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/

Robin Hoodies is a good term to describe them. But maybe they should be called 'Robbing Hoodies', because for the public, they don't give a Friar Tuck.

The Bliars, the globaliars, the global warmers, the global governance formers - they're all the same, as 'straight kinda guys' they will go down in that infamous hall of fame.

It's all globaloney, deceitful and phony. That's why the public called time on the global hoodies and their homies. The public grew sick of handing over fistfuls of hard-earned pennies, only to see it spent on all that global pony.

and handed over to the global cronies

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

Why is supposed vast amounts? I think the percentages are proposals. I don't see why a pan-european consensus on this issue can't be reached.

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.

Yes, from profits. Read the FAQ. The finance industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world. Banks make billions in profits. If any cost is passed on to the customer, then there is a lack of competition, and the banks should be better regulated (and they should). If you read the FAQ it also says:

----

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.

----

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.

Eh?!

The Bliars, the globaliars, the global warmers, the global governance formers - they're all the same, as 'straight kinda guys' they will go down in that infamous hall of fame.

You appear to have lost the plot.

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.

What on earth are you talking about? The tax will go to governments, not some 'unelected' organisation.

Thatcher would have stood against the tide. Remember the immortal words of the Sun, "Up Yours Delors".

This is stupid.

claig

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".

Why don't you just be honest and say 'New Labour'?

So now they're back.

No they're not, you fool. This isn't a New Labour or Labour initiative.

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.

This is an entirely vacuous paragraph.

So you claim to want to make the banks pay for the financial crisis they caused and which is costing tax payers billions of pounds and lost jobs. At the same time, you have paranoid delusions about supra-national organisations. What is your plan for squaring this circle, given that finance is transnational and capital is highly mobile?

I have no paranoid delusions. I just understand what global governance is all about - just as Arthur Scargill doesl. Don't you agree with Arthur (and also Tony Benn) about the EU and democratic accountability?

How do you think right wing Charles De Gaulle nationalised the French banks overnight? They should nationalise the banks rather than bailing them out with the hard-earned money of the people. They should stop all their bonuses and see how highly mobile they really are. They should impose extra taxes on them if they want to operate in this country and the nationalised banks should lend the money back to the people and the people's businesses, since it is all the people's money anyway. Instead of quantitative easing for the banks, the quantitative easing should have gone to the people, because they will then spend it and it will go back into the banks anyway. The difference is the people would have spent it and got the economy and jobs moving instead of the banks just sitting on it and awarding themselves bonuses. I believe in local government (like the Liberals do). I believe in local accountability and national accountability. I'm like Thatcher, I don't like supra-national socialists like Jacques Delors. I think they work for supra-national capitalists and global capitalists and global finance instead of for the nation. Unlike the socialists, right wing Charles De Gaulle worked for the French nation - that's why he nationalised their banks. I think the socialists give the capitalists 'light touch' regulation and anything they want - to the detriment of the people. Margaret Thatcher faced them down; we can do the same.

I don't believe that spending 25% of the Robin Hood tax on climate change will do anything about paying the people back for the money that the banks took from them. Instead, I think it is pure global governance for the benefit of the socialists' masters - the global capitalists. If there's one thing the global warmers, global governance international socialists and global capitalists have in common, it's their global supra-national ambitions. Who do you really think pulls the strings?

ttosca, you don't seem to have looked into teh Robin Hood tax enough. It is just an updated form of teh Tobin tax, first proposed by Janes Tobin in 1971. It has been a long-held plan of socialists and global governance advocates for many years. The question about who would many the billions earned in this taxation and what they would spend it on is key to democratic accountability. Do you really believe it will all be spent on good causes? Didn't you read about where some of the money for charities goes?

This is from Wikipedia about the Tobin tax, and shows the supra-national body that socialists would like as the arbiter of where the money is spent and who would control it.

"Castro also suggested that the United Nations be the administrator of this tax, stating the following:

May the tax suggested by Nobel Prize Laureate James Tobin be imposed in a reasonable and effective way on the current speculative operations accounting for trillions of US dollars every 24 hours, then the United Nations, which cannot go on depending on meager, inadequate, and belated donations and charities, will have one trillion US dollars annually to save and develop the world. Given the seriousness and urgency of the existing problems, which have become a real hazard for the very survival of our species on the planet, that is what would actually be needed before it is too late.[97]
On March 6, 2006, US Congressman Ron Paul stated the following:

The United Nations remains determined to rob from wealthy countries and, after taking a big cut for itself, send what?s left to the poor countries. Of course, most of this money will go to the very dictators whose reckless policies have impoverished their citizens. The UN global tax plan ... resurrects the long-held dream of the 'Tobin Tax'. A dangerous precedent would be set, however: the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations.[99]"

It will create a supra-national hierarchy beyond the control of nation states, democractically unaccountable, just the way that socialists and Castro like it.

Castro says

"then the United Nations ... will have one trillion US dollars annually to save and develop the world"

They're big on "saving the planet" the socialists, they want to "save the world" and Big Brother Loves You. Do you believe them? Do you believe the 'straight kinda guys'? The public don't - they voted them out.

"Thatcher would have stood against the tide. Remember the immortal words of the Sun, "Up Yours Delors".

This is stupid."

Delors didn't find it stupid at the time. He knew he had been rumbled, he knew the game was up, his goose was cooked. He was never again able to lord it over Gotham City. The dynamic duo, Thatcher and Nigel Lawson had chased him off. Mitterand called her the "Iron Lady" and the socialists feared her handbag just as those crooks in Northampton feared the bag that the fearless supergran belted them with.

I don't know for sure, but I bet that Supergran was a Mail reader - they are a different breed. She is an example of people power. Look at the way those socialists flee.

With people like her, the globaliars will never be able to take this country down. She didn't even seek publicity. The whole world's press had to track her down. If she isn't a conservative, she certainly deserves honorary membership of the party. She exemplifies Conservative core values.

duckypoo was so right.

The French bank's proposal is based on a report called
'Globalizing Solidarity: The Case for Financial Levies'
Solidarity is a name associated with many unions worldwide, and of course the famous one in Poland.

The report is full of the usual buzzwords - global, governance, sustainable, sustainability etc.

Reading the report you can see that they advocate setting up a 'Global
Solidarity Fund' to provide governance of the money. It looks like this will be a supra-national body rather than a national one.

www.leadinggroup.org/IMG/pdf_Financement_innovants_web_def.pdf

"Proportional to their
involvement, the economic market participants
that participate in and benefit from globalisation,
including the financial sector, would therefore pay
a small fee to fund the global public goods that
underpin and provide stability to the globalisation
process. For this reason, we term our proposal
a ?Global Solidarity Levy? (GSL).
15. The proceeds of the GSL would be paid into
a dedicated fund. The governance of both the
levy raising authority and the fund must uphold
principles of accountability, representation and
transparency. This report evaluates the governance
and operational requirements for the distribution
and administration of the funds, and proposes the
establishment of a new Global Solidarity Fund
financing facility for global public goods."

"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.

• What on earth are you talking about? The tax will go to governments, not some 'unelected' organisation."

ttosca - the Robin Hood website doesn't actually state who collects the money - but it does say exactly how it will be spent.

"'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.'"

• That is what worries me. It's our government's job to decide how tax money is spent.

Also as the UK tax payer owns several British banks - the Robin Hood tax comes out of our profits. I'd rather see that money go straight to the Treasury.

'Also as the UK tax payer owns several British banks - the Robin Hood tax comes out of our profits.'

Excellent point. I never thought of that. Yet again it's our money, so we should be in control of how it is spent through our national representatives.

claig-

You are a serious mentalist. You appear to have a bunch of diverse keywords in your head which you periodically rant about incoherently.

I'm afraid there won't be a time in the future where transnational institutions don't exist. That time ended after WWI.

Please answer how you hope to deal with transnational corporations and highly mobile capital without transnational laws and/or institutions.

Insults are the first refuge of the socialist. Poor old Mrs. Duffy, lifelong Labour voter, public servant and council worker found that out. Her only crime was to say "But Gordon..." and for that she was branded a bigot.

Gordon kept telling us we needed "transnational", "global" institutions to survive in the changed world. He said he had "saved the world".

I don't believe that we need transnational laws to deal with global capital. I believe that local laws will suffice. It is the capitalists and Gordon Brown who say we must have transantional, global bodies to deal in a globalised world. I said we should nationalise the banks, just like Charles De Gaulle did in France after WWII, when you say nothing could be done because the time for national laws had ended after WWI.

I believe we are in charge of our own destiny. I believe we can make our own laws and that the capitalists will accept these laws if they want to operate in this country.

I don't believe the socialists and their global solutions. They want to "save the planet", but they can't save the jobs of people in companies like Corus. They say globalisation means they can't save the country's jobs, that call centres have to move abroad because that is the way of the world, the way of globalised capital. I don't believe it. I believe we can set our own goals and create our own laws, just as De Gaulle did in France.

Thatcher showed the way. She said "No, Delors, we shall not have socialism by the back door". She said "Delors, get thee dehors". I think we can do the same to global capital and their friends, the socialists.

I think we can do the same to global capital and their friends, the socialists.

Bwahahahaha!!!!

Global Capital and their friends, the socialists! lol!

You must be the first person I've met on the internet, and I've met many strange people, who equate global Capital with socialism.

You do know the meaning of these words, don't you? You do know that socialism historically arose in opposition to Capital, right?

'You do know that socialism historically arose in opposition to Capital, right?'

It was soon subverted. The capitalists put their people in there. They direct it and fool the people who believe the socialists are in opposition to Capital, just as the global warmers think that they are in opposition to Capital.

Do you think Fettes educated Tony Blair was in opposition to Capital? Do you think that Gordon Brown and his 'light touch regulation' was in opposition to Capital? That's what they tell you, when they are not telling you about their plans to "save the planet". They are masters of moonshine, spinners beyond compare, for as they say themselves, they are "straight kinda guys".

You are such an idiot.

It was soon subverted. The capitalists put their people in there.

In WHERE?! Socialism is a political ideology and movement. It is not a physical thing.

They direct it and fool the people who believe the socialists are in opposition to Capital,

Socialism is in opposition to Capital, you just know nothing about socialism or the socialist movement.

Do you think Fettes educated Tony Blair was in opposition to Capital? Do you think that Gordon Brown and his 'light touch regulation' was in opposition to Capital?

No, because they aren't socialists.

You're arguing against your own cloud of phantoms in your head, where you seem to bunch all things which you dislike in to one amorphous mass. Your critiques is completely and utterly ignorant and incoherent. You simply equate all these bad phantoms in your head as one thing, and then rant against them in some sort of drunken spasm.

I'm sorry, but I can no longer take you seriously when you equate: Global Capitalism == Socialism == New Labour.

They are, in fact, three completely different things. Two of them are opposites.

Please go away and learn about what socialism actually is. Then you can progress on to the Labour Party, and how it related to it. Then you can examine how the Labour party was transformed into 'New Labour' by Tony Blair, specifically paying attention to the drop of clause 4.

Until then you deserve to be taken about as seriously as the drunk homeless guy in the street yelling incoherently about seemingly disparate things one after another.

I'm not on about individual socialists and individual global warmers. They are in opposition to Capital. I am on about the people who lead their movements - the movers, shakers and decision makers. Not the working class John Prescott, who was derided and undermined because he wasn't one of them, but the Fettes and Oxbridge educated elite.

Claig Im worried about you.. Hope youre ok (?)

No need to worry HHDimbo, I'm fine.