How a Robin Hood tax would benefit you

Felicity Hannah
by Lovemoney Staff Felicity Hannah on 11 June 2012  |  Comments 40 comments

As more than 75% of the general public argue that we're not "all in this together", Felicity Hannah looks at the case for the Robin Hood tax.

How a Robin Hood tax would benefit you

Do you believe that we’re not ‘all in this together’ and that banks should be made to pay more? The campaign calling for a Robin Hood tax certainly thinks so.

A coalition of campaigners from groups including charities, trade unions, celebrities and even world leaders are demanding a financial transaction tax be levied against the banks.

They claim it could generate hundreds of billions of pounds to be spent tackling poverty, protecting against climate change and supporting the UK’s struggling public sector.

Not only that, but campaigners say it would satisfy the general public, who feel that the bankers had the party, but they have been left with the bill.

In fact, a new survey conducted on behalf of the campaign found that more than three-quarters of the UK public don’t think that the Government has done enough to ensure we’re “all in this together”. The majority also feel that banks and the financial sector have not been asked to make a fair contribution.

David Hillman, a spokesman for the Robin Hood Tax campaign, said: “This is the clearest evidence yet that the public is tired of the Government’s failure to make banks pay their fair share to society.

“People are tired of seeing their schools and hospitals cut while a sector that relied on taxpayers’ money to survive gives lottery-sized bonuses to bankers whatever their performance.”

But how would a Robin Hood tax work and would it benefit you?

What is the Robin Hood tax?

The Robin Hood tax is a financial transaction tax, similar in many ways to the ‘Tobin tax’ once proposed by Nobel Laureate economist James Tobin.

Except, while he wanted to tax all currency conversions, the Robin Hood tax would be levied against transactions such as stocks, bonds, foreign currency and derivatives.

Campaigners are calling for a “tiny tax” of 0.05% on these transactions. It wouldn’t be levied against everyday consumer banking.

You can see a video explaining the amount and starring the inimitable Bill Nighy on the campaign’s website.

How much would it generate?

In the UK, the campaigners estimate a Robin Hood tax would raise £20 billion annually.

Globally, estimates vary but most campaigners claim it would raise hundreds of billions a year and potentially more than £200 billion a year. This is hardly small change.

How would it help me?

The idea is for the money raised to be split three ways in the UK. 50% would be spent fighting poverty in the UK, 25% would go on overseas aid and 25% would be earmarked for tackling climate change.

According to the campaigners, this UK spending could help shield you and your community from the affects of the cuts.

For example, £2 billion could offset the need for cuts to housing benefits; £680 million could reinstate the Educational Maintenance Allowance and £110,000 could save 350 libraries at risk of closure.

A study by the by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggests that the financial sector can afford an extra £20 billion in tax. At a time when the public sector is facing some of the most demanding cuts in its history, £20 billion could go a long way to ease the pain.

I’m a banker, it doesn’t benefit me!

Okay, if you’re reading this and you’re the head of a multinational investment bank then perhaps the headline doesn’t quite apply to you. This will cost you money. If it were implemented, it would inevitably squeeze your profits and likely your bonus.

However, there’s also a chance that it could redeem your reputation. At present, the banking sector is one of the least trusted (although admittedly journalists are trusted even less according to an Ipsos MORI poll).

A Robin Hood tax could change all that. Entered into willingly, a financial transaction tax could put bankers at the heart of protecting public services, eradicating child poverty and supporting the developing world.

Think how we’d cheer bankers’ bonuses if they resulted from an industry that had also paid billions of pounds in tax earmarked for good causes.

What are the potential downsides?

Of course, the biggest problem with the Robin Hood tax is that the campaigners want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they’re saying that it’s a tiny, tiny tax. On the other, they are arguing that it would raise potentially hundreds of billions of pounds.

It’s hard to see how those two statements can both be true. Regardless of how much profit they make, this would be a substantial increase in taxes on the financial sector.

What do most businesses do when they are hit with higher costs? They pass it on to their customers. While a £20 billion bank tax sounds like a winning solution, most of us won’t be keen to pay even more for our own financial products.

The campaigners say that this could be avoided, as the financial sector is highly competitive and so institutions won’t pass on costs for fear of losing business. However, that hasn’t been the case in other industries – just look at gas and electricity.

It’s also been suggested that the tax would reduce the number of financial transactions made, eventually reducing employment within the financial sector and supporting industries.

And there’s a lot of concern that such a tax would need to be implemented globally rather than just in the UK or even just in Europe. Otherwise, banking firms might simply move to avoid the transaction tax, which could devastate London’s bustling banking sector.

Economist Tim Congdon has estimated that a European transaction tax could cause more than 100,000 job losses in London.

The final word

I think the Robin Hood tax sounds like a good idea for funding some extraordinarily important projects. However, I’m concerned that the cost would simply be passed onto the consumer, meaning even higher bills for struggling families.

What do you think? Is this an idea that could change the world or an idealistic but impractical dream cashing in on the public’s mistrust of banks?

More on tax:

New tax clampdown will hit buy-to-let landlords

Thousands owed inheritance tax rebate

3.5m taxpayers to get a rebate - are you one of them?

Ten ways to avoid Capital Gains Tax

How to make sure you’re on the right tax code

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (40)

  • buywhenhigh
    Love rating 54
    buywhenhigh said

    Yeah lets tax the one industry that we still are a world leader in to death, and destroy 1000s and 1000s of jobs in the process and end up with less tax reicepts overall as all the companies and associated income moves to another part of the world.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Henry-GBG
    Love rating 46
    Henry-GBG said

    Robin Hood Tax is a really stupid idea, as Sweden discovered a long time ago.

    The one tax that really needs to be looked at is on the rental value of land

    http://www.landvaluetax.org

    Most other taxes are nothing more than legalised robbery.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • RichardSowler
    Love rating 17
    RichardSowler said

    This is a half-baked proposal. I went to a meeting a few months ago at the Treasury to discuss it and it was obvious that the European Commission had simply not addressed the basic administrative issues. It would make the EU uncompetitive unless it was enacted globally and I am delighted to see that the Government intends to use its veto on the matter.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • delta25
    Love rating 2
    delta25 said

    Hardly surpring that celebs are promoting the idea - they probably avoid paying tax. Unions are for it - have you seen what union leaders get paid. We all know who'd end up paying for it!

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • whannam
    Love rating 3
    whannam said

    There is nothing idealistic about this nonsense. Who wants to waste £5Bn more on overseas "aid" which doesn't work. We need to free up markets so that people can work their way out of poverty. Aid should be used chiefly for major catastrophes. As for the arrogance of thinking that we can change the changing climate, whom do these people think they are fooling. I doubt if any money would be raised even medium term by this ridiculous idea as the banks etc would quite rightly go elsewhere.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    The problem with taxation in this country is that it is not evenly or fairly applied, or even sensibly applied. Big multi-nationals say all our data processing is done in, for want of a better choice, Luxemburg. And we have to pay for this and look somehow the charge roughly equates to the UK arm's pre-tax profits. And HMRC rolls over and lets them tickle its tummy too. Job Bloggs jobbing painter and decorator says times are hard and I only earned, let's say, £10k last year and HMRC turn him upside down to prove he actually earned £40k, £30k in cash and £10k through the books. Hardly surprising people say this is unfair and look at ways around it like the Robin Hood tax. When the answer is so much simpler. HMRC say to multi-national, prove it and at your expense. And if multi-national can't prove that the charge is the going rate, charge can't be set against pre-tax income. Same with raw materials and other goods and services "bought in" (don't make me laugh) from subsidiaries or parent companies in low tax rate regimes. Tax companies doing business in the UK using the true cost of doing business in the UK not some artificially generated cost. I mean, if the pre-tax profit they quote is real and hardly enough to warrant paying tax on, why are they in business here???? And yes, I know it isn't that simpler, but it ain't far off!

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • PDB11
    Love rating 72
    PDB11 said

    I like the idea of a financial transaction tax, at a tiny rate - 0.1% or less - but it should be on all transactions, including consumer banking, purchases in shops, everything, rather like the old stamp duty on cheques.

    This needs to replace VAT (transaction tax on purchases), income tax (transaction tax on wages), property stamp duty (transaction tax on property purchase), inheritance tax and so on. It should replace all taxes except those on specific items - road fund duty, tobacco and alcohol, etc. - and maybe some form of corporation tax. Maybe it would need to be a little more than 0,1% to replace all of them, and perhaps there should be an allowance - the first £1000 of any transaction exempt - to protect those on low incomes.

    Half baked? Yes, it needs more work, but that doesn't make it fundamentally wrong!

    Land Value Tax? Absolutely not. I fail to see how that helps anyone. Landlords pass it on to their tenants in higher rents, and it hits the least well off straight away, because these are the people whose property (occupied rather than owned) is large compared to their income. Land value is hard to calculate anyway, so I think that's a non-starter. The poor are also least well-placed to move house if something silly happens to the cost of occupying the one they're in.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rbgos
    Love rating 81
    rbgos said

    It's a fine idea, AS LONG AS it's implemented evenly across all major capitalist nations around the world. Otherwise, regardless of how 'fair' the tax is or is not, we'll be cutting off our nose to spite our face - if all the financial companies in London relocate to a more favourable tax haven, we will raise LESS tax, not more, as a result.

    Also, the enthusiasm of the support for this, yet again, highlights how too many people believe that the entire crisis of the last few years is all (or mostly) the fault of the banks. No, no, no. It has been caused by governments recklessly spending money it doesn't have, that's why we the taxpayers have been left with such a massive bill. Bailing out the bankrupt banks certainly hasn't helped, and it was the banking crisis that was the catalyst that precipitated the much larger financial crises. But the government over-spending crisis would have hit sooner or later anyway, and it is politicians here, throughout most of Europe, and in the US through the 2000's who are most to blame.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 125
    nosbort said

    Here we go again raising money with a tax that has no consequences is not possible. I remember a budget speech in 1997 by a certain Mr G Brown in which he said that he was introducing 'a technical measure' and withdrawing the tax relief on the reinvestment of dividends into pension funds. The result is easy to see, just look at your pension fund and ask yourself what caused it to perform so poorly. I don't care what relief from tax cuts could allegedly be generated by this ill-considered measure, firstly it WILL cause costs to rise to pay for it (that you and I will pay), secondly the public spending cuts MUST happen anyway because the country is spending too much and the state is too large.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • DaveDB
    Love rating 14
    DaveDB said

    There seems to be some peculiar logic expressed by many British that taxes on businesses, banks, shops or landlords, etc., are not and will not be passed on to their respective customers. Get real Brits, only one section of society pays in the end and that is you the customer! All taxes lead to a higher cost of living and if jobs are lost or profits and taxes fall then GDP falls. We need to create more wealth instead of continually trying to share out what we have now more 'fairly'. Fair for some is unfair for others.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • franco210
    Love rating 4
    franco210 said

    rbgos

    has hit the nail on the head. The Budget is a spend of £700Bn., 45% of which is the welfare state inc. pensions, NHS, etc.: the Treasury income from taxation, is £590Bn.

    How are the books to be balanced? The spend on debt interest, not capital repayment, was 49Bn.

    Where are we going? If your business is losing money you cut your expenses. Can this government do the same? Or will it continue the last government's tradition of incurring more debt: year on year?

    Tobin tax or Robin Hood Tax, is just more taxation without looking at the root cause of our problems: governments' spending (bribing the electorate?).

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • grelly
    Love rating 27
    grelly said

    Don;'t we already have such a tax? I thought it was called stamp duty.

    BTW, businesses don't pay taxes. At all. It is the customers of those businesses that pay the taxes through increased charges.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LaurenceSt
    Love rating 3
    LaurenceSt said

    Here we go again..... How much more evidence do we have to bring that a more equal society is a better one? (for evidence read the spirit level, http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level )Non-starter for Sweden: I've lived in that country for a year and can say that it seems to be better orginised there than over here. Agree they all moan about 75% tax, but free university, the best dentist I've ever come across and quite a pleasent place to live in... How we are going to achieve this equality in this country, may be through tax, may be through giving everybody a real chance to get out of the poorer reagion of society (Who shouted: education education education???)

    P.S. Global warming a myth.... Data tells something different, and if we don't do anything about it, the future does not look good....

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Skintsod
    Love rating 32
    Skintsod said

    It won't cost the banks anything. They'll get back their increased tax by increasing charges. Joe Public will foot the bill one way or another.

    And they'll waste half the money on overseas aid to allow countries to bolster their armies and introduce grandiose space programs whilst we support their infrastructure, and climate change schemes which are nothing more than political vanity dressed up as a public service, very much like the whole Euro project.

    What they should do is use that half of the money to raise the interest rate paid to savers to compensate them, because they're the real victims.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    I like the idea of a Robin Hood tax, but it has been ill-thought out. It will be passed on to us the public and could make the financial services sector less competitive when doing overseas business. There used to be stamp duty on all financial transactions, even making a major purchase in a shop was subject to stamp duty. Putting stamp duty on all financial transactions would make more sense (except overseas transactions).

    If they want to tackle poverty (not that they really want to). They can scrap VAT on gas and electricity, scrap the TV licence and scrap council tax. Make income tax allowances realistic and bring out a luxury tax on jewellery, luxury cars and many other things. That would put more money in the pockets of the poorest and if coupled with an increase in the minimum wage rates; it could reduce unemployment and stimulate demand. We could even see an end to this recession. Cameron and Co don't want an end to poverty; they need a underclass so they can continue to delude themselves that they are important. They would rather have riots than bring an end to poverty and homelessness.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    The banks lent money to people who then walked away from their house loans. In some states in the USA (e.g. California) they could do that without repercussions and immediately get a new loan to buy the same or better house at a quarter of the price. How did this affect us all? I've invested in a house in California with my business partner out there (he didn't own a house before so he hadn't defaulted on anything). We paid $160K for a house which originally sold for $600K. Which bank lost in excess of £50M on the development? Royal Bank of Scotland! The banks are guilty of a lot of things, ultimately they did lend money irresponsibly - but someone borrowed it. There certainly should be a luxury VAT rate on a lot of things, in fact Labour tried it once - it included CARAVANS - isn't their amnesia convenient? It's about time the government also either stopped pretending that Road Fund Licences rates are anything to do with the environment or had zero rates on cars over ten years old whilst making them subject to a yearly MOT if they carry on with proposals to extend MOT period to two years.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • meldrewreborn
    Love rating 44
    meldrewreborn said

    Before introducing yet another tax which like all taxes eventually get paid for by Joe Public, lets think about the public services that the tax delivers. There are core public services which we all need and lie at the very heart of a civilised society. But there are a hell of a lot of public services which we all have to pay for whether we think we need them or not, and therein lies the problem.

    If we had less taxation we could choose to spend our money targeted on the things we personally think important - rather than on what pressure groups and politicians think we need. Things that the state provides for nothing to the consumer will inevitably tend to get wasted. I've cleared out the homes of a number of elderly people and been shocked by the amount of unused medicines in their homes. because the prescriptions are free there is no drawback to the individual is getting the prescription fulfilled. Nor is there any drawback if the medicine is unused.

    So my contention is that many public services are inherently wasteful, we use them and waste them because there is no cost to us at the point of use. If we actually had to pay for them we would be much more discriminating in what we use. So lets have less public services and less taxation. However, currently we're spending £2,000 per head of the UK population per annum more than we're raising in taxation, a legacy that future generations will have to pay for. The first step therefore must be to cut public services and stop borrowing to pay for them, cutting taxation must wait its turn.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    Of course it would be passed directly to the end users, it has to be they are the ones with money, and lower living standards by the day.

    The socialist utopia , such as Sweden, will never work in teh UK. threre are too many sucking out of the pool but not putting any in. Sweden has a small population with no immigration problems. It is also has ann awful climate. Why do you think the Vikings came to England in the 800s? because the scandanavian climate is rubbish for growing food. ( also to rob the rich |English abbeys etc.)

    The |English are still being robbed now - by their government that fritter the tax away on trying to be 'mates' with the most dubious dictators on the planet.

    I wish I could be bothered to emigate but I am too old I reckon.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    A Socialist Utopia? Sweden is a neutral country, AKA a parasite which other countries bear the costs of protecting. With huge natural resources and a small population, of course Sweden is financially stable. Sweden profited through two world wars. They also have a third of their population working in the public sector. Switzerland is similarly successful, as is Germany, which crippled Europe (the UK in particular) in wars and walked away from debts and reparations whilst we, like the good little country we are, paid back all our war loans to the USA.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • develyn
    Love rating 7
    develyn said

    I would a review body to look at the impact of the measures to date. Old people are hit proportionately higher than other groups:

    1. They rely on annuities and other fixed income sources which have been totally eroded by inflation caused by printing money (quantitative easing).

    2. Base rate is so low that they have very little choice in places to generate more interest.

    3. And the government is talking about means-testing all their benefits now.

    Yes, we need less bureaucracy and better value for money. Politicians need to understand that complexity costs money. They should be rationed in words. No new legislation unless an equivalent length (in words) law is repealed!

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Aitken B
    Love rating 109
    Aitken B said

    Sounds attractive. Get money for good causes, No cost to hard pressed ordinary people and kick one of the main villans of the financial crunch where it hurts.

    Here are my immediate thoughts.

    1 All tax is paid by ordinary people, you, me, the people next doors etc. The route by which it gets from our pockets to the treasury are many and varied.

    Here is one of the not so obvious routes, there are many more

    - Tax the banks - their profits fall - their share value goes down - pensions that depend on them go down - pensioners get less. Result - pensioners have paid the TAX.

    2 Spend the money on combating climate change? That is an even bigger TAX scam than the Robin Banks TAX. I'm staggered anyone is still clinging to the wreakage of climate change being caused by human generated CO2.

    3 Overseas aid? We borrow £billions we cannot afford and give it to countries that harbour our enemies and are perfectly capable of aiding themselves. But then why should they if they can get us to pay instead. It's the international version of the UK Benefits cheats.

    But yes I am very disappointed at the Government's failure to "sort out the banks" particularly the ones we own, although I am not really surprised. One has to be careful when making career type decisions.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Arblaster
    Love rating 41
    Arblaster said

    This Tobin Tax is insanity. The banks are the current Aunt Sally. We have the childish removal of Fred Goodwin's knighthood, and the hooplah over RBS's rescue squad's bonus. In reality the UK banks are on their uppers. The same is true of banks all over the EU. Pensioners are living on their capital because of low interest rates. Introduce a punitive tax on the banks, and the interest will be yet lower.

    The money supply should be reduced, 90 percent of the civil service should be jettisoned, people should start looking after themselves again instead of living off other people. We should stop sending money abroad to places like ZImbabwe, until they get a sane government.

    The earth's climate has changed throughout history. There is nothing, NOTHING, that anybody can do about solar and galactic cycles. There is nothing anybody can do to stop volcanoes from spewing out whichever substances they please. The earth's temperature rises first, THEN the amount of CO2 rises at a later date - it even says so on Al Gore's graph, right up to the famous hockey stick. So how is this climate change money going to be used. Let me guess...creating more office jobs?

    As others have mentioned, any extra tax paid by businesses will be borne by their customers.

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • bengilda
    Love rating 77
    bengilda said

    All seems great but just think about it!! Where would the new tax money come from, deep down, regardless of how it is wrapped up?

    It would come, directly or indirectly, from us, the little man at the bottom of the pile who actually works to generate value and then banks some, spends some, whatever.

    And even though the day to day domestic transactions would supposedly remain untaxed (for how long? just like our gas & electricity was VAT free - until!!) the cost of the new taxation would filter down to our pockets even though we would not actually know.

    Whatever the wrapper, there is only one solution to proposed new taxation - DON'T!!

    Report on 11 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Chomerly
    Love rating 0
    Chomerly said

    I would love to say that this would be a good idea. And in theory it is.

    However, much like Bengilda has already stated, the facts are that somewhere down the line it will be us, the little people, paying for it in the end.

    It's all very well to say that it would be a tax that would equate 0.05% of the transactions made in a single year but how will the banks respond?

    In the only way they know how.

    Firstly, the days of free banking will slowly disappear.

    It will then be followed by the most subtle of increases of interest rates for mortgages, loans and credit cards.

    Thirdly, as Arblaster has intimated, they will drop the interest rate on savings.

    Those are just a few of the things that they WILL do if such a tax was to be applied.

    The thing is, it shows you just how powerful and in control they are.

    Report on 12 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • krustallos
    Love rating 39
    krustallos said

    @electricblue A Socialist Utopia? Sweden is a neutral country, AKA a parasite which other countries bear the costs of protecting.

    The UK on the other hand built up its financial wealth in large part through the slave trade and imperalism (invading other people's countries and looting their natural resources). People who live in glass houses, and all that. In answer to the other poster, there are plenty of immigrants in Sweden (about 15% of the population, about the same as the UK) but why let facts get in the way of a xenophobic whinge, eh?

    Sweden has a broadly similar per capita GDP to the UK once adjusted for purchasing power, the difference is that the wealth is much more evenly distributed there, which means that most people are better off. If we prefer to give all our money to the rich that's our problem but let's not blame it on immigrants or the war, hm?

    Report on 12 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • krustallos
    Love rating 39
    krustallos said

    Regarding the financial transactions tax generally, of course the costs are going to be passed on to the consumer and I'm pretty sure the people proposing the tax have thought of that. The real point of the tax is presumably to discourage financial speculation and gambling at the expense of responsible long-term investment. This is the main way the banking and financial sector makes money at the expense of the rest of us and the amount of tax involved is actually dwarfed by the level of profiteering and skimming which goes on. Given that most of the contributors here are probably retail investors I find it a bit odd that they are more concerned about tax and alleged government waste than the massive trousering of their cash by the banks and financial institutions, and the colossal amount of waste that goes on in the financial sector.

    Clearly a tax of this nature would be better as a worldwide measure to avoid money migrating away from it (although the UK stamp duty of 0.5% on share trades doesn't seem to have destroyed the UK stock market, does it?).

    Of course if the tax is an insignificant percentage, the effect on behaviour will also be insignificant, so from that point of view it may have been ill thought through. In any case it seems like tinkering to me rather than the sort of radical action which is needed. If we really want to use the wealth of society for the benefit of the majority we need to reverse the massive flow of money and power to a tiny minority of the population.

    Report on 12 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sunshine2079
    Love rating 0
    sunshine2079 said

    1. the government needs to create free trade within this country, generating self sufficiency and a means for the ordinary man to generate a self sufficient income.

    I have just returned from China where this self sufficient communist with healthy doses of capatalist mndsets work. I think Britiain needs to take a leaf out of their books in terms of self sufficiency. Hell, they've taken a leaf out of our books, using capatalism to their advantage.

    It's very simple. Any tax should be means tested. Ironic for a democratic capatalist society to have a tax system that ( when added up) taxes the poor the same if not more than the rich. Focus on taxing the very wealthy ( not to the point of putting them out of pocket); there's enough of them- individuals and corporations alike, to generate a nice sum without them feeling like they are missing. Fix all other laws around this so as to make it easy to do so whilst drumming in the message that it's all in aid of a more self sufficient Britain.

    Prioritise. Self sufficiency first, helping other countries can wait ( a political friendship long term game plan, that is totally unnneccessary right now) also climate change can wait. Britain is trying to do too much, spreading itself thin and not focusing on one project at a time.

    Report on 12 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Britain has a better record regarding the slave trade than any other country involved. In countries where we ruled as part of our 'Empire' we left behind a legacy of infrastructure, law and education which some have built on and others have squandered. The UK has no reason to be guilty of our imperial past as we have paid back many times in supporting former commonwealth counties. There are more people in slavery around the world now than there ever were in the past and, if we are not letting facts get in the way of the story, the Africans sold their own people into slavery and just look at what a fine honest record African leaders have in running their 'free' countries. Sweden and Switzerland both accrued wealth through two world wars which crippled Europe and left a legacy impoverishing the UK. Looking at who invaded who, what where and how over the last couple of hundred years is irrelevant to the crux of why some European countries can be held up as a 'success'.

    Report on 12 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sodit
    Love rating 127
    sodit said

    "the money raised to be split three ways in the UK. 50% would be spent fighting poverty in the UK, 25% would go on overseas aid and 25% would be earmarked for tackling climate change"...

    ...so it's going to be levied for no good reason then? The best way to fight poverty is to provide real jobs, that requires the private sector not government. Any levy would drag down the wealth creating (private) sector and transfer the money to the wealth destroying (public) sector. Similarly with overseas aid. Climate change has not been proven to be man made, but if the expenditure helps UK business become more energy efficient and therefore more competitive, then this use might actually have merit.

    Report on 12 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SandraLB
    Love rating 0
    SandraLB said Report on 15 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • AdAstra100
    Love rating 26
    AdAstra100 said

    What a ridiculous idea. Transaction taxes are always passed onto the customer. In this case it will be pension funds and small investors. Those who have saved/are saving for there future will be worse off as charges go up and the same applies to pension funds. The effect will be the same as Brown's stopping tax relief on dividends in ISAs and we already pay Stamp Duty,what is that if not a transaction tax?

    Sorry, the only pension fund that won't be affected will be the Public Sector elements funded by the tax payer. Sounds like another 'I'm alright Jack' for the Public sector

    Report on 15 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • JoeEasedale
    Love rating 174
    JoeEasedale said

    It would be inevitable that a transaction tax would charge all of us for every credit into our bank account, every direct debit, standing order, cheque, atm and transfer out.

    In our favour? - Yeah! and Turkeys vote for Xmas!

    Report on 15 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    @JoeEasedale, it wouldn't apply to everyday consumer banking. Even if it did the typical cost to the consumer would be about £7.50 pa. It wouldn't be practical to apply it to consumer banking. It would be useful to apply it to speculating in some markets, but even then it wouldn't make a big difference. Some transactions don't attract stamp duty and are quite complex so something needs to be done to plug those loop holes.

    I have noted that electricblue agrees with me that there should be a tax on real luxuries. Should we notify the Pope of this miracle? :)

    Report on 15 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CutToTheNub
    Love rating 3
    CutToTheNub said

    Some figures we should ALL be worried about are these:

    Really scary statistics: by 2040 over 65's will double as percentage of global population to 14% and will outnumber children (aged 5 or less) by 2018. Global population predicted at 9 billion by 2050 - I personally think this could easily be 10 years earlier. Very soon India's population will equal then exceed that of China and between them they will represent almost 1/3 of total world population!

    29.13 million employed in UK (<50% total UK population - worrying in itself)

    5.94 million are in public sector

    23.19 million are in private sector (ONLY TRUE national wealth and income generation).

    But also publicly funded are:

    10.3 million over 65 (vast majority are anyway, even if other income or employment)

    2.67 million unemployed

    ~20 million - rest of the population (kids mainly) ALL supported (effectively) by the wealth generated by the private sector be they public or private sector workers' or unemployed adults' kids. Public sector workers' money comes from private sector wealth so they & their kids are effectively funded by that private sector money.

    This means that 23.19 million are expected to generate the (REAL) wealth to support the other ~39 million who do NOT generate any material wealth. It also means that public employees represent a wholly unnecessary, unjustifiable and unsustainable 20.4% of the working population AND they represent the most expensive per capita cost of the publicy funded populace - almost more than kids and OAPs and the unemployed combined)

    Want to stop further taxes and tax rises?

    1. Implement an immediate and permanent halt to ANY public sector admin recruitment (any flavour, any sector)

    2. Identify and implement a minimum 2% per annum public sector employee numbers reduction - taken from admin and non-critical, non-front-line support initially (get rid of some chiefs - we need the indians)

    3. This and EVERY government of ANY flavour ought to have a long-term goal (say 25 years) of aiming to cut public employee numbers to 10% max of working population (even then we still have a long-term problem with the ODR going up so fast and the rate increasing also).

    4. Encourage and support small businesses by reducing their taxation and legislative burden to a minimum

    5. Implement a policy of only utilising private sector support operations that have a minimum 20% (or even more) non-public profit generation capability (pointless using private sector companies that are 100% state dependent when supplying services - discourages true efficiency and cost savings)

    For pity's sake, why does it take 20+% of the (working) population to provide services funded 100% by only 37% (and falling!) of the total population? How is that fair, effective and efficient? Get real. THAT is why we have poverty and lack of general wealth - public funding is (and has been for years) bleeding the country dry from bloat. There are only three places it can really be cut - kids, OAPs and public sector (including the unemployed). No one wants to see the first two suffer (but they do and have suffered) so you do the maths.

    Oh and public sector workers whingeing about your pension changes: just remember it's your private sector neighbour that is having to pay (effectively) for THREE: yours AND their own (IF they can afford one) AND the State Pensioner down the road, the latter two having always had less favourable pensions generally than those in the public sector. Don't even think of bleating about fairness of pensions until you get that fact straight in your heads.

    Report on 16 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    If the person Cuttote nub would cast their mind back a century or so, before local government really got going ,there was a demand for local government to curtail and control the way the life was being exploited by the then capitalists. It is the same now. Removing local government would result in a grim life for most as the rich would soon take control and exploit every which way - even more than now. Local Governmnet has grown as the Central Government has passed Acts of Parliament that require enforcing. That is done by staff , and computers of course.

    If you would like to live in an uncontrolled community I suggest you emigate to the South Pole where I, I believe there is little in the way of local governmnet , or Council Tax.

    Report on 16 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    @Oldhenry

    You worked for local government and you say you are now retired and worth £1M. You can't even spell. Being a little more factual - we had local government long before we had effective central government. Local government officials regard themselves as 'enforcers' instead of facilitators and spend more time and money preventing businesses from getting on with earning money than they ever do giving help. Local council run market - two stalls side by side is one lot of council tax (more often than not exempted from being charged at the moment). Have your stalls separated by one of the six foot aisles which run all the way through the market and they want to charge two lots of council tax because they aren't 'contiguous'.

    Report on 16 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    @Mike

    Why the Pope? Surely the sainted Socialist Tony B Liar as his representative in all things ethical and honest would be close enough? I don't think I'd ask either of them to babysit.

    Report on 16 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • tuttogallo
    Love rating 74
    tuttogallo said

    "50% would be spent fighting poverty in the UK, 25% would go on overseas aid and 25% would be earmarked for tackling climate change."

    WRONG. Why can't anybody understand that the way to get the public finances in order is to pay down the National Debt? 25% for counterproductive aid to third world countries? Might as well flush the money down the toilet.

    Why should we have pay interest on interest on interest for ever? PAY THE DEBT DOWN. I know from personal experience that paying off debt really works.

    Report on 19 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • bengilda
    Love rating 77
    bengilda said

    This or any other tax does nothing more than remove more of the income, albeit indirectly, from the man in the street.

    Money doesn't just grow, it has to be earned by someone, somewhere, and that certainly is not our politicians or civil servants. And definitely not the monstruous conglomeration of unelected and unwanted parasites in Brussels who produce no gain at great expense.

    No more taxes of any sort regardless of how dressed up.

    Report on 21 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bengilda
    Love rating 77
    bengilda said

    Where does all money come from? From the workers who produce value such as manufactured goods, farmers who produce food, miners who produce minerals and all such as that. All the banks do, very basically, is store that money and pay interest to the owner, lend that money and charge interest from the borrower and use that money for transactions internationally.

    All that money has been taxed and the interest it gains is also taxed.

    Any additional "Robin Hood" tax to extract more money from the banking system is in the end just taking more tax from the producers and users, that is US, the man in the street.

    Better, far, far better would be for political expenditure to be reduced and all costly policies that do not benefit society are abandoned, an unlikely scenario as the civil servants who run the government and their ilk are not likely to chop their jobs.

    Perhaps a campaign by the media to identify quangos and government activities that do not produce any actual benefit to the country, and whose demise would not change life, would embarrass politicians to economies instead of more tax.

    Report on 13 February 2013  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV1