goes to hedge funds as they re-package them as synthetics which are exempt from the tax, for a small fee obviously (say 1% less than the tax man charges).

Once again, suggestions by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

[j1979]

are these figures for the uk only..

going on the 0.005% and the figure of £200bn. that makes the amount of money changing hands £4,000,000,000,000,000 (per year in the UK) thats 4 of whatever comes after trillion ?? is this right?

0.005 x 200 is 1% £200bn x 200 = £40,000bn = 1%

£40,000bn x 100 = £4,000,000bn = 4,000,000,000,000,000


am i right with the maths?

[j1979]

idoitic idea by someone that clearly has either no idea how the interbanking world spins or more worryingly has an idea, and a very cunning agenda....

Anyway the people who would pay would be everyone. The middle and higher classes might be hit most because generally speaking they have a pension which would suffer too.

That said some might figure a way out, like with the dividend tax, instead of money going to government or to the pension fund, it instead goes to hedge funds as they re-package them as synthetics which are exempt from the tax, for a small fee obviously (say 1% less than the tax man charges).

Once again, suggestions by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

try not to descend into name calling in this thread, it's very child like.

[TheAnimus]

hey no name calling at format, only the self proclaimed experts who punt forward this trash.

It is so incredibly obvious what would happen with this, I can't believe anyone would think it a good idea!

[format]

hey no name calling at format, only the self proclaimed experts who punt forward this trash.

It is so incredibly obvious what would happen with this, I can't believe anyone would think it a good idea!

What exactly is the downside then? Genuinely quite curious - economics is an area I'm shamefully ignorant in sadly.
Surely if the % taken from each transaction is so small, the average man on the street, if they happened to make a transaction which was affected by this tax, they wouldn't even notice it?

[oolon]

What exactly is the downside then? Genuinely quite curious - economics is an area I'm shamefully ignorant in sadly.
Surely if the % taken from each transaction is so small, the average man on the street, if they happened to make a transaction which was affected by this tax, they wouldn't even notice it?

The idea of the tax is to make money more "sticky" as there is a transaction cost the number of transactions should drop, for example if I had to branches of mega bank, the states side needed money it was moved from the UK, BAM, tax, 5 minutes later I need it back, taxed again. It does not tax profits it taxes the moment, profits I have no problem with. The problem of making it more sticky as any economist will tell you is that you need more money in circulation, which is what Quantitative easing is. The problem with QE is it devalues your money as there is more of it.

So lets recap why is it bad?
1) Someone has to pay for it and that someone is the shareholders which means your pension.
2) Governments get the cash and will probably blow it.
3) You need more money in circulation to keep economy going... so your money is worth less and government has more.

Over all result...
STEALTH TAX!!!!!!

[TheAnimus]

don't forget number 4, the market will evolve, like in my example of the div tax (which was partly responsible for bumping up my pitiful bonus last year).

[format]

The idea of the tax is to make money more "sticky" as there is a transaction cost the number of transactions should drop, for example if I had to branches of mega bank, the states side needed money it was moved from the UK, BAM, tax, 5 minutes later I need it back, taxed again. It does not tax profits it taxes the moment, profits I have no problem with. The problem of making it more sticky as any economist will tell you is that you need more money in circulation, which is what Quantitative easing is. The problem with QE is it devalues your money as there is more of it.

So lets recap why is it bad?
1) Someone has to pay for it and that someone is the shareholders which means your pension.


2) Governments get the cash and will probably blow it.
3) You need more money in circulation to keep economy going... so your money is worth less and government has more.

Over all result...
STEALTH TAX!!!!!!

I do understand that is it important to keep bankers in the UK as their business does benefit the UK.
I understand about QE and why its bad etc but the bit in bold - I'm not sure I follow. The tax is for corporate transactions. Even if any 'civilians' make a transaction that would fall under this tax it is such a small % that surely it would barely be missed?

[Zadock]

I've got a better idea, lets stop fighting this war we cannot win in afghanistan imagine how much money that would save that could be used for other things.

[oolon]

Any change in tax is going to make the bank less profitable, who will suffer if the bank is less profitable, employees? Nope they have contracts etc. The owners of the bank, now who are the owners of the bank, shareholders. Who are these "shareholders", you, you or you!

1) Someone people own shares in banks (lets all them greedy fat cats)... Mmmm cream! So you don't care about them fair enough.
2) Some people have pensions, where do you think pensions are invested? Mostly in owning bits of companies, that affects you directly.
3) Some Governments have borrowed large amounts of money to buy stakes in banks, sadly though there holdings are worth less than the market price, so they have to hold the positions, now someone has to pay the interest on the borrowed money as the banks are not paying any dividends, so that would be YOU, and even worse of bank profitability drops the governments are even MORE likely to not be able to sell the stake.... so no cream for you either.

[TheAnimus]

Even if any 'civilians' make a transaction that would fall under this tax it is such a small % that surely it would barely be missed?

Did you ever see that superman film, where they steal a remainder from each transaction. It adds up.

Balance sheets have to be balanced and normally when a fixed cost like tax increases, its the lowly un-skilled human resource pool that takes the hit. That is because the "transaction" cost of hiring and firing a cleaner is minimal.

Socialist measures, inside a free market, have this horrible habit of increasing the gap between the rich and the poor.