French bank breaks ranks on Robin Hood Tax

[ttosca]

The French bank Crédit Coopératif has broken ranks and agreed to pay a levy on its currency transactions even before the tax is introduced in France. In a boost to the campaign to get countries to sign up to financial transaction taxes through the Eurozone or the G20, the bank will pay 0.01% on currency transactions after 1 March 2011 ? the details are set out in English here.

Crédit Coopératif has pledged not to pass the cost on to consumers, even though it is at twice the 0.005% rate that the TUC has called for on currency transactions (margins on such transactions are lower than for shares and other financial transactions). The bank is, as its name suggests, owned by its members, and has a history of support for progressive causes. It has equity of ?1.28 billion (which is, obviously, quite small, for a bank).

Here?s what I said on behalf of the Robin Hood Tax campaign:

Crédit Coopératif?s action disproves critics? claims that a Robin Hood Tax is hard to implement and shows what we could achieve if the rest of the financial sector were asked to show such generosity. Excuses for not asking banks to pay their fair share to society are wearing thinner by the day.

www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/05/french-bank-breaks-ranks-on-robin-hood-tax/

"If it is such a good idea, then I would expect some right wingers to back it too."

Eh? Why? Because it could only be a good idea if it has right wingers behind it? How odd.

One would hope that people are capable of considering the validity of a notion without having to refer to the right or left wing endorsement of it.

Because that would suggest brain washing.

Winky - isn't that what claig is saying? A truly good idea should have a broad support across the political spectrum.

No, because it there wasn't a single right winger behind it, then it may mean that they know something that you don't.

Just as if there are not many left wingers behind the cuts then that probably means that the cuts are not a great idea either. If only one side is in favour of something, then it is worth asking why. Just as the Tory potential privatisation of the NHS should be questioned, as a very large left wing and also right wing number of people are against it and similarly with the student fees.

Exactly, jackstarb, that is what I am saying.

Brain washing is believing any one side of the argument without taking into account what the other side says. Maybe the other side knows something that you have overlooked or are not aware of. Maybe the side that you agree with are not really as 'straight kinda guys' as they say they are. Maybe they have other political objectives behind their policy and maybe that is why their policy doesn't gain much support.

Is Ed Miliband behind the 'Robin Hood tax'? Does he campaign in favour of it?

Not necessarily. A broad political spectrum of support doesn't immediately denote a good idea at all.

That suggests that if the right or left reject it, it's not a good idea. How can that always be true?

It's important to be able to evaluate proposals regardless of left or right political support.

I've no idea if Miliband or the Labour Party supports the Robin Tax. I couldn't care less if they do. Nor if Cameron and Osbourne support it. In terms of my supporting it, I mean. Obviously in terms of legislation it's important they do. But ideologically no. That's not to say I'm not open to hearing the spectrum of opinion on it.

It seems that Ed Miliband does support it. I dodn't know that because I haven't heard much about it form him on the media. I agree with Peter Tatchell who said that he was surprised that the left hadn't spolen up in favour of it more.

"Labour List have publicised Unite?s support for the tax, while Left Foot Forward recently reported Peter Tatchell?s support for the tax at the March for the Alternative; he said:

?I am really surprised that the Left and trade unions are not speaking more strongly for the Robin Hood Tax?.unless we start promoting this alternative I don?t think we will win.?

Back in October last year Left Foot Forward?s Rayhan Haque wrote:

?The case for a financial transaction tax is overwhelming. It embodies every principle the left believes in: fairness, justice, and reciprocity.

?The time has now come for the new generation in the Labour party to take this to the next level.?

Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and other senior Labour party MPs support the tax; perhaps now is the time to put more pressure on the coalition on the issue."

Labour don't have the balls to put pressure on the banks. They had so many years in which to do it and they never did.

'It's important to be able to evaluate proposals regardless of left or right political support.'

I agree. I don't agree with everything they both say. For example, they are both in favour of globalisation, and they both believe in catastrophic climate change.

But I think it is important to listen to arguments from both sides to see if they hold water.

'Labour don't have the balls to put pressure on the banks.'

I agree. But why is right wing Sarkozy's name on the list of supporters, along with Lord Turner, yet there is no mention of Miliband?

"It's important to be able to evaluate proposals regardless of left or right political support."

Yes - and assuming people can do that, eventually supporters will emerge across the spectrum if an idea has merit - no?

I honestly don't know if a good idea in my opinion needs broad support for it to be a good idea. I think the NHS is a tremendous idea. I don't think many right wingers do. For example.

Daily Mail readers are generally right wing and the vast vast majority are all in favour of the NHS. They are ordinary people who can't afford to go private like the rich can. They need the support of the NHS just like everyone else. They are against the scandal of many people not being able to find NHS dentists, because successive governments have allowed this to happen. The Mail publishes stories where people in pain and desperation and without the funds have pulled their own teeth out with pliers. Don't believe the left wing characterisation of millions of right wing voters. 'Straight kinda guys' lie to fool you and achieve their political purposes.

I agree that not all majority decisions are good. But many are, and it is always worth asking if a decision is based on political polarisation. It may be a good decision, but it may also be a political ruse by the 'straight kinda guys', the '45 minute dossier' guys.

I tend to value my judgement more than any politician. I read economists and social commentators' work rather than notice politicians empty spiel when it comes to developing an opinion.

So do I. But some economists are part of the same political movements that the politicians are part of. Economists like Jeffrey Sachs are left wing and share many of the goals of the left.

Left Foot Forward says

"The Telegraph also quote Columbia University?s Jeffrey Sachs who is a special adviser to UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon:

?It is time for the G20 to agree to a tax on financial transactions to help poor countries struggling with climate, food and economic crises they did nothing to cause. The tax would also be a fair and efficient way to help close budget deficits in our own countries as well.?

You can again see that "climate" is the first thing mentioned.

If they really wanted to help countries, then they would open oour markets to their products and end the speculation that destabilises the price of their products. They would also give them real debt relief and debt moratoria. But they will collect the Robin Hood Tax centrally and spend it on "climate". It won't help the poor. In fact they will plant crops to produce bio fuel and the poor will be at risk of starvation. But it's OK because they will be "saving the planet".

More from Left Foot Forward

"A thousand economists from around the world have signed a letter backing a Robin Hood or Tobin Tax which would put a small levy on financial transactions.

The letter, which was signed by 127 UK economists ? including Cambridge University economics professor Ha Joon Chang - has been delivered to G20 finance ministers in Washington and was also sent to Bill Gates to help in his search for ways to finance action against climate change."

No surprise that it's "climate" again.

?? claig? This has nothing to do with climate, it is about people having to pay for a banking crisis and being subjected to cuts in services and lowered living standards (while banks continue to pay huge bonuses and make large profits at the expense of the ordinary people.

I notice your derailing attempt

I also read economics and social commentators viewpoints when it comes to developing my own opinion - because they provide further insight into the issues, particularly in their specialist field.

Leading economists have argued against the cuts to peoples livelyhoods and living standards, because it damages economies and damages countries. It is also fair for banks in profit to give back to the people who supported them during the banks' crisis.

Therefore the step taken by the french bank is commendable and shows they are taking proper responsibility and contributing to the community that supported them.

HHLimbo, you're wrong. The Tobin tax, now called 'Robin Hood' tax in an attempt to get the public to support it, was an idea floated long before the present financial crisis. After the crisis, its supporters think they have a good chance of introducing it. It is not to do with the banking crisis. It has been on the cards for a long time. I'm not derailing, I am highlighting what its supporters say in their quotes - and the common factor is 'climate'.

By highlighting 'climate', it is clear that the objective is political. I don't know what will happen, but my guess is that it will not be introduced because the political 'climate' camp is slowly losing its credibility through ClimateGate etc. That may in fact be why even the official left, as Peter Tatchell said, have been surprisingly quiet in their support for the 'Robin Hood' tax.

Claig - no you're wrong. And still trying to derail. Which is wrong. and telling people they are wrong when they are not is wrong.
Also you are discussing 'quotes' without stating the actual quotes or providing links. Typical straw man falacy and derailing.

I stand by my previous comment that the step taken by the french bank is commendable and shows they are taking proper responsibility, and contributing backnto the community that supported them during the banking crisis.

Accusing me of derailing is derailing.
Here is the article from 'Left Foot Forward'. The banner is 'green' and it is filed under the section called 'sustainable' economy. 'Sustainable' is the favourite word of the green, climate, 'save the planet' political camp. But I guess pointing that out is just derailing.

www.leftfootforward.org/2011/04/thousand-economists-agree-on-robin-hood-tax/

If it is such a good idea, then I would expect some right wingers to back it too.

No, not really. Right wingers might not back it because caring about the poor and wealth inequality is not really a priority for them.

I don't know if any do. I am just wondering. A lot of charities and ideas sound good on paper, but sometimes much of the money is not used for its intended purpose. It is possible that some may be used for different political purposes.

It's simply a tax. That is, a tax revenue, like any other. There is no more 'central planning' involved than other taxes, as far as I know. The government will simply have more revenue from this tax.