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/

It is very naive to assume that this cost will not be passed on to the customer as higher transaction costs, higher commissions, whatever.

If business costs are consistently passed on to the consumer, then there is something wrong with the market: i.e. lack of competition.

There is another variable at play here which could bare the costs: profit.

Supporting the Robin Hood Tax

------------
DON'T DOUBT FOR A SECOND THAT A ROBIN HOOD TAX IS
POSSIBLE
------------

Dear Supporter,

The time for a Robin Hood Tax is now. With cuts

hitting hard at home and abroad we must ask the
government to start talking alternatives. A Robin
Hood tax in the UK could raise £20 billion a year,
money that could protect public services and jobs,
tackle poverty at home and abroad, and tackle
climate change.

Don't doubt for a second that a Robin Hood Tax is
possible.

France now has the G20 presidency, and President
Sarkozy is pushing for a Robin Hood Tax. Germany,
Spain and other European countries are all in
favour of bigger bank taxes. 1,000 economists
have added their voices. And ? most importantly
of all ? an awful lot of people, like you, are
seething about the banks' outrageous return to
business as usual.

But a Robin Hood Tax can only become a reality
if we stand up and shout together. So we've
developed a brand new tool that allows you to talk
to your MP in the most effective way.

------------
TAKE ACTION NOW: ASK YOUR MP >>
robinontheroad.org/action/
------------

The Robin Hood Tax campaign has been out on the road
looking at what the banks have done to Britain. From
Sure Start centres to Food Banks we?ve been finding
out why we need a Robin Hood Tax.

------------
SHOW ME THE STORIES >>
robinontheroad.org/
------------

Thank you, as ever, for your brilliant support.

Robin.

'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.'

Yes, that might be true of some evil right wingers. But it couldn't be true of all of them, since many right wingers are good people. So that is unlikely. Anyway it seems that a right winger does support it, Sarkozy. Make of that what you will!

'It's simply a tax. That is, a tax revenue, like any other.'
Yes but tax money is used for political purposes. How will the money be spent? Who will decide? Why did the economists write a letter to Bill Gates who is looking for ways of financing action against climate change. Are the supporters of the tax intending to spend some of the revenue on that? Of course they are, that's why they highlight 'climate' in their quotes. Will they produce more 'An Incovenient Truth' DVDs? Very possibly. It may suit their political objectives.

I am in favour of taxing the banks. But I want accountability for the money received. I don't want the situation highlighted in those Daily Mail articles on charities, where the majority of the money never went to the intended recipients. I don't want it to be used for bogus political purposes on phony scares; I want it to be used to help the people.

claig

I'm afraid I only know what is listed in the FAQ on the website:

robinhoodtax.org/how-it-works/everything-you-need-to-know

----

HOW WOULD THE MONEY RAISED BE SPENT?

50% to fight poverty in the UK
25% to fight poverty in developing countries
25% to fight climate change at home and abroad.

WON?T BANKS JUST PASS THE COSTS ON TO US?

No, because financial transaction taxes are targeted at casino banking operations they can easily be designed in a way that protects the investments of ordinary people and businesses. Just like other taxes, specific exemptions and punitive measures can be built in to protect, for example, lending to businesses or exchanging holiday money.

The IMF has studied who will end up paying transaction taxes, and has concluded that they would in all likelihood be ?highly progressive?. This means they would fall on the richest institutions and individuals in society, in a similar way to capital gains tax. This is in complete contrast to VAT, which falls disproportionately on the poorest people.

The financial sector is highly competitive, which also makes it less likely that institutions will pass on the costs to customers because they will lose business to others who don?t.

---

It doesn't say how, exactly, we will ensure the raised revenue will go to those three things.

'HOW WOULD THE MONEY RAISED BE SPENT?

50% to fight poverty in the UK
25% to fight poverty in developing countries
25% to fight climate change at home and abroad.'

Who has decided this breakdown. Why are they spending the same on 'climate change' as they are on poverty for the Third World? Surely the Third World deserve much more than that? Has this been put to a democratic vote? Does Cameron agree with this breakdown? Who are these people who are making these decisions? Did somebody vote them in? Are they the left wing 'climate' camp? Who gave them authority to make such political decisions about how much 'climate' would get and how much the Third world would get?

So it is for a 'sustainable' economy and the IMF says it will be ?highly progressive?. Thought so, progressive and sustainable and climate, it can only be the usual suspects.

They're like the Joker in Batman. Those three words are their calling card. It's got their fingerprints all over it.

Eh? Do you know what 'highly progressive' means in this context?

Do you have a problem with investing in renewable energy?

Why are they spending the same on 'climate change' as they are on poverty for the Third World?

Probably because climate change affects the poorest in the third world the most.

'Holy differentials, Batman, I calculus we have '50 days left to save the planet'

'Gadzooks, Robin. You're right. We need the Robin Hood tax fast, before earth's end is met'

Claig-

Let me help. 'Progressive' here means 'the wealthiest will pay for it the most'. It doesn't mean 'good'.

Fine, so you don't thin climate change is happening. Would investing in renewable energy, thereby reducing pollution and reducing our dependence on oil, which comes from middle-eastern dictatorships be a bad thing?

Are you willing to throw away the billions raised for the other areas because you have a bee in your bonnet about climate change?

'Holy molars, Batman. What's the meaning of the word 'progressive'?'

'Don't be fooled, Robin. It's just the green Joker and the polar cap Penguin up to their usual tricks'

Did you read the articles from the Daily Mail about Bono's ONE foundation and the other charities? I wonder if these 'billions' will turn out like the '45 minute dossier'? I wonder if they will really go to help those in need or if they will help the 'staright kinda guys'.

"Where do ethical banks like the cooperative bank fall down elsewhere, Chili?"

I have experience of terrible customer service from the Coop, for example. The assertion was that if banks are seen to be 'good guys' and handing over the Robin Hood Tax to wherever, then this would have customers beating a path to their door keen to support the incentive. I think banks are more than a PR exercise and customers these days are very canny about where they place their money. All the good PR in the world won't help if, like my experience with the Coop, customer service is poor, rates are low or if personal banking stops being free.

Chil - I'd assumed you were talking about their use of off shore bank accounts for tax avoidance - Barclays Bank and Guardian Group stylee!.

No I'm taling about front-end delivery of consumer banking services. I think supporting the actions of one insignificant bank takes the pressure off the French government in the sense of 'if you wish to support the Robin Hood Tax, you have the choice to do so'.... and does not mean that it will be copied elsewhere. Bank customers are very mercenary and can switch custom very quickly if they find they are being overcharged or given poor service. Like the 'green tariffs' available with utility companies, very few people opt to pay more for their fuel simply to make a lifestyle statement.

Chil1234 is right. This looks like a bit like spin and a bit of a stunt. It is polotical and makes the French government look good, while achieving hardly anything. It is not one os their major state banks. Why is that? If Sarkozy supports it, why isn't one of their huge banks doing it - one of teh banks that earns huge money and pays huge bonuses.

Also, these are teh self-appointed goals of the people who support it :

'HOW WOULD THE MONEY RAISED BE SPENT?

50% to fight poverty in the UK
25% to fight poverty in developing countries
25% to fight climate change at home and abroad.'

But they say that this is about the banking crisis and getting the bankers to pay us back. But the above is really putting a band aid on the problem. It's more 'Band Aid'. Why aren't they spending the money to pay off the debt so that they can reduce interest payments to the bankers, so that they can get the bankers off the people's backs and get the country's economy moving again, which will mean that millions won't need to be laid off and that the cuts won't need to be imposed. Because they are not interested in that. They have political objectives; they want to spend it on their ideological projects like climate change and 'Band Aid' style world poverty relief, while ignoring the real elephant in the room - the hold that the bankers have on the country. They won't solve anything for the people of the world, because that is not what they want. They don't want to limit the power of the bankers; they want to play politics and they want billions at their disposal. They're not interested in growth and the economy because they are 'sustainable, climate change progressives'. Growth is not sustainable in their Bible. So they will spend the billions on 'climate change' and alleviating the poverty caused by the bankers who created the lack of growth in the first place by stifling the economy.

As far as i cn see, this bank is a French state bank

'1938 : Création par l'État de la Caisse Centrale de Crédit Coopératif, organisme professionnel et coopératif de financement des scop et coopérative de consommation.'

which, if true, probably means that the French state had a hand in the decision. If so, and if the French state really believes in it, why didn't they choose one of their huge, powerful, influential state banks to make this political statement.

Maybe they employ some New Labour spin meisters in France as well. Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, they're everywhere - building a 'progressive future'.

They only have the interests of the people of the world at heart. They only want to 'save the planet'. But, of course, these 'straight kinda guys' won't challenge the bankers.

It was the 'straight kinda guys' who gave the bankers the 'light touch regulation' that they always campaign for. The 'straight kinda guys' must think that the public are a 'soft touch' as they help the bankers out and dress their policies up as 'light touch'. It was the 'straight kinda guys' who lit the fuse that caused the collapse, then left a note saying "nothing to do with us, but sorry there's no money left". So now they're back. They've renamed their dream of a Tobin tax, and now they call it a 'Robin Hood' tax. They say they want to rob the rich and give to the poor. But we've heard it all before, we know all about the 'straight kinda guys'; they help themselves, they don't help the poor.

I have experience of amazing customer serve fro the Cooperative Ban and Smile, their Internet only banking service.

Terrible service from Lloyds and RBOS who have no concept of the value of customer retention whatsoever.

If you think about it - you can see why many left of centre people might have reservations about the Robin Hood tax. To develop Claig's point:

This is a global, non-government organisation collecting (supposedly) vast amounts of money and deciding where that money should go.

This money has to come from somewhere and most of it will be either from customers or shareholders (or some mix). Some may come from Banker's bonuses - but I doubt much of it will.

They is a danger that the effect of the Robin Hood tax is to divert central tax revenue away from the UK Inland Revenue pot and our governments control. Not really a socialist or even democratic ideal.

Exactly right, jackstarb. The right have always claimed that these initiatives are part of global governance. They won't help the poor people of the world and aren't intended to. They are supra-national and controlled by an undemocratic elite who will push their climate change agenda and their other global governance agendas. They won't end recessions in individual countries or regulate and control bankers, because they don't care about the people; they "claim" that they want to "save the planet". It's always worth listening to the other side of the argument, just in case they have the 'straight kinda guys's' number. The socialist Jacques Delors, a fan of supra-national global governance, would have been all for it. Thatcher would have stood against the tide. Remember the immortal words of the Sun, "Up Yours Delors".

Whatever their agenda, the Robin Hoodies (really ) having a role which sits outside national governments must cause some unease.

If bank shareholders want to donate some of their profits to preventing climate change - fair enough. Customer's who don't like it can move their accounts. Crédit Coopératif have chosen to donate their 'Robin Hood tax' to help developing countries - great, it sounds in keeping with their ethos.

But some kind of global compulsory tax given to an 'unelected' organisation who then distribute it as they see fit - that can't be good.

Claig - having read all your posts, I can see what you mean & I agree with you.