Isn’t this the Tobin Tax?

Tobin is more than ever on the agenda. Robin Hood is good too, and promotes generous purpose, but stopping speculation and markets irrationality is even more important - it's a matter of avoiding the next financial crisis, which could be even worse than the one we've just been through.
We can collect all the money on transactions and put it to good use, but if the world collapses, we'll all be doomed. Let's "reconcile" Tobin and Robin Hood, ensuring we both contain speculation and collect critically needed money to help improving a world that has still has some future

Sounds like a great idea - provided all major countries sign up to it!

If the UK alone puts a tax on financial transactions we can kiss our financial sector goodbye. This combined with the decline of manufacturing means we wont have much left!

How about a tax on bonus over a certain amount paid to the banking sector ...... I can't believe banks made profits this year, and CEOs walked away with massive bonuses and yet we are in debt as a country!

I'm guessing a lot of people here have smart degrees in economics - please, explain this to us, the ordinary people? How come there seems to be no way to stop this? Even though public money was used to bail the banks out?

Because I feel cheated.

A private Tobin tax already exists - the transaction costs of financial intermediaries.

According to my fag-packet calculations*, the financial sector costs us roughly 2.5% of all our savings every year. With GBP 9 trillion in UK private wealth, that’s a lot of money being made to push our savings around the City.

I've heard more than one senior financier wonder aloud (in private) why financial intermediation is so lucrative. Is it brilliant at allocating capital (apart from, ahem, the recession and credit crisis) or is it in fact a fabulous cartel?

In comparison to the 2.5% annual running cost of our financial services industry, a 0.05% Tobin tax is unlikely to hinder the core allocative function of financial markets. It might suck profits out of high-frequency trading and other speculative areas, but most of us could live with that.

Some posts above are concerned with how to use the proceeds. Sure, there are ethical and political questions, such as the unfairness of taxing a specific sector (tempting after a bail-out but not great as a permanent feature in a market economy) and foreign versus domestic aid, but this is a separate, and later question.

Some posts also doubt the USD 400bn proceeds, as do I, considering the scope for avoidance and declining financial activity if the tax is implemented.

For me, a bigger benefit would be if the tax led to a reduction in speculation, as James Tobin originally intended. This is not just theory (as I understand it, volatility and churning lead to rent-seeking and resource misallocation, which chokes the real economy), it is also real and political:

The damage done by the credit crisis, pension deficits and now the Greek financial crisis will all be bigger thanks to the many short-term positions adopted to cash in on those events.

Even on a quiet day, the remuneration of speculation was, for many people, at the heart of the crisis.

I don’t mean to run down all finance as it often serves a useful role. But our financial golden goose has gotten a bit fat recently and a Tobin tax might be just the thing to slim it down.

* total private UK wealth of GBP 9trn, divided by total financial services revenue of GBP 225bn, assuming financial services accounts for 8.5% of GBP 2.65trn GDP, equal to 2.5% of all UK savings every year.

Very interesting ideas and discussion. It seems that those who've taken the trouble to post are mostly biased against the idea, presumably because they are relatively well-off, or are affiliated with the banking sector.

The arguments that such a tax ought not to be imposed to avoid communism, the "NWO" or a "supranational frankenstein socialist nanny", are reactionary and baseless. Or, if it were the case, then why should ordinary people pay tax at all? I suppose that the paleo-conservatives posting here would abolish all taxation and let the free-market do what it likes. We've seen what results it brings and I'm open-minded to hear other arguments. For NWO fundamentalists to decry a tax on the banking sector (that you recognise as being behind the government) is ludicrous- such a proposal would only take money from the banks and weaken their position.

The suspicion is centered on how this tax revenue would be spent, and people are rightly concerned about handing it to the government. It is issue of democratic accountability - even if a such tax were implemented, our democratic institutions are so pitifully weak, from parliament to our own communities, that we have little or no control over it. Yet there is no point belittling this Tobin tax because of the lack of accountability- each reform must each be a battle to overcome, and perhaps this issue of what to spend the revenue on could engage disenfranchised people who are disillusioned by the total lack of collective energy to respond in any way to the fraudulent and irresponsible actions of the banking sector.

Personally, I am very sceptical about spending billions on the disputed effects of climate change, given the difficulty in providing accountability, especially when channeling funds through agencies, charities and NGOs, none of whom are elected or accountable. Unless this money goes directly to something that an ordinary man on the street can see benefiting him- such as a reduction in income tax, increasing pensions, increasing salaries of front-line public service staff such as nurses, teachers, doctors, firefighters and so on, the concern is that you're putting money from one wealthy banker's pocket into some other wealthy person's pocket.

The problem with a tax like this is that is it "taxation without representation". There is a reason why government should be small and not large - that governments are wasteful, corrupt and driven by their own purposes. I can only imagine how a massive bureaucracy with billions at its disposal would decide to allocate this pool of money between all these "good causes". In reality, it should be up to national governments at worse to make these decisions, or at best individuals. A new supra-national organization would simply be another step towards the socialist agenda of being able to make more and more people dependent on others for their daily sustenance.

Note that the tone here is to tax the bankers, but in reality it taxes their customers: i.e. the public, their pensions, the companies they work for etc. It taxes us not them.

I have no problem with national governments deciding to tax transactions; it happens today via SEC fees and stamp duty and the like. But please save us from a supranational frankenstein socialist nanny.

The idea of distancing yourself from a Tobin tax is misguided - the tobin tax had a sensible idea - it disrupted pointless speculation and reduced undue speculation in currency markets. It was a little blunt but had some sensible ideas behind it.
Your idea is just plain stupid - I see more similarities between this robin hood tax and the window tax of the late 18th century in Britain. Your idea is basically 'rich people make money out of financial transactions, poor people don't; so lets tax it and take money away from the rich' - please feel free to correct me if this is a poor assessment of your argument.
1st premise - poor people don't make money out of speculation. - Wrong - anyone who trades in currency, either by going abroad on holiday or by earning income from abroad or even simply by buying imported goods has a hand in the currency markets.
Anyone who has ever taken out a loan or mortgage has a hand in the derivatives that are related to those products. Hell anyone who has an interest paying bank account or a pension is a DIRECT recipient of the profits made by such trades.
Anyone who works for a company which borrows money (which is virtually every major corporate) is dependent on the commercial paper market for their continued employment.
Fundamental message - you cannot separate wholesale banking from retail banking anymore than you can separate shops buying from wholesalers from shops selling to you retail.
The only reason why the economy went into melt-down when the financial system hiccuped was because wholesale banking is integrated into society at every level and to destroy it would be to take half the benefits of modern society with it!

1)Why is it only men that post on these threads?
2) Speculation in the financial markets is the reason for the complete lack of stability in asset prices and the rapid devaluation in certain markets. Look at the impending crisis in the Greek economy. Without rapid flows of finance the EU (if it weren't so feeble) would have a chance to prevent the situation getting any worse. A Robin Hood/Tobin tax would throw sand in the wheels of global financial transactions and give a small pause for thought between each sale/purchase. Thus preventing such huge flows that cause the curent level of instability

You didn't post my non-positive thoughts about the tax.

I guess that shows the true colors of this supposed open forum.

good bye.

Just another Socialist, Marxist scheme to reallocate monies to support some liberal's social idealist goal! Redistribute the wealth, that's all that the liberals want.

The idea of a tobin tax is both economically, socially and morally a good idea. Also, don't let anyone fool you into thinking Tobin decided against the idea of the tax by the end. At the time the idea was seized upon by anti-globalisation campaigners, and he made the point in a German newspaper that he wasn't affiliated with that group. Moreover, while he never explicitly said that the tax revenue raised from the tax can be used to fund projects on tackling poverty, or raising money to fund research into cleaner technologies, he never opposed the idea. You can ultimately use the money for any purpose. Top academics like Joseph Stiglitz also agree with the idea of the Tobin tax, so it has strong support precisely because it's a good idea.

The idea is right but the rate is far too low! When normal people buy something they pay 17.5% tax. When they work hard they pay 20-50% tax. But if rich people trade their rate is a fraction of 1%??!! It makes me feel that this is a covert attempt by bankers to avoid paying a real tax on their money. The main cause of inequality and poverty in the world is the tiny % of tax paid on capital by the rich. If we stuck with the 1% tobin level we could raise some really world-changing amounts.

This would do nothing more than cause further reliance on the financial system and give weight to the notion that the uncapped free market process raises the standards of the poor.

This is an outdated system, that is proven to be flawed (The Spirit Level, 2010). Wealth creation is necasary to a point, but there is a limit to what it can do. Socieities with large levels of income inequalities are shown to contain more socials ills, such as poverty, child mortalitiy rates, ten pregnancy, crime etc.

Introducing a Tax to transactions will do nothing short of further cement this old way of thinking, creating further social divides and making reliance on monetary economics as a solution to the ongoing issues we face.

The reason it would be better to call it a Tobin Tax is that Robin Hood is famous in the public consciousness for 'robbing from the rich to give to the poor'. Trying to gain support for a tax by implying that it is stealing from the rich is a rather nasty form of populism.

The tax is an interesting idea worth exploring. The given title is more fit for mob rule than a democracy.

- the Tobin Tax and the Robin Tax are from the same mould. To claim that James Tobin only wanted to reduce currecny speculation and not to raise money is bogus - after all, where was all this 1% Tobin revenue going to end up, in the shredder? I don't think so.

- sadly, it won't work because the City will be able to claim (possibly with justification !) that it will force the relevant trading activity from London to other non-Robin countries. The corollary is that it could work if it was applied worldwide but I can't see that happening.

I think naming any tax after someone whose motto was "To *rob* from the rich and give to the poor" is hardly a positive step, though I agree that it helps tap into public anger - something that a Tobin Tax would never do.

It also seems a shame that there's no discussion here of why it's a good idea to 'throw sand in the wheels', that by slowing down pointless spinning of the wheel banks would be forced to invest in long term projects that looked prosperous, rather than jumping on every expanding bubble because they couldn't afford not to. This should be the true aim of any Tax, if we're looking to avoid boom & bust, though admittedly it would change banking as we know it, would require another look at how we fund pensions, and indeed change Western capitalism - perhaps it's due for an overhaul? But then good luck selling this to the public!

I guess "Rich guys bad, poor guys good" is an easier sell.

I propose a Hollywood tax. Those actors... making a fortune, etc., etc.

I propose a footballer tax. Those footballers... making a fortune, etc., etc.

I propose a Tate Gallery-favoured artists tax. Those artists... making a fortune, etc., etc.

I propose an "Anyone who makes more than me and works in a maligned sector" tax. Those ... making a fortune, etc., etc.

Really, this is all just another old thesp trying to knock Richard Curtis off the Number One spot for the coveted "Smug old luvvie trying to be Bono, trying to be Geldof, trying to be Lennon" award .

With the UK Government spending 125% of every penny they can get expanding employment by the state, sabotaging the private sector economy and eliminating choice for consumers to make their own decisions and forcing them to take the Government provided option no matter how bad it is, any call for increased taxation should be resisted by all except dedicated communists.

You should read Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev's memoirs where he explains that communism failed so badly to provide for its citizens that it was very unwise to allow anybody to visit the West and see the huge disparity in prosperity - few returned. Exit visas had to be very carefully controlled and very rarely were families allowed to travel. We all know the Berlin Wall was to stop people leaving. They even shot people dead to control the exodus. If Communism is what you want for the UK, you should at least read history so that you know what to expect. This headlong rush into state spending, state power, crippling the private sector and loss of freedom needs to urgently reversed for the sake of everybody in the UK, not funded by the imposition of yet more taxes.

This is a brilliant idea - but why such a low percentage of each trade? Granted, a tiny amount will be easier to adopt, but given it's potential impact why not a *little* more...?

(But whatever the amount - let's make it happen!)

Am I missing something here? Why not "Robin Hood" the oil industry, the aggregates industry, big pharma, super markets, armaments and FMCGs while you're at it? What makes banks any more egregious than other companies making profit?

Encouraging the proletariat to buy mortages (takes two to tango) is possibly less deviant than exploiting kids in sweat shops for example and at least the banks prey on grown adults (although many should be sent to sweat shops for their sins against common sense) the bottom line is the same.

Profit is good when the means are sustainable and "fair". Maybe you could re-label this an ethics tax, moral tax or after checking your list of charities, The Christian Redistribution Tax.

"The Robin Hood Tax differs markedly from the Tobin tax in that it is born of a different time, proposed at a different rate and designed for a different purpose"

IN EVERY OTHER RESPECT ITS THE SAME!
and thats no bad thing!
BUT how does one ensure the money is spent the right way and not just swallowed by Government?
The ROAD FUND TAX was after all started as a means to fund road building and upkeep!

Some simple questions - could the Robin Hood people address this please? How much do you expect to raise from the UK each year, how much are current annual total UK bank profits and if the two numbers are around the same, how can this work - will the banks simply shrug their collective shoulders?

You can not sell a new tax without removing an unfair tax or cost. The Tobin Tax concept applied so that other taxes are removed and replaced would appeal to voters. And it could be introduced incrementally starting at a tiny percentage to test its impact on financial markets. But the income from such a tax would have to go into consolidated revenue or the squabble over using it would be terrible.

Tobin was concerned with speculative finance, but his concept is relevant today if applied across all monetary transactions because the use of money is also related to the use of resources, and while it is currently dressed up a combating climate change, the real issue facing government is making slowing the rate of consumption, and the inevitable negative growth figures palatable to voters.

How about compelling companies to give, directly to charities, a minimum percentage of their annual profits?

@P Hall
"most FX trading volume is the same few million being pushed around intra day. Trading is controlled by computer programs and one such program may execute many thousands of transactions a day".

Yes. But who does that frenetic activty benefit exactly?

Surely not the worthy pension holder discussed elsewhere in this thread.

Some kind of curb on rapid speculative trades is needed (particularly in commodities). After all we've seen that all this 'markets find their correct equilibrium' theory has taken a beating since 2007. And even if the market "worked" on its own terms, it doesn't exactly improve things for the poorest in our country or elsewhere.

One can either be for or against big government, I happen to one that is against and giving government another tool to raise revenue for the sake of raising revenue is a bad idea. Give a politician money and he will surely spend it on one program or another, if only to create a constituency or power base. More bureaucrats meddling in people's affairs is NOT what we need. On the contrary, we need LESS medling, allowing people more freedom to determine what they want to do on this earth. Most things the government does are done more efficiently by the private sector, so the government should stick to making rules, not doing things themselves. I could go on and on here, but the msg remains the same: the less government, the better.

A fantastic idea, though I would hope that the revenue raised would go purely to the poor and good causes of the UK alone, instead of trying to solve the world's problems; we can help there once we've sorted out the problems here.

'Charity begins at home, and justice begins next door.'.
Charles Dickens

I take issue with your excluding this being a "Tobin Tax".

Here's why:
[March 24, 1999

Subject: TOBIN TAX MOTION PASSES IN CANADA'S PARLIAMENT

Please pass this on to any who may be interested.

On March 23, the Canadian House of Commons in Ottawa passed Motion M-239 by a vote of 164 to 83:

"That, in the opinion of the House, the government should enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community."

Finance Minister Paul Martin and most of the governing Liberal party supported the opposition New Democratic Party in favour of the Motion.

The "Tobin Tax" is named after Nobel prize winning economist James Tobin of Yale, a former economic advisor to President Kennedy, who first proposed it over 20 years ago. The concept has continued to gain supporters over the years. Tobin proposed that a small tax of between .1 and .5 per cent on currency exchange transactions would serve two purposes. It would limit the damage from excessive exchange rate volatility (ie. the recent crises in Asia, Russia, and Brazil), as well as raising significant revenue for global causes. With global foreign exchange revenues over $1.3 trillion per day, estimated revenue from the Tobin Tax is in the range of $150 to $300 billion per year. By comparison, the U.N. estimate of funding required for universal access to basic social services (ending poverty) is $40 billion per year.

Canadian Finace Minister Paul Martin is currently senior finance minister at the G-7. Obviously support from other G-7 countries, expecially the U.S., is critical to make real progress on this issue. The climate in Europe is more today for a Tobin Tax is more favourable than ever before, so U.S. support is more critical than ever.

CONGRATULATIONS to all who worked so hard writing letters, generating media and contacting MPs to support this motion!!

This could be the start of something big...

Blaise Salmon
President
RESULTS Canada

Tobin Tax Initiative
CEED/IIRP, PO Box 4167
Arcata, CA 95518-4167
phone: (707) 822-8347, fax: (707) 822-4457
e-mail: cecilr@humboldt1.com ]

http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/canadames.htm

The above has links:
Home | Who Are We | What are Tobin Taxes | Tobin Tax Policy | Tobin Tax Bibliography
US Campaigns | Campaigns Around the World | Contact the Initiative

From the 'What are Tobin Taxes' page:
[What are Tobin Taxes?

They are simple sales taxes on currency trades across borders. [...]]

Graham Martin above has it exactly right.

Nice idea but it will be difficult to implement.
http://www.greencompany.com/blog/index.php?postid=62

There are people who can debunk this nonsense much better than me.

However, consider this. Do you really think $3000 billion of fresh capital is committed every day to FX trading?

If it was then your tax wouldn't be such a bad idea.

However, most FX trading volume is the same few million being pushed around intra day. Trading is controlled by computer programs and one such program may execute many thousands of transactions a day. $10m of capital may be used in trades totalling $10,000m per day. (e.g. buy then sell then buy etc).

Your 0.05% tax doesn't look quite so clever does it. The $10m of capital has to make $5m profit per day! Financial speculation may be profitable, but it isn't that profitable!

If your tax was in operation the $10m would be reduced to $5m after one day!

So how much would the tax raise. Not $5m thats for sure.

Nothing is probably a better answer. Trading would cease.

This is simplistic nonsense!

I agree with Graham regarding giving credit to an original legislator, continuity to the arguments, and a mechanism for people to better understand the issue. "Robinhood Tax" is also a fine name. Use whichever and both as appropriate.

It is wrong to dismiss Tobin's work and aims as attempting to ‘throw sand in the wheels of currency markets'. Speculation is an obvious and proven destructive force. Sure, establish this miniscule tax that can do great things immediately, but do it as a miniscule first step toward what really needs to be done. 1%? 2%? Let the wealthy play for poker chips, and give the winners a prize (ticket to a show in Vegas or a steak dinner with Warren Buffet). Isn't it sad that obvious solutions to solvable problems get engineered out serious discussion and implementation. The poor get "taxed" (one way or another) for existing, while the rich receive compounding benefits that they could never earn.

http://www.greencompany.com/blog/index.php?postid=62

This campaign means well and it has wonderful goals for charity but I don't think it will work. Governments are the only bodies that can assess and use tax money, not charities. Charities do already receive taxpayer subsidy by being tax-free and giving tax deductions for donations. The UK, US and rest of the G-20 prefer a bank levy not a financial-transaction tax. There is a big difference. Banks are facing Meltdown 2.0 with Greece and it's not a good time to pile on too much. We know charities need more money and hopefully rich people including celebrities can donate more cash. Promotional concerts for causes are great and cash donations are king! The nice thing about charity is the donee is not despised like the taxman.

Whether it is a Tobin "2" or a Robin Hood tax does not matter. It is another tax. The bankers and financial institutions will either find a way round it or pass it on to their customers. That is me and YOU. The Robin Hooders seem to be missing a point here. Most of the charities and organisations that would be the beneficiaries of this tax revenue would then be liable to pay the tax themselves when they attempt to move the funds around the globe. Plus paying the tax on the existing funds they are already distributing. Net result more admin less money getting down to the needy. Robin Hood was NOT real. My advice to the supporters of this idea, consider the words of Fagin " I think I better think it out again" .

One incorrect fact that jumps out immediately should be pointed out. Tobin never gave a firm figure for the rate of tax, but suggested in an interview that a rate of 0.5% would be a good place to start, not the 1% this page claims. Whilst it's still an awful lot more than the "Robin Hood Tax", this is a significant difference that should be corrected.

Some economists have even said that the Tobin tax could only realistically work at 0.005%, the same rate as proposed by the "Robin Hood tax".

This page/campaign may have got it's figure from other economists, but it's still misleading, and when you're trying to convince everyone that your plan is the way forward, you can't afford to be accused of exaggeration or of misleading people over the facts. Just because it looks better to be able to say "200 times the rate", doesn't mean you should spin the data.

I'm perfectly willing to see a source that Tobin did state 1% as his preferred rate, as this would mean there was less ammunition against this proposal. Any discrepancy will be leapt upon by those who oppose this plan, even if it's as petty as some exaggeration in comparison to a vaguely similar tax

Sources:
On Tobin saying 0.5%: http://web.archive.org/web/20050306201839/http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/worldnews/lamerica/james_tobin_030901_english.htm

On 0.005%:
http://www.stampoutpoverty.org/?lid=9889 (See PDF file on the page)

Surely doing the same thing for a different purpose with slightly different numbers will achieve exactly the same objective as the Tobin Tax (possibly not as quickly) which is to destroy liquidity in a market.

Leaving aside that this is a double tax on hedging (e.g. pairs trading), lack of liquidity in financial markets is the stated reason for the failure of the global financial system.

Oh, and the administration costs will be astronomical, and if one country decides to allow trading without this tax everyone will trade there and Britain will lose investment and jobs. This is in addition to the increased likelihood of further market failures.

Does this still seem like a good plan?

The only caveats I have for such a tax (it's been proposed via the online services here in the United States of America as well, and President Obama has proposed a similar tax on the ten or twenty largest banks here) are:

1) that there doesn't seem to be any provision limiting what the monies raised by the tax will go for.

Here in the United States, when there's a windfall of tax money, it is almost always dissipated on wasteful spending (airports located far away from anyone who would use them, bridges to nowhere, social services and cash payments to people who are capable of working and won't). Won't the laudable causes for which this tax is touted be ignored and left unfunded unless the law which establishes the tax specifies the ends to which the money will go? I mean, won't a fleet of Trident submarines with lambs wool carpets beckon if the MoD sees all that money in the Exchequer?

2) When you say that this tiny tax won't impact anyone very much, you're ignoring the cumulative amount of millions of transactions. The Tobin Tax was (if I understand correctly from the explanation above) designed to impede daily currency trading and to discourage speculative activity. Wouldn't it also increase the marginal cost of banking?

While (for example) an old age pensioner drawing a single cheque from the government wouldn't be impacted much by this tax, someone whose retirement income derived from investments might suffer worse. It's something to think about, not necessarily an objection to the Robin Hood Tax as such.

I think that this tax might actually be better than Obama's proposed punitive tax on the banks. It's a real pity we'll never see it considered seriously here in the United States - Barack Obama's political campaigns were paid for largely by Wall Street investment houses, and he remains firmly in their pocket.

Personally, it's a good thing this isn't called a Tobin Tax. I suspect the majority of the public wouldn't know what one is for a start.

More importantly the chosen name, Robin Hood, hits the right note and instantly gets across the idea behind it. One of the most crucial things about a project like this is to build support and momentum, something that can't be done if you start a sentence with 'Named after Nobel Laureate economist James Tobin...'.

1. How about the existing UK Robin Hood Tax, called Stamp Duty Reserve Tax ( http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/so/index.htm ), levied on everyone, including investors from Sub-Saharan Africa, in breach of the residence rule of international tax laws? 40% of that Tobin Tax revenue comes from outside the UK. How fair is taking other people's money, not giving them anything in return? Especially if they may come from poorer countries, trying to better themselves through their hard programming work, not government handouts?

2. Did you know that banks would be exempt from your tax anyway? They are already exempt in the UK from the Stamp Duty above... 70% of market volume is exempt, all institutions are. Do you know why? Because otherwise your pension fund would have to pay 2x0.5% extra on every transaction, through wider bid/ask spreads... no exemptions from two-sided markets sir, all businesses, including stock traders, buy wholesale to sell you retail... it will cost you. Not banks. Regular investors like you and me.

3. Do you know an average markup in this business? Firsm earn only around 5 cents per $100 stock (open an acct. with IB and see some quotes outside RTH). That's 0.0005. Tax it at 0.05% and you will take their entire profit. That would be equivalent to a 100% sales tax for a main street business (which typically does have a 100% markup, 70% online). Hardly fair, Mr. Robin Hood.

4. Who gains if the NGO sector becomes auto-financed from compulsory taxation? The heavily indebted government - they will be able to redirect money from social causes to debt servicing. But if charities become part of the government, isn't it an outright nationalization of the charitable "industry"? Did nationalization lead to efficiencies in any industry? So we lose once again, this time not as investors, but as benefactors of those centrally planned charities...

This is just part of the new world order's plans for one world government.this tax is the precursor to a Climate Tax on every individual for the world elite,a step closer to the one world government.
This tax gas had been dressed up for easy public consumption by stating proceeds go to the NHS, and to help against poverty and Climate change
in poorer countries-it's a smokescreen

I'm definitely clear that this is not the same deal promoted by James Tobin, but to me it seems clear that calling it *a* Tobin Tax is not an unfair way of linking it to people's understandings.

Tobin never fully ironed out most of the small print, and this does seem remarkably like Tobin Tax 2.0. Surely this is just the re-employment of earlier wisdom, which we shouldn't hold back from correctly attributing?

Whether it is or isn't a Tobin Tax variante, its a good idea and needs explaining any way it can be. If the public remember Tobin Taxes, why not build on that as long as the modifications have been made?

I still think the Tobin tax is a good idea, but it is unlikely ever to be adopted while the financial traders have so much power ad influence, particularly as it is so obviousll anti-bankers.
The Robin hood tax is what we need now, to provide for social needs and finance projects to safeguard the world for our children's future.