My feed

to access all these features


What do you all think of the Robin Hood Tax?

152 replies

FiveOrangePips · 21/10/2010 21:59


make the news
OP posts:
legostuckinmyhoover · 21/10/2010 22:03

think it's fab-been saying it for ages.

FiveOrangePips · 21/10/2010 22:18

I am not particularly articulate, but I think this campaign is good - mumsnet could get involved?

OP posts:
legostuckinmyhoover · 21/10/2010 22:25

I had not thought of that. When ever I have mentioned it on here before, no one has said anything/commented about it. But that is nor usual for my posts Blush!

legostuckinmyhoover · 21/10/2010 22:26

i mean 'not unusual' [it's late]

FiveOrangePips · 21/10/2010 22:31

You have mentioned it before? See I kind of mn in fits and bursts, so I missed that. I did think about doing a search... maybe our thread titles aren't grabbing people's attention? If we swear lots and talk about greggs sausage rolls and wearing pj's to school then throw in the robin hood tax hoodie video....?

OP posts:
pallette · 21/10/2010 22:31

Not a good idea as it will lead to less efficient markets and will lower market liquidity.

FiveOrangePips · 21/10/2010 22:34

I have heard that argument, but I also heard that when they had the one off tax last year that didn't happen.

OP posts:
Pan · 21/10/2010 22:42

yes pallette and the 'markets' have been pretty efficient to date, haven't they?Hmm

usual 'holding the country to ransome' rubbish argument, usually reserved for attacking trade unionists.

FiveOrangePips · 21/10/2010 22:46

"So far, the UK banking bailout has cost £1.5 trillion. Or £31,250 for each and every taxpayer in the country. But the banks have already started to report record profits once again..." so financial meltdown isn't hurting banks profits or their ability to award bonuses, even rbs managed to give out £1.5 billion this year in bonuses.

OP posts:
pallette · 21/10/2010 22:51

Financial institutions are the providers of liquidity that they will buy or sell at the prevailing price. If a robin hood tax were implemented then this would increase trading costs leading to trading levels falling thus reducing the level of market liquidity

Pan · 21/10/2010 22:55

no it won't. A 0.05% tax wouldn't touch the sides of 'market liquidity' - it will be simply be 'lost' in the scale of individual transactions but would turn into a massive heap to be put to good use for all ( incl bankers) which the 'markets' have singularly failed to do under their own steam.

pallette · 21/10/2010 23:00

Yes it would as it would lead to wider bid/offer spreads

Pan · 21/10/2010 23:04

I know it isn't pantomime season yet, but...oh no it wouldn't. Such a teen tax would have zero effect as the possibility of a fat profit on a transaction would remain attractive enough.

Banks in this country seem to have no shame whatsoever in contesting this proposal. Short memories/long pockets.

purits · 21/10/2010 23:04

I saw the Bill Nighy video the other day and it didn't make sense. On the one hand he was saying that it wasa little itty bitty tax and the bankers wouldn't notice a 0.05% levy. Then on the other hand, it was going to raise oodles of cash.
It's either a significant amount of money, or it's not. Which version are we going with?

pallette · 21/10/2010 23:05

purits it would raise a lot of money due to the amount of interbank lending

Pan · 21/10/2010 23:05

both. teeny-weeny tax would lead to billions being raised. Nothing conflictual at all.

FiveOrangePips · 21/10/2010 23:07

It would be an insignificant amount of money to the banks, 0.05% but it would be a considerable amount of money to anyone else - £20 billion plus a year. So that is the point Bill Nighy was making.

OP posts:
pallette · 21/10/2010 23:08

It would take £20 billion + out of the capital markets

purits · 21/10/2010 23:09

But the implication was that it was such a tiny amount that the bankers wouldn't notice it, it would have negligable effect on them. Yet it was going to raise billions for the Exchequer.
Name me any industry that wouldn't be adversely affected by suddenly having such a huge overhead imposed on it.

FiveOrangePips · 21/10/2010 23:16

0.05 % is not "such a huge overhead" ?

OP posts:
Pan · 21/10/2010 23:18

Banking industry.

Which don't forget large parts thereof is 'owned' by the public - to whom the tax would go....and from whence it will be re-invested back into the economy. The difference is that this would be for the benefit of the many, and not for the very few.

Quodlibet · 21/10/2010 23:18

Well purits, my industry is going to be adversely affected by having 30% cut out of it. So do you know what, 0.05% seems pretty fucking tiny in comparison.

poxoxo · 21/10/2010 23:18

Why do you want to impose a tax that would take £20-30 billion out of the capital markets when many small and medium sized firms are being starved of credit

Pan · 21/10/2010 23:22

the starving of credit is being done so that banks can raise their reserves again. not a focal point for anyone other than them and their shareholders.

but this is small beer stuff.

good point Quodlibet - my public employer is looking at a 20-25% reduction, which will lead ot redundancies. Not seeing many bankers being made redundant. Perhaps only the very stupid ones.

poxoxo · 21/10/2010 23:25

Banks are raising their reserves to help repair their balance sheets as they contain so much toxic debt. I maintain that £20-30 billion people out of the countrys capital market is madness when we are seeking a massive expansion of the private sector

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.