What do you all think of the Robin Hood Tax?

[FiveOrangePips]

here

make the news

Maria - do you believe the Robin Hood Tax would have an impact on bankers salaries? How?

Maria-Bankers get bonuses because they have done well and the bank has made a profit, it has no relevance to the cuts in public spending so I don't see how you equate the two.

Jackstarbright, I have no idea whether the RHT would have an impact on bankers salaries. If it were implemented across the board (ie in all countries) I expect it wouldn't make much of a difference, no. But that isn't going to happen, is it.

Lokaku, to be honest, it's not particularly the bankers I have a problem with (btw I don't have any personal problem with any banker, it's a more general thought). It's the more general acceptance on the part of society that there inevitably exists / can exist such a huge gap between rich & poor that seems to be in danger of widening with the current cuts. That's all. Very simple really.

I've just checked out their website: Robin Hood Tax.

It is more of a campaign call - talking about all the good the tax could do, rather than how it would be collected or the effect on the banking system. In fact they seem to imply there would be no significant cost or impact.

@Maria - Its not clear though if they think it should be unilateral.

Interesting that it's supported by the likes of George Sorus and Warren Buffet.

People who work in banking get big bonuses because they work in the money industry.

Similarly people who used to work in coal mines came home from work covered in coal dust.

Nurses in A&E (and doctors for that matter) don't earn similar bonuses because there isn't a lot of money swilling around A&E on a Saturday night.

As a lawyer, you will find it easier to pick up a bit of money if you facilitate a large business deal or a multi-million pound divorce than if your clients have no money what so ever.

I think the Robin Hood Tax is a non-starter because, as has been pointed out, the banking industry doesn't have to do business here at all. You might as well have a tax on hopping to work. It would only work if the banking industry wanted to take it on as some kind of PR thing.

Plan B could be where we put chewing gum on the seats in reception because that would be really annoying.

Cough, splutter, cough. But surely as part of the Big Society being promoted by David Cameron the banks would want to do their bit and he would want them to do it. No?

I am afraid the argument of 'tax us and we will leave' is washing increasingly thin with the public, esp. after the last couple of years, and the extent to which the public purse had to bail out banks, and their 'high earners'. Politically, it is exactly the same as the accusation put to unions of 'holding the country to ransom'. In neither arena is it credible.
Lets try it, eh? Put in the tax, and see how many/much business actually leave, or do their business elsewhere. To use again the union analogy, they claim it's a closed shop. I suspect, as many do, that is tosh. You will find many other British entrepeneurs happy to step in to take up the slack (if there is any at all) for these buck chasers. As we are steadily reminded, it's a free market.......so sod off and free-market elsewhere, thank you good morning.

0.05% is nothing. And please don't start on market liquidity......yes, it would be better with a global sign up to the RHT, but really not impossible as a venture in Eurpean states.

l

of course another analogy is the dentist. Or the vet. Or the tv repair guy ( remember those?), orthe car machanic when you don't know much about cars, and how they work.

The sort of 'veil' that was put over banking ( very complicated, markets you know, jonnie foreigner) has been swept aside, rather like my favourite analogy from the Wizard of Oz when Toto pulled back the Wizards curtain. 2008 revealed the paupacy of bankers arguments re their 'personal' centrality to the economy.
No. The sector is very important, we know, but not beyond consideration of making a contribution to the devastation that was wreaked on hundreds of thousands of lives, soon to be millions of lives in this country.

The shamelessly lazy arguemnts proffered against a RHT does your public standing little help. Not, I suspect, the banking sector cares a great deal about that. As long as the 'bonuses' still get paid.

OP you keep reiterating in your posts that this is a small tax therefore it's impact would be small. However banking is a highly competitive industry. If each transaction were taxed by 0.05% ,this cost would need to be included in any pricing and unless the tax were a global one, those banks quoting from the UK would lose on price and lose the entire deal. There would then be no profit to tax.

Maria of course the divergence in salaries is unfair but it is unavoidable that jobs in the private sector pay more than those in the public sector. In return, those working in the public sector have enjoyed more job security and other benefits up until now. I have worked in the finance industry and can tell you that it is very much the minority who like to look down on others who do not earn as much. Most are happy to pay taxes and make contributions to charities because they can. It is all too easy to bash bankers generally. Yes the banks required a bailout, however this is not sunk money. The government / taxpayer took an equity stake in the banks it funded and so it is in the taxpayer's interest now that those banks perform well.

This campaign is just another opportunity to dupe the public into rising up against the banks again. Soros and Buffett probably have a short on British Banks and want to see them fail. Has everyone forgotten how Soros had no shame in attacking our currency for his own personal gain?

All hail the banks, no one bad mouth the banks. If they surrender a penny the financial markets will surely collapse and your children will starve. Zeig Heil! [ironic goosestepping in the direction of our city based overlords]

Have registered on robin hood website, am very willing to chance eradicating all liquidity, if there's a chance of a molecule of justice being done.

"The sort of 'veil' that was put over banking ( very complicated, markets you know, jonnie foreigner) has been swept aside"

Pan - now you are privy to all the secrets of the financial world and can see how easy it all is - what's to stop you giving it a go yourself?

I think pretty much anyone can start up a hedge fund. All you need is some seed capital (your own money or a loan) and an investment strategy.

Once your fund has some decent growth history - you can begin to get outside investors (you will need a lawyer at this stage).

Then you can charge fees for managing your clients money and pay yourself a nice bonus .

I don't understand why some people want to "hurt" the banks when they are so important to our economy. For some people to be suggesting that financial markets are simple and that anyone could be an investment banker is simply wrong they are incredibly complex and very changeable.
People saying "am very willing to chance eradicating all liquidity", why would you want to risk that?

jack - I have a start up plan. That 'loan' I made to RBS is about to get called in......

pan - You will need to understand the difference between a loan and equity before you get going.

The UK government has owns a 85% share of RBS. I believe this holding is getting close to it's original 'investment' value.

Although I suspect when it's realised it'll go to pay down a part the national debt.

no, you are not going to squirrel your way into a deal with me, jack. It's all mine!! - minus 0.05%.

Mmmm - that's ok Pan. Your hedge fund is safe. Good luck, though.

Huddspur, really though, who suggested financial markets are 'simple' and that 'anyone could be an investment banker'?!

Even taking as a given for a moment that all this is true- that the financial market is hugely important for the economy, that bankers getting such huge bonuses is somehow good for the rest of society (!), that any more taxation on the financial market will result in them leaving us- still, even if that all is very true, can't you see that some people simply don't care because they're too angry about the wealth disparity & also the whole risk-attitude that was taken for years & years & years by the financial markets?

(Of course, it has to be added that these risks were taken also by everyday people- eg huge, unrealistic mortgages- but surely this was encouraged by the greedy financial markets?)

Maria I was talking about the general attitude towards banking on MN. If the banks were to leave the City then the whole economy would suffer, its our largest wealth generator and its our biggest export industry. I also don't remember people complaining when they were getting good interest rates on their savings or when the last Government was throwing the money they'd recieved in coroporation tax from the banks around.

With regard to what good bonuses are for the rest of society that could be said for anyones salary or bonus. The reality is they will spend some of that bonus so it will flow through our economy through drip down economics and the multiplier effect, the same as the money I spend or you spend and the bankers do pay large amounts of tax.

'm not comfortable with what some banks have done but it should be remembered that not all banks got themselves in difficulty but this hatred of all bankers and financial institutions is irrational and would leave us all worse off as our economy struggled.

Hudd, the Robin Hood Tax is not about hurting the banks in particular, the fact is we are in an economic mess. We all have to pay, why should the banks be exempt? Especially when the Robin Hood Tax equates to 50p per £1000 transaction.

Do you really think that the banks would and would be justified in flouncing for that?

The banks already have a banking levy and pay corporation tax on top of that. Around 25% of all corporation tax is payed by the banks.

Everyone already pays tax and everyone is being asked to accept cuts, however, it was already known before the election that efficiency cuts were not going to be enough. What can be cut is being cut, the rest will need to come from taxes. As the cuts are hurting the poorest and those on middle incomes, why not levy a very, very small but lucrative tax on the banking sector, whose mistakes have played no small part in the mess we find ourselves in.

I can't imagine any other industry threatening to flounce for such a small tax. Can you see our plumbers/mechanics/electricians/transport providers or even energy suppliers doing this for a 0.05% rise in the tax they have to pay?

Banking is the most mobile industry in the world and the Governments cuts and already announced tax rises will reduce the deficit inside the life of this Parliament so why impose the additional tax on our biggest exporting industry that we can't do without.

Dinosaur, if it was as hugely competitive as you suggest maybe the profit margins wouldn't be so huge and us thickos wouldn't suggest they could afford such a piddling percentage of their profits to help those in need?

Hudd while I agree that banking is one of the most mobile industries in the world, if as you are suggesting(?) they will flounce for the imposition of a 50p per £1000 transaction is true, then banking is extremely unreliable in the long term. Maybe if the government imposes this tax, and demands the return of all moneys loaned before the banks take off, then future investments could be put into more secure, long term investments that would be of more benefit to the country as a whole.

I think the word 'flouncing' is wrong. It implies a 'personal' decision.

Financial Service companies will make location decisions for business reasons. They will relocate if it is in the best interest of their clients, investors and employees.

A unilateral RHT might influence where they record their transactions or even in an extreme case where they locate. But income and corporation taxes are a bigger factors.