Bank bashing?

[ItsGrimUpNorth]

You bet there is a lot of public anger and no, they are not misguided.

Bill Nighy & the Make Poverty History Luvvies have been banging on about that Robin Hood Tax for quite some time. Banks are a popular target for public annoyance - quite rightly because of their poor management a few years ago and the fact that big bonuses don't sit well when everyone else is feeling the pinch. But I'd actually like to see the banks back on their collective feet sooner rather than later, generating tax revenues, allowing the government to sell our shareholdings at a profit and contributing to the return to growth. With the ME in turmoil, oil prices rising and inflation threatening to run away with itself, we can't afford for any business sector to be underperforming.

Yawn.....another banker bashing thread.....zzzzzzzz

Do idiots like Bill Nighy have any idea what damage a 0.05% tax on every foreign exchange transactions would have to the global economy?

The EUR/USD exchange rate trade 2 pips wide (so 1.3940/1.3942 say) or 0.014% wide. A 0.05% tax is going to mean the bid/offer would have to widen to 16 pips (1.3932/1.3948). It would widen the bid/offer by 8 times!

Liquidity in FX market would fall dramatically and in reality bid/offer would widen even more than this. Who would pay the additional bid/offer? Every business doing import/export business. How would they pay for that additional cost?

Robin Hood's stated aims are to reduce poverty in the UK and developing countries. Putting taxes on FX transactions would seriously damage things like the global food trade. Are they naive enough to think that banks or corporations are just going to pass the charges on?

Businesses will raise prices in the country they import to. This raises the cost of living, making everybody poorer.
Businesses will reduce the price they pay for good in the exporting country. What would that do for exporters in emerging economies? Make them poorer.

Well done Bill ... you've just made everyone even poorer. But of course when you're a multi-millionaire actor luvvy why should you give a shit!

Sorry try again ...

"Are they naive enough to think that banks or corporations aren't just going to pass the charges on?"

Not only naive enough, but rich enough not to be too bothered about the extra cost.

It is better to have nice instincts instead of "nasty Tory party" instincts.

After all, non of us here are professional politicians . There are some good speilers on politics here; which is not the same thing.

Dont put your daughter into politics Mrts Worthington.

Politics is like FAME; leave it to the people who really need it. cheers "Gabby"

You sure there are no professional politicians on here Gabby? That claig could pass muster as a tory minister I feel. Or a Daily Mail leader writer.

She'll probably take all that as a compliment!

Is that because of the sense that I speak?
I am not a professional politician and am not able to claim for my duck house and moat. The Daily Mail is great, but I don't write for it.

You should claig. And how DO you do that? Pop up every time your name's mentioned? Do you have special powers as well as great alliteration?

I have a sixth sense. It is that sixth sense that leads me to seek out the truth, which I have discovered can be found within the pages of the Daily Mail.

As I've mentioned elsewhere we don't have tories where I live.

I am just coming to terms with somebody saying the Daily Mail is great. When I first read it I assumed it was ironic but I think she really means it.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone say anything good about the Daily Mail before.

considers with wide eyes that big wide world out there

Coming back to the topic - siasl - surely the whole point of the Robin Hood / Tobin tax is that it would remove the incentive for speculative trading?

How is it in anyone's interest to have a bunch of overpaid gamblers sitting watching the markets and shifting money from one currency to another then back again to make a paper profit?

Yes it will add a charge to genuine transactions too - but at 0.05% that is a very small amount - imported food would go up by 1p for every £20 spent.

This tax seems to me the best idea that is out there to both control money markets and raise a bit extra for governments. The only difficulty is that it needs to be international so it will take some effort to get everybody on board: but I wish it would happen.

I will pay my 0.05% gladly in the knowledge that every stock market gambler is paying it too.

'I don't think I have ever heard anyone say anything good about the Daily Mail before.'

Do you have no discerning friends and acquaintances at all?

Right so you were joking, what a relief. I will sleep easier now.

For those who are still wedded to the idea of banker bashing and think that taxing banks to high heaven is the best way forward.

Well it looks like HSBC will move from London to Hong Kong. Telegraph and Mail

"Britain's capital requirements for the UK's leading banks are now the toughest in the world......HSBC explained to shareholders that the more relaxed capital requirements in Hong Kong would cost less and generate more profit by allowing it to make greater use of its balance sheet"

"Yet the introduction of a bonus tax was blamed directly by HSBC's finance director Iain Mackay as a contributor to pushing up costs and driving down profit."

So can someone explain to me how this will help our economy for one of our major employers who didn't need any banking bailouts and managed their own affairs to be effectively taxed out of the UK. Not to mention all the jobs we will lose as a result and loss in both income tax receipts & corporation tax.

My guess is that this is just trying to put pressure on the government to lower the banking levy.

"HSBC chairman, Douglas Flint, last month told the Commons Treasury Select Committee that it was 'not trying to leave London' but warned that the bank had to face up to relevant questions from investors about the benefits of remaining in the UK, and described the bank levy a 'tax on being headquartered in London'.

A spokesman for HSBC said: 'London is ideally positioned as an international financial centre and we have been clear that it is our preference to remain headquartered here.

'However, we are routinely asked by institutional investors about the costs of being headquartered in the UK and it's clear that the City's competitive position needs protection.'

The Basel regulations will tighten up the regulatory system in an attempt to avoid another banking disaster. What should we do? Scrap tighter regulations and let bankers have free rein until the day we have to bail them out again?

Before 1992 they weren't headquartered in London. They will still have to have offices here, with traders operating out of this timezone. How many of their "high-fliers" will be prepared to move to Hong Kong rather than stay in London?

It also serves to explain to shareholders why profits were lower than expected, even though analysts must have already factored in the cost of the banking levy

"Pre-tax profits of just £11.7bn ? £615m down on predictions - led to a 4.7 per cent drop in the share price. "

No they won't move it is an idle threat but they have to complain or the tories won't have an excuse not to tax them properly and increase regulation.

NG - in another thread you said the financial crisis was all labour's fault because they didn't regulate the banks and now you say if a bank complains about regulation (not tax - capital requirements are new regulations) and threatens to move we should all kowtow and let them have their own way.

Oakeshott is the one telling the truth here, not the bankers.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/09/lord-oakeshott-quits-banking-deal

No I didn't Paul. I said they had to take some responsibility for their purposely lax regulation.

And whilst I accept we now need tighter controls (which I suspect even the banks would), we need them to be sensible and pro-business rather than the witch-hunt which seems to be going on trying to burn bankers at the stake.

And its not about Kowtowing. It's about not biting the hand that feeds by forcing them into a position with stupid policies where the good banks feel they want to leave, leaving us with a huge hole in our national finances and the weak banks which we needed to support.

Lastly, I do hope you are right that they don't leave and its just a timely reminder to people that in fact, there's very little to keep them in the UK.

This is the same witch-hunt that Oakeshott talks of is it? The one where the banks get off incredibly lightly and then go to the press with mock tears about how bad it is? And Diamond still gets total remuneration of about £9million - one day of his time is worth one and a half average annual salaries?

The financial crisis and ensuing global recession was caused by macho blokes gambling with ordinary people's money for these ridiculous incentives. It should be stopped NOW. And the tories not renewing labour's bonus tax is CRIMINAL - the banks expected this, budgeted for it and were let off the hook.

@smallwhitecat - Barclays paid 2.4% of its profits in corporation tax when the headline rate is 28%. Asking it to pay its share is not punitive it is just fair.

The reason banks aren't lending to real businesses (i.e. the ones that make things or provide real services to human beings) is because you can make money quicker gambling it on shares / foreign exchange / bond markets / commodities - never mind that this very gambling inflates prices and decreases growth. It is the bonus culture that makes banks go for these short term gains instead of supporting companies that need longer term loans to develop and start giving a return.

Barclays and others have deferred tax credits from their years of losses.

There is no relief on the new levy that will raise £2.5B and cost HSBC and RBS alone as much as GBP800M-£1B/year.

Diamond's pay is a matter for shareholders. For better or worse, they seem pretty happy with the job he's doing though.

re: gambling, it's actually getting more expensive for them to do a lot of so-called speculative activities.

Regardless, their bread and butter business is always going to be lending to people and businesses, which is of benefit to us all.

Yes yes, heard it all. Evil banks blah, tax them more blah. Criminals blah blah.

The thing you seem to be misunderstanding is that these evil banks can and will simply upsticks and move. You've seen HSBC hint at this already and although you may think its an idle threat, the impact of them doing so is huge to us.

So the fact remains.....what is there to gain by continually bank bashing? Fairness? Oh please don't be so naive!

Paul88

A voice of reason amongst the Tory stooges, thank you.

The banks are not "evil" just run by people who put their self interest above that of the customers/society/the national interest/small businesses, People like Diamond are coin operated, money appears to be their God.

NG2 the blah blah goes to show that you are unable to put together a coherent argument.

SWC, please tell me how countries like Sweden,Norway, Finland etc manage to have a good economy without being major financial centres. We have a bigger financial industry than Germany but they have a stronger economy.

Seems strange to me.