How it works

1. The consumer would be affected by this as all that would happen is the banks would pass the tax onto the consumers so is relatively pointless.

2. The worst industry to try and hit with this tax is the finance sector, they of all the workforces in britain have the best understanding of how to get around taxes, they will invent ways as they always do.

3. On every single financial transaction, this would surely reduce the liquidity of money as companies will want to make batch transactions

4. It is quite clever that this idea is suggested now whilst the finance sector is so unpopular, no one mentions taxes for other fields that are overpaid for their services, e.g footballers are an easy example but they are not unpopular so it would be difficult to get anything imposed on them

5. If the U.K alone did this tax, the banks would move their business elsewhere in Europe in the same way a footballer would. The economy would loose out and we would end up having to pay more taxes or suffer a lower standard of living to cover the shortfall as those investment bankers wouldnt be paying 50% of their income in taxes.

6. The finance sector is what is keeping the UK on the map, if this moves elsewhere our economy is screwed we do not have the empire anymore so larger nations would eventually overtake us

6. I would be wary of where the money is going there isnt one set objective, maybe if it were solely to tackle issues in the UK first I.E we aim to rely on 100% renewable energy, at least this would create more jobs in the UK as well.

It's a nice idea and would help millions overseas but I think there are too many downsides to the UK of this particular proposal, It's impossible to penalise one sector because other people are jealous of how much theyre earning, these guys are working in a horrible/stressful sector that without financial compensation much fewer people would be working in it. I personally choose not to go down the London/finance route as I want a more relaxing life.
For this to be done you would need a similar charge across all industrys why should the finance industry be hit when other industrys make big money easily, gambling industry for instance, all countries would have to join the scheme, and I think it would be better coming directly as a tax to citizens rather than companies to avoid the problem of businesses moving elsewhere...although It wouldnt be nearly as popular if it was affecting everyone!

My comments keep getting removed Robin hood Tax you are a con:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdSe0sYONzc

How about you ask the government openly on national Tv about Accepted for Value and lets see what they have to say about that.


also look for Mary Elizabeth Crofts free e-book How I Clobbered Ever Cash Confiscating Beaurocracy known to man


this should explain the truth about your slavery......

The general problem of Robin Hood Tax is the bank may be tempting to charge for customer's transaction, increase the amount charged for overdraft, raise interest rate for credit card and mortgages, decrease the amount of credit available and other new fees to make up for the tax. The end results are more damaging to small businesses and the poor.

It's a great idea, but isn't it likely that any losses incurred by financial institutions through implementation of the tax would then ultimately be passed onto the banks' customers in the form of cynical interest hikes and increases bank charges?

sounds quite sensible.

I think the Robinhood Tax would be great! It would help counter the unfairness that the middle class has to endure by pumping money back into our social infrastructure.

I mean let's face it: we do not live in a fair society. The moment this really became clear to me was when I learned how one of the 100 richest people in the world made his fortune. He buys medium-sized companies with his investment company, liquidates all the company's assets he can by reducing worker pay, eliminating benefits, selling equipment, etc. and pocketing the money. He then goes on to sell the skeleton of a company that he has sucked dry, and moves on. Meanwhile, the people who worked hard to build the company up are left with next to nothing.

I really wish that everyone was just as poor, or as rich, as they deserved to be, based on their contributions to the economy. That's what we call fair, and it's even the supposed aim of a capitalist system. Now tell me; does the work of CEO's of big financial institutions like investment banks really contribute 1000 times more than the hard work of the average citizen? It doesn't. Yet somehow, they get 30 million dollar salaries, while most people on the planet work for around 25-40 thousand a year.

The reality is that most of us middle-class workers contribute to the economy through production of goods and services. Meanwhile, the people at the top with the right connections reap the rewards through unfair, yet somehow legal, means.

Yeah so what exactly can we do to make this tax happen ?

Oh and why not enact reprisals against the low proffessions?

Concerned that George Soros is backing this. RED FLAG when this dude supports something!! On the surface this sounds good but lets drill down to the basics!

Great idea, but people don't waste the money 'fighting climate change'.

honestly, i don't understand why the wealthier the person is the more he/she has to give back to society.
bankers are NOT thieves.
i am an avid supporter of bankers and executives in the finance industry, despite the fact i'm a doctor.
if someone finds a way to make a billion pounds, why should he/she not enjoy every last bit of it????

ITS ALL LEGAL, everyone should simply, cut bankers some slack.

Do you remember when the same bankers you support effectively gambled the economy away and the taxpayer had to bail them out? The same act that has contributed to the entire country having to make cuts? I think that was more than enough slack don't you?

Theres nothing wrong with making billions of pounds.... legitemately. What you'll find is that for the past few decades bankers have been using smoke and mirrors to manipulate money into their hands. It wasn't legitamate and some bankers are lucky we havn't chosen to take that rope of which so much slack has already been given and hanging the bastards with it.

I agree with your point of view, but then, what do we do when some bankers are given millions in bonuses even though their bank had to get millions-worth in government bailout?
Also, this tax will help with the spending cuts that have taken place, such as on the NHS.
And frankly, if you want money, you wouldn't tax the people with the least money...

TAX are really important!

A simple question which I doubt will be easy to answer. I think the Robin Hood tax sounds like a great idea and the Bill Nigh vid is great but my question is this; If it is such a good idea why are we still talking about it?? I won't pretend to know alot about politics (anymore) but there must be one hell of a big catch somewhere or surely we'd be doing it already? Or maybe I just don't know enough about it.

Politics.
Even a tiny percentage tax will be a considerable hit to a bank's profit when you consider just how many transactions take place per day/week/month. Sadly our current government is far from socialist and will continue to try and make life easier for the wealthy as long as they're in power.

If bankers were to suffer from this hit, which would be a huge loss to them, they will get the money from somewhere else, and guess where. From us, from everyone, for example from families who can't afford it. They will make it so it is harder to give out loans, because they wont have as much money, which is what has been a major hit to the recession. Has no one thought of this? Banks will not sit back and lose much of their profits without taking it out places elsewhere in there business.

I knew there had to be a catch, I bloody knew it. It had to be other wise they'd have done it already.

The banks won't suffer, the tax isn't big enough to make a huge loss per bank, How ever, its the innate greed that stops it, if out of 30mil they share 0.05% its relatively small, Banks will how ever simply use it as an excuse to charge more or give less, increasing profits even more, the problem is take take take, without giving back. what is the difference between a salary of 30mil or 29mil, either way you have enough to retire for the rest of your live, so way not make sure the public can have a good education and improve their chances of a better future for the nation (the WHOLE nation).

Tobin tax should be part of a larger tax reform system which should abolish all present taxes and replace with a Natural Resource Tax.
This would tax all natural resources at source at a rate dependanat on its environmental impact and at a level that governments require to finace its requirements.

These taxes together, would replace all existing taxes and being easier to raise and collect would save billions in Fraud and collection.

Make it global!!!

Two things need to be avoided if this is to work. It needs to be global, as if UK goes first nobody will trade through the country when they can go elsewhere and not be taxed.
Second, there needs to be a built in rule that the bankers cannot pass the tax on in another form to us the paying customer...which is what they always do. The real danger here is that WE the people end up paying this and the bankers carry on regardless.

I 100% agree with the tax and it would be a huge -if not conclusive- step forward in reducing the deficit. However, it seems to me that capitalism is the at the heart of the matter and so the Robin Hood tax should be just a step towards dismantling the current capitalist consensus. If the financial markets and big businesses were in public hands, they would be accountable and their profits would be shared more evenly and paid back into society.

This is an interesting idea, to levy a small charge or tax on all financial transactions running through banks internal dealings, but there will be huge opposition and lobbying against it by the banks (naturally) - but it can only be successful if the implementation is done fairly, in proportion and on a global scale (realistically - on a majority of developed nations across Europe and the U.S.).

If you observe the state of our economy and the feeling among people, or study the habits and shopping trends (http://www.superstoresearch.com/buzz/shopping/shopping-trends/) of consumers, we can see that people have had to tighten their belts in these trying times more so than before.. it was through tax payer money to bail out the banking and financial sectors, but now the banks should not treat those same people indifferently as though they were just doing business, as they do owe a debt to the people of Britain.

I support the tax 100%. TELL YOUR FRIENDS

At present there is a lot of populist talk going around about a Robin Hood Tax with four punters in every constituency being asked to put up £2 apiece for placing adverts in London's Westminster Tube station.

The idea is to shame MPs into taxing bank transactions and diverting the 10, 20, 50 or 100 billion pounds raised by this means to such fiscal delights as:

- balancing the public sector budget
- paying off the national debt
- cleaning up the mess created by the crash of the financial system by giving banks money to write off the loans to the rich.
- passing money on to Her Majesty's Treasury so that the taxes levied on everything that ordinary lower and middle class folks spend their hard-earned wages and pensions on (like VAT) do not go up.

This is the economics of the madhouse as proposed by economic illiterates.

The traditional way of dealing with a society's debt and usury problem of this magnitude...and they occur every few hundred years in every civilisation...is as relevant in the 21st century as it has been throughout several thousands of years of recorded history, namely:

(1) a Clean Slate to drain the swamp of debt.
(2) a Usury Law to keep the swamp drained.

The last time this was done properly in England was in 1571. So a good place to start is by reading what Professor R.H. Tawney had to say about the Elizabethans' approach as enacted by the Usury Law of 1571.

This enlightened law included such wondrous devices as:

(a) the right for any person to effect a citizens arrest of usurers.
(b) court imposed punitive fines of three times the damage inflicted on real persons by illegal usurious practices.

The real task of any would-be modern-day Robin Hood is to shut down the casinos, masquerading as exchanges, and to bring usury under the control of the citizens and burgers of Nottingham. Some might also recommend stringing up a few usurers in Sherwood Forest although in our enlightened times Reconciliation Tribunals might be more humane.

The cause of fairness and social justice will be best served, not by banning interest rates (this was spin put out by the international financiers), but by seeing that banking is usury free, which automatically eliminates 80% of all financial transactions and that Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution is reinstated at least as far as public control of the means of exchange is concerned...to which some would add the means of issue.

Further reading:

The Compromise of 1571 by Professor R.H.Tawney at:
http://www.cesc.net/adobeweb/scholars/tawney/chapter34.pdf

I don't think this is a good idea. The money isn't guaranteed to go anywhere we want it to and it could lead to Britain's strength on the economical scale plummeting. Sure, it's only a tiny percentage but it will stack up, and we don't know where it's going to go. A tax on foreign transaction would ultimately lead to increased bank charges and not really benefit anything, it would just further complicate an already swamped tax system.

Banks do pay tax on profits, they are talking about adding a second tax. The real issue is who holds the proceeds, who decides where it goes, and in the end who really end up paying for it. Why just tax the banks? Why have they been singled out? Their issues/profits/greed are completely unrelated to global poverty and climate change, but because of the global crisis they are an easy target. How about rather than tax the banks, politicians get serious about climate change and ending poverty? Why not put pressure on foreign governments to either change their criminal ways or have aid stopped altogether? Many of the countries we support today with billions in aid are so corrupt they take most of the funds anyway. Another tax will just increase their share and not really do anything to end poverty. And taking more of the banks profits to address climate change?? Get some climate change regulations in place with teeth. Try that first, then take from the capital markets...seriously.
And the subject of taxing financial institutions to build up an insurance fund will not stop them from taking reckless actions, in fact it may further encourage it because they know they will be bailed out. How about better oversight and regulatory reform? Make some intelligent decisions, not reacting in fear and anger.

Of course the issues/profits/greed of banks are related to climate change - where do you think all of the funding comes from to continue dirty fossil fuel projects? And obviously the richer some get, the poorer others will get, on a planet with finite resources. So bankers' greed is absolutely related to global poverty too!

Oh for heaven's sake, it's a tax on transactions, not profit. And yes, some third world countries are run by corrupt leaders, but the banks are providing loans to these countries, knowing that the leaders will misappropriate them, because they also know that whatever happened to the money they loaned, the poor people in the country will have to find a way to pay it back. You only have to look at the approximately $6 million misappropriated by Mobutu of Zaire and the problems the people he used to lead now face. And while this tax should be universal and not related to only one country, that's how poverty and climate change has to work too. There are no unilateral solutions to these problems and perhaps the global banking and money-speculation/exchange industry is the best way of doing this. The Robin Hood tax has been mooted since I was in university, so it's by no means a knee-jerk reaction to the current financial crisis, but it's a well thought-out solution to global problems. And alternatives are pretty thin on the ground...

According to the Bank for International Settlements, average daily turnover in global foreign exchange markets is estimated at USD3.98 trillion, as of April 2007.

According to the World Factbook, the world's GDP at official exchange rate was estimated in 2009 to USD58.07 trillion.

A Tobin transaction tax at 0.25% on foreign exchange alone would generate every single day USD9.95 billion or an annual of 6,25% in additional taxes.

It's obvious that, in taxing foreign exchange transaction at only 0.25%, all countries could reduce the income taxes of their citizen by 6.25% of total GDP which would have an incredible growth impact and eliminate hunger on the planet.

you are a fool. growth does not eliminate hunger

You are too judgemental. Growth may not eliminate hunger but perhaps we should place emphasis on that it should eliminate hunger and poverty

It is a brilliant idea, and to quote a famous person "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Who better than from those with the ability (and I use that loosely) the financial institutions that got greedy and caused all this mess, to those worthy causes like the poor, environment and education.

I work in an investment bank, n deal with these trasactions day in day out, i think its an excellent idea and support it 100%, and for the people who disagree, its the idea which is what matters, i can see a lot of work needs to be done, but i am prepared to help as much as i can!

you are a complete liar

and you are a complete muppet :)

Kukos to the effort....but don't think will work mate....!

To fight such causes, it must be sincerely given from the heart and not through robbing (taxing) people.

Lester, this tax will fall on mainly financial institutions, yes we may have money invested through them, but what about the people who havent even got the money to open a bank account...

Lets be frank
if you invest `your money could be taxed many times over .
if you changed investments just three times a year , that is a average tax of 0.15% on capital which sounds reasonable , if your money is involved in an active fund , your assets might buy and sell 20 times in that day , on average your money will give in taxes 3.65 times what your original investment was.
Fair taxes are alright , untill they become unfair , paying more in taxes than i own is unfair taxation and this is why i oppose the motion.

correct me if im worng mate, but the tax is 0.005% and not 0.05%!

only one think. Do you think really the bankers will not charge it on us later??, I mean, they can put an extra tax for keep their benefits as the same level, and as you said is a very little tax so population probably even noticed, it's necessary the banks won't be able to revert this tax on us, as they always do!

Walkerjian referred to banks that "grind out trillions via totally unnecessary transactions"

How do they do that please?

Shyamal wrote "the bank doesn't pay the tax, the public does"

This is the case with all taxes. Ultimately the public always pays.

"Shareholders dont own banks."

Anyone who can start their post like this instantly is not really demonstrating a agrasp of the facts.

Aren't the banks just going to pass that tax down by raises cost to consumers to hold and make transactions with their money??? How would this be prevented, free checking/savings is almost already unheard of....

Do not blame the victims in the case of the poor, or you show an inordinate ignorance. I have been rich and have become poor as a result of a ponzi scheme. My broker got his commission, I got nothing. When I see the salaries and bonus' that some of these rich CEOs, Presidents and Boards make on the backs of decreased shareholders dividends, it is a indicative of all that is wrong with capitalism. Capitalists can't regulate/manage themselves or their greed (as evidenced in America) so someone has to do it for them, namely the government. Personally I do my part by no longer buying any stock in any public companies, and especially those who are "multinationals" as they are morally the worst of all.

Redistributing wealth from wealthy corporations, whether the hated banking industry, or some other target, is the way to get ordinary folks on board for socialistic, eventually communistic, agendas. Everyone likes to see wealth redistributed from the evil big ("rich") corporations to the poor, but we overlook some primary fallacies: the poor are poor for a reason (no blame, it's just a fact), and there will always be poverty. The existence of poverty is not a justification for lack of compassion for those in need. They need our help, but not through force of redistribution of wealth. It's the logical next step that the average middle class citizen should have more taken away because they still have more than the "poor". There will always be more redistribution, folks. This is just a start to get you on board with the whole idea, by finding a target we can all hate, and go "yeah, take money from the big evil banks, so I can have more". Do you see the craziness in this?

If the poor could be not-poor with redistribution, why do lottery winners often end up worse after a huge windfall than they were before they ever got rich? It takes more to make one who has only known poverty not-poor. It takes education and support, not just transfer of money from the rich. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Let's teach the poor, not just redistribute wealth like it's Christmas and this is Santa Clause making all the poor's dreams come true. It's unrealistic in the long run, folks. And it takes away every incentive for the middle class entrepreneur to continue working. We're getting sucked in with an obviously hated target, but the next step is taking from your middle class neighbor and self-employed person in the community who can barely keep his head above water with all the taxes and business disincentives to continue working. Wake up, America and UK. There is no free ride, including this hair-brained, albeit popular, scheme. If you are poor, get the training to be able to support yourself. There are plenty of government programs to help, in the US and the UK. Get off your butts, and stop looking to someone else to support you. Please. It's the only way to reverse this madness our government is propagating. This is another scheme to create separation between the haves and the have-nots, and grow the entitlement mentality, so that those who are poor can revel in their victimhood with no responsibility for having created their situations.

We do not live in a fair society. The moment this really became clear to me was when I learned how one of the 100 richest people in the world made his fortune. He buys medium-sized companies with his investment company, liquidates all the company's assets he can by reducing worker pay, eliminating benefits, selling equipment, etc. and pocketing the money. He then goes on to sell the skeleton of a company that he has sucked dry, and moves on. Meanwhile, the people who worked hard to build the company up are left with next to nothing.

I really wish that everyone was just as poor, or as rich, as they deserved to be, based on their contributions to the economy. That's what we call fair, and it's even the supposed aim of a capitalist system. Now tell me; does the work of CEO's of big financial institutions like investment banks really contribute 1000 times more than the hard work of the average citizen? It doesn't. Yet somehow, they get 30 million dollar salaries, while most people on the planet work for around 25-40 thousand a year.

The reality is that most of us middle-class workers contribute to the economy through production of goods and services. Meanwhile, the people at the top with the right connections reap the rewards through unfair, yet somehow legal, means.

Hmmm. Suggest you take yourself off to the favelas of Brazil or take a look at the films of the refugee camps of Ethiopia back in the 80s and then reassess your opinion of why people are poor. No amount of training programmes will help, and a lot of countries are poor because that's how capitalism has to work - in order for there to be profits, there has to be someone to exploit, and someone to keep poor. I don't suppose you've had any thought about why you're not among the 'have-nots', but my guess is that it's far more likely to be where you're born and who you're born to and your environment than any personal attributes. I've met superb entrepreneurs in the third world, who are being helped to spread their new ideas through help from charities. And I met people in camps in Ethiopia who had lost all of their children and were by no means 'reveling' in their victimhood. So frankly, if you don't take the time to find out what poverty really means to the people of the third world then you shouldn't voice your opinion based on what you perceive as self-induced poverty in the first world.

You do realise that one of the biggest aims of the tax is to help 3rd world countries?
Please explain to me the reason that these people are born into poverty, and what governmental training programs there are for them.
You're point about teaching people, and building up skills is a logical one, and doesn't actually serve as an argument against this robin hood tax, merely a suggestion for how the money should be used.
As for your slippery slope arguments about eventually communistic agendas is simply hilarious.

I think 4responsibility is American, and therefore not only raised with the feeling that capitalism is a good way of working, but also deeply suspicious of communism and socialism. In Britain we are A Socialist State, a fact which is often spoken in dark tones over the pond. I didn't know I was in A Socialist State until an American pointed it out. I think it just means we have a national health system that works. ;) Remember the rage when Obama had the heretic idea of a tax-funded healthcare system? Anyway, that's not the point, is it? I digress.
The IDEA is a good one, so I vote yes. The devil may well prove to be in the detail.

Can someone help me?
- I am trying to work out if this "Robin Hood Tax" is going to be a good thing or a bad thing?
- Who will it help?
- Who will be losing more money? Me or the banks?

This sounds a great idea, on the face of it. I still think that whoever is charged these billions will resist and do anything they can to avoid paying it. I do think it is a great idea, but 0.005% is more than 0.000% and so would be resisted.
Many thanks
Rob

Can I talk about the You Tube items on the Robin Hood Tax?

The Bankers one was excellent. It spelled out exactly what the Robin Hood tax was, how much it would cost, what it would do. The Hoodies one was very interesting and good at the end, though connecting the Robin Hood Tax with hoodies and robbery might not have been the best idea - some of the people you want voting for it will be of the age group who would be nervous of hoodies. But the Leaders...what was that about...

If you are going to use these three clips, then for goodness sake print them Bankers, Hoodies then Leaders from left to right across the page, so if someone a little older than 20 actually looks at your site they won't check out the worse one first.

Nice to see the good old "it'll never work, let's just sit here and complain" brigade are in full voice. Don't worry, Robin, some of us are here because we are on your side!

I'm frustrated by the misguided agenda at play here. RHT's proponents want two outcomes - act punitively against banks for "gambling", and solve "poverty/climate change", but RHT wont solve either:

Gambling: Society can better address "gambling banks" through regulating market participants' activity, or at least, ring fencing the highest risk. A warning though - that "gambling" (or what we call investing) is what drives your retirement plans. Higher taxes on activity alone will be passed down at cost. It won't remove the incentive to risk capital for reward.

Poverty: If society chooses to allocate more of its income to pass down to those who have less, that's fine. Lets call it what it is, higher taxes for a social outcome, and put it to popular opinion. Unfortunately though, Poverty is part of the human condition, and society has always resisted higher redistributive tax systems - just like we avoid cutting our personal carbon footprints.

Banks are an easy target right now, but their profits are already heavily taxed (30% of net profits from finance globally, plus 50% of bankers income goes into government coffers as tax, the balance goes to your investment savings). The rest gets spent across the economy.

"Banks are an easy target right now, but their profits are already heavily taxed (30% of net profits from finance globally, plus 50% of bankers income goes into government coffers as tax, the balance goes to your investment savings). The rest gets spent across the economy" edrsenior

What a load of bullshit - How anyone can defend banks obviously doesn't know how banking works. Its a system of debt design to enslave consumers. A pyramid scheme with ordinary people at the bottom. If you dont believe me then research it. As long as the banking system is in place, its only right that taxes are highest on banks as tax exists to pay back the debt that they create.

Your argument begins with a profound lack of understanding of both the financial world and the environment which is what you are ultimately trying to protect here so the complaints are fully validated...

Nice ad campaign, ridiculous idea.

Banks need to repay the bailout capital (which they will, and governments will profit from this) but taxing bank transactions is just like charging you, a bank customer an extra pound each time you cash a cheque.

1. Banks already pay trillions of dollars of tax globally
2. Bankers salaries are taxed like everyone elses - infact income tax paid on bankers salaries would easily be greater than that paid by any other professional group in the country
3. Levvy taxes on profits (ie, economically relevant numbers) not transaction volumes, which are mostly nominal anyway.
4. You, by the way, own banks. Shareholders = your pension funds = your retirement savings. What we make, you own.

If you want to raise money to seriously address climate change, raise taxes on air travel, raise petrol prices by 50%, treble the congestion charge systems, charge higher taxes for people who don't insulate their homes, give tax breaks to businesses operating sustainably, make cap-and-trade markets viable and set a punitive price for carbon in the global economy.

Banks are just unnecessary friction interspersed between consumer and producer - an old idea getting older very rapidly. Of course the fact that they grind out trillions via totally unnecessary transactions and that these trillions keep entire ecosystems of parasites lolling phat in the spoils means that they (the bankers and the banks) will not give up without a fight. So, sigh, blood will have to run... will it not? After all blood is the one true currency in the one true free market.
Perhaps an RHT is a more prudent option for dudes who are just narrowly dodging being (literally) skinned alive, hmmmm?

Shareholders dont own banks. Shareholders are investors in banks. And 99% of the shareholders invest a tiny amount of capital compared to that of the owners of the banks [Rockafella's, Morgan's, Rothschild's etc.] Dont fool yourself.

Keith - I'd be interested in hearing how much of the banks you think are owned by the Morgans and Rockefellers.

Now you're talking. Taxes that promote sensible use of resources and encourage prudence where the environment is concerned get my vote every time.

Unfortunately, most people would protest at some of th measures you suggest, and so, far from looking like Robin Hood, you would come across as the Sheriff of Nottinghasm.

The reason people would resist such ideas is because the money come directly out of their pockets, instead of your idea where it comes out of our pockets via the bank and financial industries. There is no quick fix, brilliant ideas, certainly no one fix Robin Hood tax, great idea, but back in reality it wont, cant and will not work, the added cost/tax to the bank will just filter back down to the tax payer. Unfortunatly the only way is to be rich or be taxed.

@edrsenior

Your comment illustrates the problem of this campaign conflating the issues of climate change and poverty. Edrsenior chooses to focus only on climate change , while Jaqueline Calder (below) focuses, rightly I think, on poverty. As regards the tax filtering down to bank customers, the tax needs to be used alongside a split between retail banks and casino banks. Let's tax casino banking -- it's a great idea! So what if it results in fewer crazy speculative deals . . . that is no bad thing.

this will probably cause banks and so forth to increase their fees to increase their profit margins... its not the bank that wants the money, its the people behind it

I think this is bad idea. While I would like to slow down the trillions in "hot money" (and see it placed in long-term investments), the economy has come to depend on it. This idea just creates friction from transcation costs. It's like telling everyone to drive with under inflated tires because we have few speeders. Try a speed bump, fine them, or arrest them instead. Let honest business go on.

It is a direct tax! And taxes always have unforeseen consequences.

Governments aren't smart enough to know how to fight world poverty (or it wouldn't exist, they only cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer). "Climate change" means nothing and cant be helped nor stopped with money - its a political issue. Perhaps thats why there are just as many scientists who discredit it?

Theres a saying for people that believe in freedom - if George Soros thinks its a good idea, ITS NOT.

No where near as many scientists disagree with man made climate change. It is just the weight of the media behind the ney sayers that gives the perseption of even approximate parity. Even if you believe its not man made you must understand the need for adaptation to rising temperatures, seal levels etc?

Pat, I think you'll find that Mason means that "Climate change" is as amorphous a phrase as "fighting poverty" or "the war on terror". It sounds great, but is a hugely complex issue with roots in our own society and the way we choose to live our lives (ditto "poverty", by the way).

You can't fix climate change by just cutting a cheque. Using it to justify an ill conceived tax is as intellectually dishonest as "a tax on banks to save puppies" would be - i'm sure that would be equally popular, too.

GREAT a small tax (even as high as .5%) on transactions would raise lots of cash. But more importantly it would end much useless speculation and arbitrage, these create nothing of value. The tax would contribute to the stability of markets.

This is one of those golden opportunities that a TAX directly provides more BENEFIT than the cost of the tax.

This would never be put into practice/work:

The general public would only support this because they will think that it doesn't affect them as you stated on your website, but it will as their money is in... banks. So a tax on a bank will result in the bank reducing its interest rates in order to maintain its profit margin and therefore mean less interest for the account holder.

So essentially, the bank doesn't pay the tax, the public does- this is therefore just another ordinary tax and you are all wasting your time...

it is such a shame that you keep linking the dubious threat of climate change with very real problems such as poverty and hunger. I want to help support good initiatives towards eradicating poverty, hunger and real threats such as malaria. i do not want to support the growing hysteria about climate change that has become a form of "green evangelism". Please note, I am an informed and committed environmentalist.

I found this site by chance. Can it not be more publicised so people can become more informed and have their say on it and maybe one of the Goverment partys will listen.

The one thing I have noticed in this general election campaign is that nearly all the politicians don't seem to acknolwedge who actually caused this global recession in the first place, but expect us to be the ones prepared to suffer the consequences.
Banks need to become more accountable to goverment and take responsibility for their gambling actions.
It seems as if the banks are acting like the spoilt kid who will take his football home if he doesn't get his way.

This campaign needs to be more high profile to allow us the general public to become more informed about this idea.

How much would a TV ad cost or a newspaper ad? We could all donate something to help get this messsage more out there.

I have read of the comments below and have noticed that most opposition to this is that any increased tax on banking transactions would eventually reciprocate back to the general public. This is true but actually there may be a solution:

This is could be avoided if the decifit this tax creates were deducted from the bankers commission or bonus scheme therefore leaving the banks profits uneffected.

Say for example 10% of a transactions profits is put into a bonus pot, an increase of 0.05% tax would equate to a 0.5% deduction in this commission or bonus.

Any tax on the entire value of any transaction is unfeasible as this could be the difference between a transaction being profitable or not. Any potentially profitable transaction that does not take place because of this tax will stagnate the economy and ultimately make less money available to the general public. This is could be a real problem as although the profits might seem huge they are infact a very small percent in relation to the actual size of the transaction.

A tax on any bank is a worry for governments as large financial institutions have historically moved to tax exempt countries to maximise their profits. This is exactly the same reason why banks are unlikely to pass this tax onto the top commission earners in the fear they will leave for another bank. This is further evidence that there needs to be international agreement not only between governments but also between banks.

If there is not 100% agreement this will not work. Unfortunately the banking industry is founded on competition and is not famed for philanphropy.

I entirely support this idea in principle but for this to work I think you need to clearly define at which stage of any transaction this tax would be applicable. i.e. on bonuses not banking profits, thus avoiding the banks passing this back to us.

I don't think this is unreasonable to bankers. What’s the difference between a 30 million pound bonus and 29.85 million?

As many have also stated below by far the simplest solution is to manage our own finances responsibly and make as many contributions to worthy causes as we can afford as individuals.

Mark, it's really refreshing to hear from someone within the banking sector on this. If only the sector was as full of people with bigger picture perspectives like yours as it is with financial transactions!

The concept of this tax is completely justifiable, as a banker (specifically within the Foreign Exchange markets) I can see the sums of money that it could raise and also the viability of it being taxed at source (i.e by the state)

The question of it being forcibly imposed, shouldn't be a question, it should happen. Banks didn't ask permission before bringing about a credit crunch (which by the way, everyone could see coming a mile off) and they shouldn't be 'asked to put their hands in their pockets, they should be told. We shouldn't ask for voluntary contributions, that will eventually be so detailed and work in their favour as a tax write off. WE should tax at source, much like SDRT through the CREST clearing system for shares.
I can understand peoples scepticism concerning the change, but the reality is that the change will not affect bankers pockets by a noticeable amount and the change WILL affect millions of lives for the better. CASE CLOSED NOW PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, WILL WHOEVER WINS THE ELECTION JUST GET ON AND MAKE IT HAPPEN

I can't help wondering whether this idea is basically about

1. a structured way of helping "good causes" - whatever they are,

2. or helping the treasury raise their income - a lot of which is already handed out to charities via Gift Aid,

3. or is it more likely a feeble attempt to punish, or simply hinder, those who choose to speculate financially with their own, or my, money? - an attempt which they will simply circumnavigate.

Oh, and by the way - Robin Hood was a tax resister who killed tax collectors and gave people back their money, rich and poor alike. A more appropriate name for your program would be the Hitler and Stalin Tax. They are the true champions of using charitable intentions to gain, maintain, and expand their power - you are merely following in their footsteps.

All taxation is theft, and uniform global taxation is infinitely more tyrannical because it is immune to intergovernmental competition, making terrorism the only viable route toward freedom. If you want to do good do it through private charity, not government force!

It sounds good, and it might work, but shouldn't "transactions" be clarified? I have bank transactions, what's to stop them from charging me, via higher monthly fees for any services I use? We are talking BANKS. They don't give money away and they wouldn't be in the business if they weren't making some kind of a profit. Banks want to keep the profit, so they will get it back in some shape or form. Therefore, sticking it, to the same folks they are alledgedly helping.

Would it cost almost as much to administrate as the money it would raise?

Think about the $billions of new money created from nothing through quantitative easing accross the globe in the last 18 months. All that money is interest bearing, interest paid by governments to banks.

Governments then tax the public to pay that interest. So when governments talk of cutting back on spending to pay interest on the national debt. Remember that the interest is being paid on money that didn't exist 2 years ago.

The bankers have got a good thing going here as counterfieters don't charge interest on the money they make from nothing.

If banks have got us paying interest on all the money in circualtion, who'll end up paying for this Robin Hood tax?
The public.

This tax is a smoke screen to hide the real problem which is paying interest to bankers on the money they create from nothing.

i agree as they are only to happy for the tax payer to bail them out when times are tough and they should pay to cover themselves in tough times like people do to take out unemployment protection to cover themselves if they are made redundent, some of the tax can be put aside to cover the banks in future so should this happen again the tax payer will not have to bail the banks out of trouble and if we are going to tax these transactions we need to make sure the banks sign an agreement in Law that this tax cannot be passed on to anyone to make up for this loss otherwise we tax the banks and the banks ultimately will make us the personnal user and businesses pay for there loss.

Just a question : Do you have any correspondent in France ?

Do you plan any events soon ?

A tax like this would be passed on in banking fees to businesses, making them less profitable, hence more unemployment. The biggest players in financial markets are pension funds and insurance companies - so pension pots would decrease in size and insurance premiums would rise. So this would hit small businesses and pensioners, it wouldn't make much difference to hedge fund managers. This is a stupid idea.

I think you guys are missing a trick. Energy prices are soaring because of speculation so I think that you should add a 100% tax on energy speculation profits to your portfolio to (1) be plowed back into the economy to reduce the deficit and (2) to finance green energy development. Tax payers are being screwed by the speculators in the same way as we were / are being screwed by the banks! Why don't governments get involved in this market to kill off the speculation?

Hang on, who ultimately is going to pay for this. Its either the shareholders of the banks (you and i in the form of our pensions), businesses (as costs are passed on so it would be employees and customers) or it would be bank customers (you and me).

So what looks like a great idea on paper will ultimately be paid for by us the taxpayer.

the situation is simple the uk is spending more than it is earning so we must either increase taxes or reduce spending. covering up additional taxes like this only goes to make the uk more uncompetitive.Andrew

I see no good reason why «you and me» would not pay to help poor communities and the environment that are being hit hard?

the banks wont loose out...the cost will be put on the customer as it is now. mortgages and loan interest rates are 3 times higher than they were 2 years ago with the base rate at 0.5% for the last year..cmon..not rocket science!!

A tax that WILL be passed on one way or another to the general public. A tax that is going towards what....Climate change and poverty. Climate change and poverty, both political nirvanas used to siphon more money into the pockets of the rich.

OK, I can see the possible theoretical merit, I have been made redundant before, I have faced hardship. But I have had to battle through it. The people that will benefit from a handout won't be the ones that need help, it'll be the 'poor' that are refusing to help themselves that will gain from this. The poor in spirit. In general, the people you collectively group as 'poor' are generally this way for a reason so why should the banks be forced to give up money to hand out to them? To paraphrase this website says it's not your money it's the bank's, but where do you think the banks get there money from? All it will mean is that individual rates within the banks will rise to compensate and we will be the ones that get stung. It doesn't take too much to be able to predict that in another 4 years campaign promises will be based on the eradication of this tax.

You said that «...In general, the people you collectively group as 'poor' are generally this way for a reason...», and yes it`s very much true: it`s because they`re poor. No condition to go out of the "spiral of poverty".

There are few of us who can go through life without facing a financial crisis of some kind. A temporary job layoff or loss of employment will often lead to a necessity to juggle the bills and escalate into late payments and high late fees. For families who barely make it from one paycheck to the next any disruption in income can rapidly become a struggle for financial survival.

Bankers are rich and greedy: they should pay to sort out our problems! Eureka!

It's a nice thought, but a hopelessly naive one.

Unfortunately, since the UK stopped manufacturing things and instead became wholly reliant on "services" (read: finance) we can now ill afford to poison what's left of the formerly golden goose with a transaction tax.

All those despised bankers will finally sod off and leave us with... what? Long-empty factories and disused mines.

Who'll pay for the schools, hospitals, soup kitchens and wind turbines then?

So, like it or not, it's not just "a crisis for the banks". In fact it's hard to think of a less appropriate tagline.

Unilateral, cross-border action could work - if governments and business can put politics aside - but the UK just cannot afford to make the first move.

I like this idea and it would be wonderful to have spread worldwide. I'm from Puerto Rico it's a small island in the Caribbean and thanks to this website I found out about this. A while I though about something similar and I'm glad to see it come true. Though it'd be nice to see more info on the subject.

I can't see the point of calling the whole of our financial industries criminal/rapacious etc.. We need them - they are world leaders and they produce income for the country - stature for our nation and profits for themselves and shareholders.Surely it is not surprising that the best financial minds have found ways to conserve their raw materials (their own money)
HOWEVER.................

If any organisation or individual finds that financial help is needed they must accept that there will be controls and a payback plan.

Seems to me that "ROBIN HOOD" tax scheme is ideally suited to give back some regular reimbursement and has the benefit of being not only immediate but also popular with the very people who were forced to bail the banks out.

A simple idea in practice it would seem. I'm puzzled by a few things though:
1. No talk of reducing taxes elsewhere ... mmm ...
2. Tax takes inevitably go into consolidated revenue ... think road fund tax or tax on international flights ... hmmm ...
3. Little discussion of how the funds will be allocated and who by ... ohh
4. Little discussion of what % will be required for administration ... errr ...
5. Little discussion of what happens if any of the funds end up being siphoned off along the way ... doh ...
6. No debate about extending this great, simple and efficient tax idea to every transaction that occurs rather than just focusing on the financial system (whenever any transaction that occurs where value is exchanged) ... aahh
I'd like to see some of this first. Because simple ideas often end up being a really bad idea becasue we can't necessarily follow the full implications during their life cycle (a line of thinking demonstrated by the following: my leaving my TV on standby won't hurt because its only a very small proportion of total power consumption) ... oh dear ...

The government puts about £3 billion a year into scientific research resulting in just under £50B in new wealth (due to spin outs, new products etc). If a fraction of the £100's Billions put into the banks were put into Science and Engineering, we would probably work out a solution to global warming and become incredibly rich.

Instead, the government is so worried about upsetting the bankers and their possible departure that they are cutting the research budget. This will unfortunately will result in the departure the very people who bring REAL wealth to the real economy. Their departure is not because they are making empty threats, but because thousands (possibly up to ten thousand) of academics are being made redundant as research funds dry up.

The most important thing is to get this into place, no matter how effective it is, because in future years it can be improved and used as a stepping stone to further liberate us from the largest criminal institute in the world.

I think the manner in which the government spends our current taxes needs to radically change before we decide to give them more cash to piss up the wall

I'm all for this tax! It just needs to be implemented correctly! I would also "decriminalise" jobs for "Cash in Hand" - it would still be illegal for them not to pay tax, and the employer could easily still hand the money to the revenue! Only difference is, Banks and institutions of the like would have to buck up their ideas if they want to keep customers (as that is essentially what we are) coming through the doors, otherwise, people would just stop using them if they thought they were getting a raw deal!
Personally, I'd say tax them "extremely" heavy on "profits alone" -they're obviously are getting enough (20% would be more like it) and put laws into place that stop banks from "excesive" charging. No charge on any "overheads" etc etc would mean that banks could simply not complain.

"Cash in hand" jobs doesn't refer to it being illegal to pay in cash: it isn't. It refers to jobs that are paid cash to avoid a paperwork trail that will show that tax isn't being paid.

The reality is banks are businesses. They won't end up poorer thats not how it works! if more money is taken out it will be us paying in the end. Not that I diagree with all the good things to spend it on but don't kid yourselves that its coming from somewhere else. The reality is the market only works if you let it work, bailing out the banks just slows down the equilibrium returning, perhaps you should let them fail and bail out the losers? I'm not an ecconomist but i'd like to know anyones thoughts on if this would have been a better solution.

From John Denham MP.



Thank you for your recent email regarding the ‘Robin Hood Tax’.



The Prime Minister set out in his speech to G20 finance ministers at St Andrews in November the need to consider a stronger economic and social contract that better reflects the global responsibilities of financial institutions to society. The Government welcome the contribution made by the Robin Hood Campaign and its supporters to the international debate.

There is a range of options to explore as a means of ensuring banks make affair contribution. Any measures considered, including tax on financial transactions as proposed by the Robin Hood Campaign, need to be set against four core principles:



· The measures would need to be global

· They would have to have minimal distortionary impact

· They should t complement-and ideally reinforce-action the Government is taking to enhance the stability of the global economy

· They must be fair, measured and enable financial services to contribute to future economic growth



The G20 has asked the International Monetary Fund to review these issues, and the Government looks forward to the report later this year. In addition the Government is participating in a French-led initiative related to Financial Transaction Taxes (FTT).



The proprieties set out by the Robin Hood Campaign for potential beneficiaries from a financial transaction tax are also priorities shared by the Government. Whilst the Government is committed to halving the deficit over four years, it has to be done in a way that protects the priority public services on which many rely.

The UK has taken a leading role globally on finance for international development. The Government will n=meet the interim target of 0.56% Overseas Development Assistance as a proportion of Gross National Income (ODA;GNI) in 2010, as well as 0.7% ODA;GNI in 2013. Draft legislation has been introduced in the House of Commons that will enshrine this commitment in law.



Thank you again for contacting me.



Yours sincerely

Someone should edit this massive list of comments

My question is, who would decide how it's spent?

Excellent idea. Taxation is now used to keep control over the public. what PEP under my post states is untrue. I am a small time longterm trader and 0,005% up to 0,05% means small money compared to all the other costs you have to pay.
Daytraders are selfish people, for the short run, to make money. I believe in equity. We have not to earn money by gambling but really contribute to this world. Banks are the last who contribute and most likely control the system, weapon industrie, chemical and all the other stuff we as a human dont appreciate. Just find out for yourself what money is, where it comes from and you will understand that we are slaves within a prison of money and the lack of unity. Split apart by greed and hunger for money.

To all the well-intentioned individuals who have come to express their support for this plan, I urge you to please reconsider. The problem with imposing a financial transaction tax is that it will benefit the very entities that proponents of the tax are attempting to target, i.e. large banks, hedge funds, and financial institutions. By employing even a "tiny" tax, you create a major barrier to entry for smaller individual investors as well as day traders and market makers on futures and options exchanges all over the world. These are the people who will be less likely to trade as actively as result of the tax and will be forced from participating in the market. What's the problem with that you ask? People shouldn't be in business simply for "short-term profit" you say?. My answer to that, in a word, is LIQUIDITY. When you drive out the little guy (and by little guy I include day traders and market makers who don't work for the largest banks), you decrease the number of market participants, and as a result, you create a far less efficient market. Wider bid/ask spreads will exist for the remaining big institutional players (the only ones large enough to still be around), thereby increasing their ability to profit from the "little guy" once again. Instead of being punitive, you end up solidifying these institutions' monopoly power over the industry by driving out their competition. I'd be surprised if Lloyd Blankfein and the boys at Goldman aren't secretly in favor of the "Robin Hood Tax." Please, as they say in medicine, "Primum non nocere (First do no harm)."

The private investor shouldn't really be effected by the "tiny" tax, although the word here is shouldn't. I've had to close two investing accounts because the managers decided that I wasn't trading as often as they would like. The problem is that even at the private investor level the stockmarket is seen more as a gamble than investment as it should be. Most share trading companies are more geared up to get repeat commisions than letting people invest over a long period.

Although I still do agree that people should reconsider supporting this. It does seem that the Robin hood tax group is as just as greedy as the bankers that they wish to tax. Some tax schemes have already been suguested by the EU and the Labour party (Conservaties haven't revealed details of their plan yet) that even in the situation you describe would not effect the little guy and more clearly aims at the areas where a banking tax should be aimmed at. This tax scheme by taxing everything does seem to be aimed at generating the most cash for it's supporting charites than penalizing bankers.

In theory its a good initiative, but the devil is in the details. Funding local governments would be good imo, but global funds are even less transparent, democratic and accountable than national governments are. We need More democracy, transparency and accountablitiy for local and national governments as it is, a global fund or tax is even more insulated from the public and democratic mechanisms, and thus even with the best of intentions you will get corruption, bureaucracy, self-serving, and so on, and thats IF they have the best of intentions.

Have any of you people actually read Robin Hood?

Yes, even the small detail including this section http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/how-it-works/the-big-idea/ where it suguests taxing all shares traded on a market, Government gilts and I'm sure I seen a section on bonds somewhere. ie. not just the speculative investments but everything and it wants to spend taxpayers money here http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/how-it-works/the-money/ on a 50/50 split presumably by these piggies at the through between themselves here http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/who-we-are/ which instead could all go to Schools and the NHS! (although suguested political schemes it goes into treasury so it could go anywhere)

Have any of you who support it fully read Robin Hood?

Haven't you dropped this dead donkey yet? Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron have said they would not support 'Your' tax where public funds would go to charities. It now seems that all parties will support a tax on banks just different methods of taxation. The Robin hood tax does seem to be the worse suguestion with the public effected the most, even though you have a banking nobody that claims it doesn't. The Robin hood tax organisation does seem to look like yet more piggies at the trough trying to get their hands on tax payers money.

It mustn't be just another tax. There must be a solid agreement for how the money raised will be spent to relieve poverty and maintain essential services that benefit the most disadvantaged amongst us. This money must be ring fenced for these purposes. (Maybe like allocating lottery grants). It appears the bank bail out money was handed over with too few caveats attached and the banks have not responded to this help honourably. They are not helping small businesses which are going to the wall, people are losing their jobs and they have not made any public statements that show they are doing anything to share this financial pain. This is not acceptable. There must be enterprise but it must be equitable.

guess who will end up paying-the public

What's the difference, we do end up paying anyway whichever way you look at it! At least this way it will be a much fairer way of taxing us.

In 'The Money', why are financial figures given in US dollars, and not in £ sterling? If US$ are quoted necessarily, could you not write in the UK currency/£ sterling equivalent as well? Brits might find that easier...
I would like to propose adding to the list of beneficiaries the campaigning mental health charities - Time for Change, Open Up, Mind, Rethink, the Mental Health Foundation, Stand to Reason and many others - who are working hard to end the prevailing stigma and discrimination re mental ill health which continues to prevail in this country, and which receive the LEAST slice of the NHS and local/community mental health funding - despite mental ill health affecting ONE in FOUR of the population.

I agree - Transparency would be really, really essential and the Robin Hood collected taxes should be ring-fenced.
Its a really important proposal, but needs carefully spelling out in detail to the all British people, including collection of the Robin Hood tax - How? Where does it "go". Will HM Treasury be responsible? If so, might it get 'lost'?
And how easy might it be for the financial barons and whizz-kids to evade a Robin Hood Tax even/as well as those already evaded?
Having raised/asked a lot of pessimistic points, I must say - with a degree of hope, optimism, that it has tremendous potential,
better than anything else around right now.
One more thing: Who decides on the 'causes' distribution/'Who gets what' priorities and would these be flexible, able respond to changing needs?
I hope the Robin Hood Tax comes about. Its overdue !
Sarah A V Lewis

I think you should add some information concerning the administration of this kind of tax as obviously it would be quiet complicated to raise the tax.
And you should also work on the critic concerning the use of the money. Coming to big money there are basically no "good" projects but a lot of interest groups strangeling for their own benefit.

Just a comment on the structure of the site... I think it'd be really useful if you expanded the "How it works" section. Right now it's just a bare bones, very accessible account of the tax, but seeing as the debate is raging over the finest technical details of the tax, an expanded "How it works", or maybe a link at the bottom of this section to a more advanced, comprehensive explanation of EXACTLY how it works would be useful.

Most people I know are at the level where they know what the basic idea is, but might not be able to defend it very robustly in an argument. I have read a lot of the comment sections and they contain a whole lot of very interesting mini-debates and rebuttals, which is a shame to see buried deep at the bottom of the page. Collecting it all and presenting it here would make the website a lot more persuasive, I think.

Just a thought, keep up the good work!

Sounds good but truely bad.All you need to look at, is who supports it.
Brown-spent more than we had and saved nothing as chancellor. UNELECTED prime minister.Wants a banking constitution made by the people who created this mess.In a new world order.joke!
Merkel,Sarkozy all people who never were interested in listening to the people who elect them.
Top bigwigs know this plays into their hands ultimately the people will pay.Maybe an end to free banking?

Global warming dont you mean cooling?;-)

I beleive this is a fantastic idea and would love to see it in fruition. As the banks and quartertiary finanace services are the engine of the global market I would love to see them lead the way in making efficient, sustainable practice economically viable both in terms of responsible investment and ecologically sound industry. Perhaps the Robin Hood tax could start a new era where the market is a conscious agent for change rather than a confused celebration of individual interest over a better society?

A well-run bank will have no problem with this. However, there should be absolute transparency - the public should know how much p.a. Robin Hood has raised and exactly how and where he will benefit the poor with it.

IMPORTANT!

I hope the Robin Hood Tax campaign will be successful. However, there is another aspect to, and to which a new campaign could be created.

How is it that banks can actually create new money out of thin air as a loan, and then add interest to it? Would it not be better for everyone (except the bankers) to have loans free of interest? Hhm! To find out more one can just use the search words of MONETARY REFORM (eg.relevant groups include Zarlenga, and AMI, Global Justice Movement.net, Prosperity etc). This is a very important subject..

Personally, this propsosed other campaign for interest free monetary reform in the near future would be very worthwhile..exposing how the banking system really works!! I wonder if the organizers of the guts to do this...!! Unfortunately, it ofcourse would be very difficult to achieve!!

I'm for it as long as the money generated stays well away from our politicians. Needs an independant body to make sure it does not end up like our road tax - very little of the amount raised used for roads.

"The plan is for the US$400bn that could be generated by a global Robin Hood Tax to be split equally, with $200bn spent domestically and $200bn spent around the world"

"Of the money spent globally, $100 billion would go towards international development and US$100 would support developing countries as they adapt to climate change"

I see your plan was always to distribute our tax money across the World regardless of EU regulation.

Is this a global socialist experiment for the re distibution of wealth.

I see you are playing the old climate change card - so is this a "green" tax?

Thanks for the question David. The plan is to raise money then spend it on good things. Any other meaning or agenda seems to come from you.

What are we going to do with all those offices in London when the Banks move their operations out of the EU to avoid paying.

I will be voting UKIP. The EU is corrupt and if we pay £45m a day now that will be £450m when this EU tax comes in.

We're quite clear Maree, many of the proposals require international implementation, many don't. UKIP don't like this idea and seem unwavering in their position. We are trying to open a serious debate on how to redraw the contract between society and finance. But if your mind is made up then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the comment.

Looks like you will get your wish.....but not how you wanted it.

"As predicted, the European Parliament has voted for a tax on financial transactions, to be levied directly by Brussels. The vote went through by 536 to 80: only my own group, the European Conservatives and Reformists, voted solidly against the measure, although we had some support from UKIP" - Daniel Hannan - The Telegraph - March 10th.

I am guessing UKIP have been up to mischief giving the UK another reason to get out of Europe! LOL. See the discussion paper at...

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/econ/107_en.htm

However, the EU version only allows our government to keep 50% -the remainder going to the UN, IMF and the World Bank.

You and the UK have been stitched up! We will now be paying the tax to the EU superstate - unelected, unaccountable and unaudited. They (the 35785 members) thought the tax would stay in the UK and so it should!

I hope you now join me in supporting UKIP in order to recoup the £billions we will now lose.

Can I also add, WHEN DID THE EU GET POWERS TO TAX US? - OH YEH! IN THE LISBON TREATY WE NEVER GOT TO VOTE ON!!!

Robin Hood would be turning in his grave!

I'm completely onboard with the principle of this thing but thought I'd have a look through what some of the bankers had to say about it and here's one from the telegraph site.

"This Robin Hood tax, which is actually the Tobin Tax, is the most ill-founded and unrealistic tax proposed in the last hundred years. Because it is a tax on transactions rather than profits, and because of the thin margins marketmakers rely on, the numbers are highly deceptive. The markets which caused the credit crisis are illiquid and do not trade frequently; this tax does not address them. Instead it would collapse liquidity in the high frequency trading liquid markets that DID clear through the crisis; it would make them more like the credit derivative markets by reducing diversity of participation and efficient price discovery."

How can you demonstrate he's wrong?

I completely agree with guyglossop. We need to see more details on the robin hood tax before we can decide whether this could work or not. In fact, that's why I ended up on this web site. I read something about the robin hood tax in the internet, googled it, found your web site in the hope to understand how it really works but was disappointed to see no substance to the proposal.
In particular, it would be essential to define 'speculative banking transactions' more precisely. It's also important to specify what amount the tax is on. Is it 0.05% of the underlying notional of a financial transaction, or is it 0.05% of each cash flow?

I am very much in favor of charitable giving. I am just not sure whether this tax is the right way to achieve that. First, banks will find a way to avoid that tax or at least pass it on to their customers. Second, ordinary people will suffer from it through their pension funds. Third, the overall economy might be hurt which would mean less money in everybody's pocket (except probably the super rich, which you wanted to target in the first place).

Don't be fooled by the smallness of the number 0.05%. The suggested hundreds of billions of pounds have to come from somewhere. And they will be missing from banks revenues. Obviously banks will not just accept this. They will find ways to get this money back. In the end it will probably be taken out of the pockets of ordinary people.

It seems like a crazy oversimplified idea. I can not begin to consider supporting it without seeing more detail on exactly which transactions will be taxable, to what extent and how the process will be policed/managed.

On seeing these details I have no doubt there will be many obvious clear issues/inefficiencies that make it unworkable and if implemented most likely send our financial services industry overseas

I am all for helping the third world and the best way to achieve long term sustainable aid is through more efficient allocation of resources (short and long term) open fair markets are not the perfect solution but a robin hood tax doesn't address the problems. It might even increase them by reducing liquidity and increasing bubbles.

By far the most dangerous ideas are those that on the surface sound like a good idea (and gain political momentum) but in practice are incredibly damaging. I don't feel qualified to appraise the full implications myself but I would hope your website could muster more than just a few sentences on the subject of "how it works" in order to convince me otherwise.

Hi Guy,

While the video is pretty silly in its conception (Get an actor to help you with the sort of fantasy one sided interview you only wish you could get for real) you have pretty neatly slotted yourself into the squirming charicature depicted who constantly falls back to "very complicated [you wouldn't understand]".

Obviously a proposal like this would be at the basic principles stage with detail left to be negotiated. The overall point is not complicated. About £200bn to be taken from the non-public facing finance sector.

For the most detail visit www.neweconomics.org but as said.

The sector (and most capitalism) is a spoilt child with a parent that for fear of a big scene, heeds the brat's warnings, "If you don't give me sweeties I'll scream!".

The "we live in globally competitive market" argument is pathetic and morally idiotic. It has all the sophistication of "My friend at school ALWAYS gets sweeties!"

I have little problem with hearing arguments from the right but they rarely add up logically unless the speaker just owns up and says "I believe in Number 1. That's my main concern and I think that's OK." The desperate deceipt in their "Greater Good" arguments are mostly laughable.

The world won't collapse for gaining a conscience. In fact, a conscience has historically served nations pretty well (or at the very least some wealth helps them develop one). Does the mighty finance sector really feel so insecure as to think it can't afford do give away a few jelly babies? Of course it doesn't.

Still won't give them without a strop so Madam,
would you please control your child!

How do you stop the banks passing on the additional taxes to the public? Are you really all so naive to believe they won't? Without a mechanism to stop this, your socialist theory fails as it becomes an indirect tax on the public not a direct tax on the banks.

So I ask again...How do you stop the banks passing on the additional taxes to the public in higher fees/rates/charges etc?

Thanks David. Good questions both. Here are some links which might help. In summary: http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/debate/who-ends-up-paying-for-all-this/ Or in detail from a former investment banker and derivatives trader: http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/debate/the-robin-hood-tax-who-pays-in-the-end-a-former-investment-banker-and-derivatives-trader-investigates/ Hope that helps

Perhaps it is just my distrust of the types of people running the banks or perhaps it is my lack of confidence in Government to impliment enforceable laws but I can not help but feel we will get all the right noises and promises but the laws and regulations will be unenforceable, full of holes and nobody will have the power or the will to enforce them.

The Government will say things like "we will learn lessons" and the banks will continue as they like. Even if they are stopped, they will just move their operations to a tax haven and so we lose out even more.

Dont mean to be a glass half empty type but this is now how we are conditioned to think as a result of 20 years of the rich lining their pockets.

An "opinion" is not enough to persuade me - it is just an opinion not at all factual. I would like to see some proposed legislation which demonstrates that there are no loopholes to be exploited -otherwise the whole idea is useless.

I suggest you get some proper lawmakers on board to draft some legislation or, even better, challenge students at somewhere like York School Of Law to draft a version of the legislation and offer a prize for the best. You will get some good work done for next to nothing - I remember doing the same for a Smoking In Public Places Act back when I was studying. It was amazing the angles that students covered (such raw analytical minds). Its a suggestion.

the larger the amount the easier to milk. i read that the UK give £44 million a day to the EU and not a penny has been accounted for. how could you monitor the Robin Hood Tax so everyone knows where the money is allocated to.There would most probably have to be hundred of staff to work at this. i also read that the concerts Sir Bob Geldof organised raked in millions of pounds but a lot of the was syphoned of to bribe hundreds of African official so how much money actually got to the starving Africans

it is a great idea, but how would it be monitored. i think it would involve thousands of people working on this so we know where every penny goes, because apparently, the UK pay £44 million a day in to the EU and not one penny has been accounted for. would the Robin Hood Tax end up the same way.Or (i read that)most of the money donated to the Feed The World organised by Bob Geldoph seem to have been spent on bribes to African goverment, not much left for the starving people of Africa.how can you make it water tight, and without any loop holes. i wish you all the luck in the world to make it work.

I think this is probably a good idea, trouble is it would have to be global to work.Most wealthy persons know a hundred ways to avoid paying tax proportionate to their wealth.Fact people like Bono,Sting, Ashcroft and many others actually avoid paying as much tax as they can without any possibility of their behaviour being questioned.Its not just bankers, its business gurus, entertainers, sportsmen, and it usually is men, the amount of revenue lost must be enormous,and in the main, these individuals are millionaires at least! The net result of this is Mr Average, who has his tax taken at source, has to pay more to make up the deficit. My beef with Brown, Blair and co is that they have encouraged this scenario, they have courted the wealthy and turned a blind eye to their activities, why should we believe after thirteen years of empty promises and barefaced lies that this leopard is going to change its spots.

the top 10% owing 100 times as much wealth as the bottom 10% of people in the UK - not healthy, not fair, not good for anyone.

If the government can impose a pay freeze om all public sector workers,judges,senior top civil servants etc. WHY can they not impose a ban on all bankers bonuses as well as introduce a Robin Hood tax. It is time for action.

Not all banks caused the financial crisis; that'd be like raising taxes on the poor or the middle class because some of them commit crimes.

No it wouldn't. It'd be like high car insurance for young male drivers'. Generalising but sensible.

It's a good idea in principle but in reality, the banks would just raise their charges and lower their interest rates to cover the difference. Which would make it another tax on us. Perhaps if it was very heavily regulated by and independent third party it might work.

FAO Bob the banker.

Its 0.05% not 0.5%. Which is a significant difference.

Interesting how everyone jumps on their high horses to suggest schemes to implement once one is already underway, if your so sure of your own ideas why don't you construct a proposal yourself I will tell you why because the average human is a critic not a constructor!

Thanks Liam. Really appreciate it. I try to respect all views when moderating these comments but sometimes do sigh and come to a similar conclusion as you. It is, after all, possible to find problems and imperfections in almost any human endeavour isn't it? We're tricky, lovely, selfish, simple, complicated, unreliable, steadfast, despairing, hopeful blighters after all. If everything had to be perfect before we did it nothing would ever happen. Or change. So we have our idea on the table, lots of very clever and eminent people agree with us, some don't and some are half way. That's fine - we're here to keep making the case and winning doubters over. All we ask for is an open mind and an acceptance that what we strive for is the better option, not always the perfect one, and that there's much to be learned on the way. Surely what we've seen over the last few years proves the status quo is about the worst thing we could settle for. Ta again, Robin

How do you stop the banks passing on the additional taxes to the public? Are you really all so naive to believe they won't? Without a mechanism to stop this, your socialist theory fails as it becomes an indirect tax on the public not a direct tax on the banks.

Possibly one of the best ideas of the 21st century, every country should do this! and this should have been done whether the crisis happened or not.

Think it's a great idea but can the banks first pay back the billions lent to bail them out. I have to pay back if I borrow !

I can see you're angry at bankers but what about their bonuses? They still get huge lumps of cash in their pockets despite bad decisions made at our expense. Why not tax that instead?

Thanks Emily. Such bonuses are taxed already. But individual taxation of a relatively small number of very high earners is a different issue. This is about a tiny tax on speculation to do good.

Tax schemes incentives have been done on bonuses before, can't see why a decentive can't be done. This doesn't seem to be effecting the bankers, just their banks and people with pensions!

F*****g stupid that's what I'd describe it. You might think that derivatives and bonds are things only played with by top bankers to make their banks loads of profits but in reality with the demise of the final salary pension, a lot of the publics pensions use them to deversify risk in a pension. What your suguesting is a tax that will quite often raid your pension. Perhaps you should then call it the Robert Maxwell Tax instead?

The only way to tax bankers without taxing the public is through their bonuses.

Well then they'll just have to not diversify risk not quite so well. This website admits that it'll entail a small hit on pensions. The point they're making is that by targetting high frequency transactions it'd help shape the sector into a less volatile one overall. Might be less fun for the undoubted geniuses formulating their grand mathematical bets but I think a nuclear test site would make a safer playground.

The thing is pensions don't take as much risks, the returns should be reasonable but you have to keep expenses down. Interesting you mentioned radiation, I would say that the tax was similar to radiotherapy, you fire a 0.05% tax rate across the whole banking industry and hopefully concentrate it on the cancerous speculative trading area, but you still have to watch that the tax doesn't build up in critical areas in this case pensions. The thing is the politicians have come up with other tax schemes that sucessfully do that and this tax seems to just benefit most it's charity supporters.

Sounds like a great idea, although a naive one at that. I would find it hard to believe that banks will give this money up willingly... especially when the banks own the politicians and the government. We think we live in a free society where citizens have the power to steer its direction. I woke up from that dream a long time ago. All that is left to do is wait until the current system fails and collapses completely so that we can build the society we truly want.

I wish you the best though. Maybe I'm wrong and this Robin Hood tax does take effect.

Maybe its time we took the power back, bt of course, to do that we would have chaos for a while, in my view, he only way we can achieve a greater equality is b not voting for the lib/lab/con establishment,they all put party before the Electorate, vote for an Independent, It worked well in Kidderminster,their representative actually votes with an open mind on all issues, not as he is told to by the whips.

Very stupid idea. Banks will just pass it on to customers, and there is no telling how the revenue would actually be spent. In all likelihood, it would turn into a slush fund for crapulent, left-wing dictators, like Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, for whom this sort of international tax would be a first step toward achieving their goal of transferring wealth from developed countries to their own coffers. Another result is that it would disincentivize the economic reform that is badly needed in such countries.

Fabulous.

It is also imperative that the raised funds go towards projects that move into 'giving a hand up' projects, 'hand outs' create dependency; education and enabling self-suffiency builds self-respect and movitvates people. The aim and effect being to get people to a place of not needing help.

The Grameen Bank has proven how effective this is, and there are many other models too that have been very effective.

Let's do it!

I'm in favour of a tax on financial transactions. My only conerns are (i) it will have to apply to all wholesale transactions, as it is not possible to separate speculative from other ones and (ii) it probably won't solve the problem of banking excesses, as the banks probably have enough market power to pass the tax on to their clients in higher charges, so that it won't affect bonuses or profits substantially. So I would prefer some kind of price regulation or public ownership, but as neither of those is likely to happen, and I support the Tobin tax. The use to which the tax revenue would be put remains open to debate, but reducing inequality is an attractive area to explore.

The trouble with a tax on financial transactions is that is a tax on investment. Think about it. Currently investors must pay approximately 2 – 5% of the value of their investment to their stockbroker. These fees may seem small at first, but when you are dealing with sums of $1000 or more, they add up quickly and discourage alot of potentially valuable investment.

Adding a further 0.5% tax on investments would discourage even more investors from participating in the free market. This means less venture capital funds for things like green energy or innovative health care solutions. It means less support for small businesses. It means that it will be more difficult for governments to sell low-interest bonds to finance public services. All in all, it means a weaker economy and less jobs.

I sympathize with those in favour of this tax. It sounds good. It sounds just. It sounds equitable. But implementing a tax like this one would be counter-productive to the noble goals you have put forth.

Thanks for your consideration.

Thanks Bob. Couple of points of clarification. It's 0.05% not 0.5% and its on wholesale speculative transactions not investments. Hope that helps.

A simple idea, but will banks think so?! One step in ways to ensure that those who can afford to become part of the solution to our human-created problems.

This idea excites me greatly. It is a good, honest idea that could profoundly benefit mankind, so really I don't see what other argument there could possibly be for or against it. Really it's time that the richer portion of mankind did something for everyone instead of sitting comfortably on our piles of money, under our nice roofs and next to our shiny taps with constant supplies of water, whilst watching the rest of the world suffer and musing to ourselves; “sigh, I wish there was something I could do about that.”

There is something you can do, and it's about time we did it. It's about time mankind moved forward and gave up a “small” sum to do a large amount of good.

I can't see something like a 0.05% tax even being noticed by those who it was taken from. The only problem I can see with it is that banks might be stubborn, decide they are going to put speculative transactions on hold until everybody decides this tax was a “bad idea”, not because they are afraid of the money that will be lost from it (afterall, why would they put transactions on hold if they were afraid of losing money?), but through sheer, belligerent selfishness and stubborn greed. “We are the banks, we shall not be taxed” is not good enough. It is only by chance that they are on the rich end of this equation. The government should not be weak enough to be held to ransom by the banks, this tax must go through.

Didn't this tax used to be called something else (Tobin I think)? Whatever...it's always been a good idead and there is an election coming up.

We do have some power you know....we just choose not to use it.

Mail your local MPs and promise (don't threaten) to campaign on your estate for the one whose party would support it (purely on the basis of this tax). Really, this stuff works (especially if you live in a marginal).


Cheers

Mat (a 40 year old company director who hasn't forgotten why he got all worked up about politics as a kid)

One technical alternative: focus one aspect of this tax to the specific market-manipulation tool known as "high frequency trades."

In America these trades interfere with orderly stock clearances, working some 40% of all NYSE/NASD transactions. They extract hidden fractions from a majority of normal investment trades. A company named Goldman, Sachs is the dominant information hound and "high frequency" player. Surely there are such firms operating in the UK.

Some 80% of Goldman, Sachs profits in recent years have been generated from these activities. Control of our Exchanges, Treasury, leadership of our council of economic Advisors, and strong influence over The Fed have a lot to do with it.

Taxing these HF transactions out of existence -- or at least minimizing them -- should be seen as a necessary safeguard to democracy. Otherwise, all manner of bribery can ensue. Gold rules, one way or another. Best of luck with this -- though 0.05% is too little. 0.5% is more like it for any "high frequency" trade.

It distresses me that out of a (worthwhile) motivation to try to rein in harmful unregulated financial activity you are advocating a Tobin Tax which specifically targets the CURE and the FUNCTIONING MARKETS, rather than the problem and the problematic markets.

The problem is mispricing and illiquidity. The solution is effective, continuous repricing, which is accomplished through HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING. When that happens, people do not accumulate massive positions whose value is suddenly repriced: the repricing occurs continually; those markets will have already responded dynamically.

The Tobin Tax SPECIFICALLY PENALISES markets that reprice in a timely fashion.

If intervention is needed, it is needed to address those markets which DON’T turn over a high rate of transactions – those markets where the price discovery mechanism is opaque rather than transparently continuous and automatic.

Imagine if the illiquid market in mortgage derivatives had been subject to the kind of high turnover, high liquidity trading that we see in the currency markets. Those instruments would have been repriced far earlier, far more efficiently.

Look at the pound: the market has been giving feedback for a while, has been sending distress signals, deterring overinvestment in the pound and demanding action. If the value of the pound had been unresponsive to fundamentals of our crazy public finances, if it had stayed high, then people would have continued to overallocate into the pound and the fundamentals would have continued to deteriorate until the wheels fell off, c.f. what happened with mortgage derivatives.

If a financially literate Intelligent Being had been asked to devise a fiscal or regulatory response to the credit crisis that was most specifically designed to damage the system, to cut away the meat, to leave the rotten aspects alone, to stunt the cure and to increase the chances of problems in the future, a Tobin Tax would have been its precise answer.

Thanks @Jack. While we obviously disagree yours is a very interesting and nourishing post. I am passing it on to our Friar for a more detailed and qualified response. All the best, Robin.

You havent thought this through the second biggest market in the world is the Bond markets and in that the Government Debt. If you apply a tax to this market the Government will not be able to raise any money from investors as they would be penalised for buying or selling this debt in the secondary market! The idea you can raise more money in tax from the banking industry than the entire worlds banking profit sounds if i may say so stupid and naive at best!. The Money Markets would cease up as most of the trades are done on a short term basis between banks and a 10 mio transaction which for 1 day generates 400 pounds would in your scenario cost either 5,000 pounds at 0.05 pct or 500 pounds at 0.005 pct either way it is seems you havent thought this through, have you spoken to the Bank of England on this? The forex market will move to another international Hub, I would be amazed if we have a financial services industry in this country to speak of if this tax is unilaterally imposed.

John, I think it's fair to say that the points you make have been made several times already on this site! Let's recap. The amount that we suggesting might be raised from a transaction tax wouldn't just come from the banks, it would also come from hedge funds and other big financial institutions. Together, they make profits that are several times what we're predicting a tax might raise. You might want to have a look at this paper, from a former derivatives trader, which explains this in more detail: http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/analysis/the-robin-hood-tax-who-pays-in-the-end-a-former-investment-banker-and-derivatives-trader-investigates/
You might disagree, but that doesn't mean we haven't thought this through! Believe me, many of us have spent long days working through the evidence on this, and there's lots of reasons to think that the money markets would be perfectly able to function with a transaction tax, as long as the tax was set at the right rate. If you want to look at some of the mountains of research on this for yourself, we've just posted this bibliography on the site: http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/how-it-works/bibliography/

#
linda says:
February 23, 2010 at 5:56 am

sounds like a no-brainer to me! thank you!

- as the poor widow said to the con artist.

That's the trouble Linda, because once the brain is applied it becomes yet another con-trick.

The tax is superficially a good idea - though it is not clear how the sums on which it is levied are calculated and it is not clear whether it will in fact be levied over and over again on the same money, nor whether it will in practice be levied on losses as well as profits.

However, those doubts pale into insignificance beside the really BIG question - how will these huge sums be spend and by whom?

A letter from our MP mentions it being a worldwide tax to "tackle poverty and climate change," but this website is merely about more taxes for the UK Government to spend: "It could give a vital boost to the NHS, our schools, and the fight against child poverty in the UK – as well as tackling poverty and climate change around the world," and "That’s easily enough to stop cuts in crucial public services in the UK."

So it is really just another tax for Gordon Brown - and when has he ever been against one of those? What he and the Treasury have ALWAYS been against is allocating a specific tax to a specific end - so child poverty here and around the world is likely to get very short shift.

As for "tackling climate change" ... Oh B****s! How will it be spent? Paying the Met Office more money to produce more forecasts of "long hot dry summers and warm wet winters?"

The tax may well be a very good idea, but selling it on a false agenda is a very bad idea and that makes one doubt the integrity of those behind it.

Can someone tell me how much the markets are affected by speculative transactions, and exactly how big a market adjustment there will be as a result of this tax?

If all the bankers decide to sell up, put a hold on their speculative trading, and sit back and watch the markets adjust, how much of this tax revenue will come from members of the public panic-selling?

Although a good idea in principle, it might result in something very similar to Japan's Lost Decade.

Errrr, just one point though..... who do you think will be making up the shortfall that this tax will place on the banks........ that's right, the bank's customers........ which the last time I looked was you and me!!! Yes, the plebs of this society who will always be taxed whether you can afford it or not, who will always feel the hike of yet more government tax rises to cover for they own ineptitudes and for do-gooders who haven't really got a clue about who is responsible for the collapse in the first place...... yes, those same plebs who took on mortgages offered by the banks at many multiples to their earning capacity and who in no right would be able to afford those same mortgages once the mortgage rates started to rise...... as is now history..... Wakeup you lot.

great idea.

This what they call a Tobin Tax. Yes, brilliant idea. I didn't think there was much enthusiasm for it in the UK so I'm pleased to find this.

I don't much care what it's used for, the important thing is that it puts a brake on runaway gambling by the spivs in the City, because the next global financial nightmare will be caused by their latest financial toy, 'High Frequency Trading' - a new generation super computers in warehouses conducting 400,000 electronic trades per second.

Concepts like 'responsible share ownership' and 'raising capital for commerce' don't really apply when you own shares for nanoseconds.

The ONLY scalable solution is a transaction tax. Apply it now! Quickly, before it's too late!

This is a very exciting idea. Fingers crossed for a productive discussion today...

it is beyond me that you have votes against this at all,
theres always a minority, who have to be against somthing great! argggggg x

your motivation and direct action to help actual people should inspire politics!

you all inspire me! x

you are the worst kind of socialists how about instead of giveing money to africa spend it on fixing your own country f**k africa

That's the trouble- we have already f**ked Africa, that's why it's in such a mess!

..it will also contribute significantly to your health system bigjim. Which will (undoubtedly!) have to support you in spite if your apparent disgust with social responsibility.

Thank you very much for your contribution @bigjim. I need some coffee...

I support this idea in principle but there simply is not enough information about how it would work, who pays and who doesn't, who benefits and how. Answer these questions and you will get a lot more support

I agree, I'm sure I'm not alone here when I say this is out of my depth.. I don't understand a lot of the jargon used and without more black and white information in a format that I a Joe blow can understand its difficult to offer support, its not that I don't want to do something that could theoretically help this country, but the last thing I want is to sign my name to something and then have it run a muck dashing the great hopes of this campaign.. we need more specific information as to where this money is coming from, what's the risk to us, where this money is being spent and who's in charge of allocating the amounts

if you can provide this information in plain English and can prove that it will work without a huge leap of tax payer faith then I will certainly add my voice to this..

Thanks Danielle. Perhaps this link will help with some of your questions: http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=2009

As for spending of the money. Would be interested to hear your thoughts. We specify that 50% should go to the nation in which the money is raised for public goods as determined by the elected government. The other half to be split between international development and mitigating the effects of climate change. We have merely said that the latter two parts of this should be controlled via an accountable, international scheme. There are obviously good and bad ways for any money to be spent and, for the timebeing, have said that getting agreement on the tax is foremost. What do you think? All the best and we really hope you will join our merry band to help rebalance the relationship between banks and the public and to help us explore the issues you raise.

I'm generally very supportive of this tax but have three big questions:
1) How will it affect the liquidity of currency markets where the profit margins are so small?
2) How would the taxes be divided up between countries?
3) Shouldn't we use the money to do something about the deficit and then focus on other areas of expenditure?

Any answers would be gratefully received!

sounds like a no-brainer to me! thank you!

My gut instinct has a lot to do with you lot ending an admittedly amusing but narrow minded comic interview with an overly emotive coldplay (or coldplay wannabee) track, and making it all seem as simple as that we the majority can do an easy bit of robbing and redistribute the proceeds evenly.

Anyone who uses coldplay or such tripe in order to manipulate how I'm supposed to feel deserves the full force of my thought, so here goes you robin hood tax people, you poor poor fools.

Instinctively it just ain't never gonna work. You need all the major powers of the world to work together. You need to eliminate the tax havens etc. And then you need to do an awful lot more.

As others have no doubt asked, where will the money come from? No doubt you think, `the rich' (and have ignored the fact it may sap money from some of the many pension plans which are already facing a crisis).

Firstly, preferably before we rob them for the benefit of us all, just how rich are these people `the rich' exactly, and exactly how many of them are there compared to the rest of us?

This is pure guesstimation, but anyway, let's guess the rich are on average equally well represented by 700,000 millionares in the world and we (nearly 7 billion of us) all share their money equally.

Thanks a lot, that's $100. After I've been out to the pub a few times and bought my mum a present I might have enough left for a trip to the cinema or a DVD.

I'm no economist, and I heartily agree that the orthodox economists have a) mucked the world up dragging us into recession, and then b) moved the goal posts so that the rules of capitalism don't quite apply to those at the very top so we can't get rid of them. But while I agree that $100 will make a lot of difference to, I don't know, nearly 7 billion people in the world, distributing it as simply as that will cost just as much (in terms of magnitude) probably, and I don't think $100 in my pocket justifies messsing up the bits of the economy that do work (admittedly the ones that feed and heat my spoilt lazy western bottom).

I could be way out, but even if I'm wrong by a factor of 10 (assuming over 1 in $1000 people in the world is a dollar millionare which to me is instinctively ridiculous - maybe I'm wrong though, if you are the people with the master plan then you guys produce these figures). Even if you gave me $1000 a lot of us are still just going to go down the pub with most of it. Just for a few months instead is all

So basically I wholeheartedly agree with your ideals. But your practicalities (if you have any) are not currently going to work, ever.

This website is really therefore,

just a little piece of fluff.

xxx

Capitalism 101 - Boom & Bust. Capitalism has failed us...again - Wall Street Crash (1929 - not to mention the ones before...) brought the world to it's knees. Subsequent depressions through the rest of 20th century are further compounding evidence. Why is the system geared to fail? If we know it will fail, why do we 'the people' put up with it?

Look up John Pilger mate, he'll help you sort out your facts there. 700,000 millionaires is not what we're talking about here. 5% of the population of the world control something like 80% of the wealth (that might be off, but its give or take a few %). That doesnt sound like $100 to spend down the pub...

Your comment is therefore

a piece of lint from my pocket

I've only just heard about this scheme in the past few hours so havent done much research, but from what I gather from the punchline, which is summed up quite nicely:

"The Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on bankers that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad."

The money isnt supposed to go back into our pockets for us to 'spend down the pub', that would be inexcusably pointless. It would be distributed to the do-gooder organisations that are run by people who really can and do make a difference in this world. Despite having to wade through the pools of negativity produced by others who seem to genuinely think that whatever they do in their lives doesnt matter...

this is the tobin tax surely?

Thanks @emma. In answer to your question perhaps have a look at this page: http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/analysis/isnt-this-the-tobin-tax/

This doesn't say How it Works -- it is a straight advert for the proposal in terms of the way the tax might be used. "How it works" requires details of what transactions would be taxed. For example, a pension fund could be considered a speculative operation, but there'd be an outcry if you tried to take 0.05% of the fund. 0.05% of the management charges is another matter, and a true description of how it works would cover that distinction.

I like the theory, but the proposed tax would hit far more than the few "too big to fail" banks that have been bailed out. It will also hit all anyone and anything dealing with these transactions. Given this is not a tax on profit, but a tax on every transaction, it will make it make it harder for anyone to make a profit on financial transactions. This reduces market place competition, and will make things much worse in the long run.

A better idea would be to raise income or capital gains tax rates at the high income end. This doesn't have the side-effect of making it harder to turn a profit, only on the amounts that can be made.

This is a brilliant idea.

I think this sounds good, I am all for anything that will alleviate poverty both locally and globally and share resources more evenly around the worlds population. My question is this, why is it bankers in particular that are being targeted? Why is it not all high earners, professional footballers, film stars and the rest of the rich? Like I say I really do think this is a good idea, but I think there is a danger of demonizing bankers, who are just earning a living like the others. In this culture of blame I think it is important for all people to take responsibility and not just point the finger at one group of people. Am I missing something or shouldn't a rule for some high-earners apply to all high earners? Please explain, thank you

@confused

i'd say that the reason this should apply to banks is this;
a) there is already a tax on high income earners - the top rate of income tax. you may feel this is inadequate, but i'd say that your problem is with income tax rather than this specific tax
b) as i understand it, this is a tax on transactions. there is already a tax on transactions that we all pay - VAT, which is rumoured to be increasing to 20%.
c) the banks have forced the country into far greater debt than is reasonable, yet are awarding record bonuses. if it is the case that they are doing so well that the level of bonuses paid is higher than ever, it is only equitable to assume that they will pay back the people of the country whose taxes have allowed them to stay afloat, never mind be so profitable.
public money going to the banks means less money for schools, hospitals, the military, care homes, etc.
once the banks have paid back the public, retaining what appears to be a modest taxation rate that can generate vast sums of money to improve the lot of those less fortunate both in the UK and abroad would not IMO, be unreasonable. consider it to be the price of being backed by the public. how many other companies can take risks with impunity safe in the knowledge that they will ultimately be publicly backed?

Thanks for your question @Confused. The financial sector has benefitted from billions of public support and is in a position to contribute billions back. It's not about demonizing or bashing banks more about highlighting how they can redraw their contract with society to everyone's benefit. This will make us all merrier.

This is a tax that is LONG overdue ! It is amazing to me how the Big Banks that caused the worldwide Economic Crisis have the almost sociopath outlook that they are entitled to be obscenely rewarded with millions of pounds of bonuses, as a 'reward' for wrecking our economy due to their recklessness. I'm held accountable on my job for when I make a mistake and everyone else I know is held accountable and can get fired for even a trivial mistake. Only in the world of high finance and in the upper echelon of Corporate Management can someone do a truly horrible job and not only NOT get fired, but get rewarded ! The Bankers of the world live in a truly Orwellian world. Let's show them they are not Royalty and for a change of pace lets force some responsibility on these arrogant elitists.

i think this is an amazing idea as long as the money come back to us and helps the nhs and other public services.

Schtop!! This tax is not ready yet!!

The idea is great but needs a lot of changes and a lot of research to back it up, otherwise it will be torn apart by bankers, cynics and even realists (see the Undercover Economist in today’s FT at http://blogs.ft.com/undercover/2010/02/if-that%e2%80%99s-the-robin-hood-tax-i%e2%80%99m-the-sheriff-of-nottingham/)

Perhaps the 350 economists can help. For more ideas on this see http://capitalravings.blogspot.com/ , including some research ideas for the Robin Hood team

Thanks very much Greg. A very constructive and provocative contribution. Watch this space...

hello, i have allready left a comment for you lot and no body has contacted me as i would really like to have some questions answered. i have told many people about this ludicrous idea and many of them will be voting against this stupid thing. May i remind youall that i am tweleve and my whole school (minusing the odd few) think this is the worst idea they have heard in their whole lives. pleasse think about what you are proposing as this tax is not actually that tiny is it? you are actually stealling (thats the way i see it) the people who agree with this idea are the ones who wont actually have the tax imposed on them. you should see this from the point of view of the bankers, my dad is a banker and he is not very happy as the government are allready taking away about 50% of his money. if you think this is good idea then you are sadly mistaken. i am not going to say please think about it because i know that you won't, so i actually think that it is virtually pointless anyone trying to have their say about this issue because you wont listen will you?
i am not very happy about this at all.

Thanks for your comments Katherine. We don't think this idea is a "stupid thing". I'm sorry to hear you and your dad do. We must agree to disagree on that . I wonder if you have a debating society at your school? If you do this might be a really good topic. Perhaps ask your Citizenship teacher whether that's possible. If you and your friends and the odd few who agree with us could research the topic fully then argue your case (or play Devil's advocate and argue ours) it might make for an interesting debate don't you think? Before I go, I'd like to assure you we are listening (your previous comment is not appearing here) and that we have done a lot of hard thinking. Perhaps you would like to take a look at this letter signed by 350 professional economists: http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/in-the-news/350-economists-call-for-a-financial-transaction-tax/ - they're not stupid, they just disagree with you. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

You make it sound great, but I don't see any reply to criticisms of it. I would love to support it, but I would need to see all the criticisms, and see your responses, before I could do so. If it has no negative consequences, why hasn't it been done before? There doesn't seem to be anything on your website beyond vague mentions of how much this money could do to help. I love optimism, and action against poverty, but it has to approached carefully, or your mistakes could make things worse for the people you're trying to help.
My advice to get more support is to set up a page with arguments and counter arguments set out clearly.

Maybe try these @celebration
http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/analysis/a-doubters-questions-answered/
http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/uncategorized/who-ends-up-paying-for-all-this/
http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/in-the-news/350-economists-call-for-a-financial-transaction-tax/
http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/analysis/the-financial-transaction-tax-a-bit-more-detail/
http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/analysis/isnt-this-the-tobin-tax/

Because of people always saying things have to be approached carefully, not enough things happen. It is time for action, it's been talked for long enough. I do agree this has to be sound otherwise it won't work ... but get the talking done with and do something!

I think this idea is poorly thought out, it has large potential to cause the banks to introduce charges to current accounts and other services to cover the costs they will have to pay, sorry to say it but like any business, they will make cuts or up their charges elsewhere so they do not lose out. I cannot actually see a way to implement such a tax without introducing a variety of new laws to back it up to prevent banks from making charges to regular customers to recoup the lost money, and doing so infringes what we know as the free market economy. Nice idea, like communism is a nice idea, but virtually impossible to implement because what works in theory very rarely works in practice!

@william scholes - please see links above in response to @celebration. Particularly this one: http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/uncategorized/who-ends-up-paying-for-all-this/

This argument about money being passed to consumers is a strange one. You could say the same about any tax or charge. In a competitive market however...

Yes, that is it. Exactly. It sounds fabulous. Unfortunately it still won't work.

Question: How many times has an economic 'Magic Bullet' worked before now?

Answer: Never.

You're selling a lie to the British public and effectively getting ther hopes up, either out of naivety and ignorance or just plain dishonesty.

Lastly, the personal comments - childish and lazy. Grow up.

Wasn't personal Llygoden. I can assure you I'm not lazy. Childish? Oh go on then, sometimes, just a bit ;) Thanks for your contribution.

all misery like socialist welfare spending eating up 40% of the west european budgets starts as tiny programs

don´t go this road, it´s theft

"What amazes me about this is the level of fear, cynicism and plain ignorance out there. It seems like this country is populated by climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and bigots."

"Too much negative thinking, probably from Greedy Bankers who don’t want their boat rocked."

"When all you have to say is “NO!” it’s pretty easy to overwhelm the more thoughtful majority."


You might find less opposition if you didn't attempt to patronise anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. Presumably you believe there's no good reason for anyone to, unless they're evil bigots, thoughtless morons or greedy bankers.

As for the comment on cynicism, I take it as a compliment.

Like it or not, this tax is unworkable; if it were workable it would be unwise. If you think for one second the loss to banks wouldn't be passed onto the poor put upon man in the street then you're extremely naive; some people have suggested putting checks in place to prevent this - how, exactly? In the words of Bart Simpson: 'Can't prove it, man!'

This is being sold to the public as some kind of Magic Bullet which will solve all the problems of inequality and deprivation in this country, if not the world, as if throwing more money at problems were the answer to everything. As a general rule of thumb, the more tax raked in by government, the more will be pissed away through gross mismanagement and the love of pointless red tape which permeates government and the public sector and increasingly dominates modern life.

You're selling an economic policy which promises the world, cleverly wrapping it up in emotive language about ending child poverty and saving nurses' jobs, whilst simultaneously prising the pound of flesh from the villains of the piece, the bankers.

Yes, I'm a cynic - and I save my greatest cyncism for people like you, making promises like that.

@Llygoden freengig Vs @Pete. Know which one I'd rather spend time in the forest with don't you?. Great thing is that if you lift one of LF's sentences, get rid of the snide tone and repeat "You’re selling an economic policy which promises the world, cleverly wrapping it up in emotive language about ending child poverty and saving nurses’ jobs, whilst simultaneously prising the pound of flesh from the villains of the piece, the bankers." we can all shout "YES! YES! YES that's it!". Lots of merriness to everyone this weekend. It's been an exahusting, thrilling and very exciting week. Much, much more to come...

BAD IDEA!!!

This will be impossible to manage and does not really attack the core problem - risk management.

It is simpler and better to tax the balance sheet of the banks:
1. Deposits (as we need to guarantee them)
2. Loans (as they may put deposits at risk)
3. Investments (as they may put deposits at risk)

Also we should split banks up so high risk investment is not allowed by banks taking deposits. This would allow them to go bust without incurring risk to the tax payers.

Listen to Obama...

I have just been reading about a possible VAT increase due after the coming election, to help 'recover the economy'. By increasing VAT to 20%, meaning 2.5% more tax on all of us, it is hoped that the Treasurey will raise an extra £12-13billion. However, the Robin Hood Tax would be a mere 0.05% tax on the bankers, and would raise a whopping £100billion.

Shows you where all the money really lies, doesn't it.

Thanks Ian. VAT is a transaction tax too. 17.5% on every transaction! 0.05% is all we ask...

What amazes me about this is the level of fear, cynicism and plain ignorance out there. It seems like this country is populated by climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and bigots. Anyway here are a few thoughts to ponder.
(1) The Tobin tax is a tax on speculative movements, which means large-scale transactions designed to gain a small marginal advantage. It won't affect pensions, share prices, or the price of loans, and if investement banking is separated from ordinary high-street banking, they won't be able to recoup it from Joe Public.
(2) Climate change deniers rely on a highly selective reading of small parts of the scientific evidence, in the same way that a small minority of Muslims read the Holy Quran in such a way that they can use a few lines in it to justify violent jihad.
(3) Alleviating world poverty isn't just a concern for bleeding heart liberals, it matters to all of us, because the worse it gets, the more desperate refugees will try anything to get into richer countries like the UK, or will end up as terrorists (like the Somali pirates, for example).

Good points @frubhouse - trouble is that it's so much easier for the cynics to shout loudest. When all you have to say is "NO!" it's pretty easy to overwhelm the more thoughtful majority. Makes people like you so important. Keep it up. And stay merry.

Great. But I have an even bigger proposal.

Let's also introduce a Robin Hood Safety Tax. A small tax collected from shop owners, so that if they are robbed they get reimbursed from the special fund. Everybody knows that catching robbers is costly and sometimes dangerous. This way we can stop risking our policemen's lives and wasting taxpayers' money on catching those people, and shop owners will just pay for that themselves! We can even extend this tax to ordinary people, you will be paid for anything that happens to you on the streets. And police will become totally unnecessary!

I think this clarifies the logic of the proposed tax a little.

I can't tell whether that was intended as sarcasm, but if not, what you are saying is not the same thing at all. We already have what you call a 'Robin Hood Safety Tax'; it's otherwise known as insurance.

i have my concerns

firstly .... the banks are a buisness so like any buisness the look at prophet and costs. if they take a drop in prophet they will find ways to adress that and gain this money back, and then some. ... this will be at out expence!

secondly, IF this could be addressed it would need to be global! if not then companies would up and leave the uk to avoid such taxes... this would be seriously detrimental to our economy.

thirdly IF this wasnt an issue, then who controls this money... do u trust the goverment to correctly distribute your current taxes? let alone this one....

the fact of the matter is we in the uk pay ALOT of tax, and we have alot of services as a result which is great, but the money is not being distributed to them correctly and theses services begin to stand as a front or cover to give the illusion that this is where our money is going.... we need to take everything back to scratch and re asses how much goes where. unfortunatly this needs to be a group of very clever people with the countries intrests as a priority and not some fairly intellegent people who cant help but see this as a game or puzzel on some level where they personally dont want to loose.
not gonna happen any time soon is it? :(

Thought this was a postboard about tax, climate change people go somewhere else!

Glass-Steagal act sounds like a good idea to work into a piece of legislation for this, eradicating the problems for the general consumer - us. Also I thought I saw that Merkel (Germany) and Sarkozy (France) had been thinking along similar lines? Why not - seeing as the financial crisis has affected the entire world, albeit some more than others - create an International piece of legislation to Tax the banks? [Insert U.N. here?].

This would take a long time to work of course, but then those (states) backing it could start to work towards it in the meatime. If the amount generated by this is anywhere near what is claimed, surely its enough to create an independent body (cough-creating jobs-cough) which can spider web to where its needed; this is considering it is International, which would make the amount generated even higher? meaning independent bodies for different nations?

Theres a problem with the Banks having so much for shareholders that Should be spread around to help people affected by their practices, AND what they invest in - which means Everyone. 0.05% maybe sound a little and actually is a LOT, but its still a very very small fraction off 100% - don't get confused by the sound of %'s.

I do support the idea of this tax but for this act to not harm personal banking doesn't there need to be a reintroduction of the glass-steagal act in america and something similar here in europe prior to implementing this. Currently commercial banks (the kind that do personal banking) and investment banks are not separate so by taxing investment banking you'll inadvertently tax commercial banking harming the average customer. Therefore the two need separating like they had been up until the 1990's when the Glass-Steagal act was repealed.

I don't really see any firm facts in support of this. In principle I'm on board, but aside from the '0.05% speculative venture tax' figure this site seems to contain a lot of words and little evidence. The fact that Brown and Merkel are on board also doesn't inspire me to the crusade in and of itself.

I would suggest that there needs to be a much stronger evidence base and economic argument made for this to become of credible interest to those beyond the far left. I'm all for being convinced - but I need to see something convincing.

Too much negative thinking, probably from Greedy Bankers who don't want their boat rocked. It's a brilliant idea and needs proper thought by governments throughout the world, not Bankers who have a vested interest in maintianing the status quo. And don't give me that Bulls..t about the bankers leaving. Who wants to live in Frankfurt or Liechenstein? (? spelling)

This is a fantastic idea, the sooner it happens the better,but will the politisions back this? This could be a vote winner for which ever party runs with it.

I support it, but have the same worry as others - won't the banks just pass it on to the customers in some form? We need a totally fiddleproof system in place before it's attempted to start it.

I would echo Anne Marie - What’s to stop the banks from adding this to fees, overdraft fees etc? will we ultimately end up paying the banks again?

ESPECIALLY as if a tax then they will all pay it so will simply pass it on - the problem is with a lack of competition rather than anything else.

I think it's a fantastic idea ! Right up to the point that the biggest conmen in the world get their hands on even more of our money that is pretty much untraceable, and will be syphoned off just like the expenses !!

Sounds like a good idea in Theory but in practice would have alot of problems attached to it. Although everything ever conceived by anyone has at least some problems and draw backs attached to it and there is no such thing as a man made perfect system.

On a side note those saying climate change does not exist really need to get there facts right. There are arguements against man made climate change (which I disagree with but thats beside the point). No Valid scientific data can say that climate change does not exist. The worlds climate has continuously changed over history and continually changes today. The arguement is more over how much impact man can have on global climate change and is not over if it exists or not.

Claiming climate change does not exist is more or less sticking your head in the sand. It will cause massive global changes and mankind will have to adapt to those changes.

Great idea in principal, however anyone stupid enough to think the banks wouldn't just pass the cost on to consumers (i.e. the average joe) is being incredibly naive. It'd just be shooting ourselves in the foot.

This is a terrible idea. Like them or not our financial services generate income, employment and our extremely important to our economy. Of course we should have bailed them out of trouble. The amount of money they make and will continue to make for our economy dwarfs any amount of financial support the Government allocated. Just to reiterate what others have said on here, banks are not stupid and will reclaim any 'tax' from us, their customers on way or another. If people really want to help then donate to a charity or go do some voluntary work.

Some of the contributors seem to have missed the point that is is an international tax, so bankers can not just 'go somewhere else'.

If this was combined with a separation of 'service' and 'speculative' banking it would work and could stop some of the greedy speculation that causes countries and businesses real problems.

Who is behind this movement and what is their agenda?

I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but do we know this is not a bankers agenda or even from government to raise yet another tax?

Who decides where the money goes and is there any parliamentary agenda to discuss this particular proposal?

Its all very well saying that politicians and economists have suggested a similar idea; but what do they think of this one?

Who has paid Bill Nighy enough to make this video? That sort of cash doesn't come from voluntary donations to anti-capitalist organisations...

food for thought.

What a grand scheme. Unfortunately it won't actually achieve one thing.
1) The banks will simply move their base, so as to not have to pay this tax, this will cost jobs. Unless all countries signed up to it, which they wont.
2) The banks will simply levy a charge to customer transactions to recoup this money, this will hit the poorest yet again as a pound to the poor is worth a lot more than a pound to the rich.
3) Or - pension plans would be hit to offset the profit loss, again hitting the poorest who really need them in their retirement.
4) Who would handle the money raised, the banks? the government, heaven forbid it would be the world bank.
5) Where would the money actually go, who'd decide, the governments (another department set up to handle the issue), Oxfam, children in need, who?

Essentially, if you think the banks will simply go 'yeah, sounds a great idea, and of course we'll take the hit ourselves and not pass it on' are living in LaLa Land.

The only way to end poverty, etc is to get rid of a capitalist model than only serves to better the rich and force the poor into debt slavery

Why target just banks, these aren't the only industries making multi billion dollar profits? Are other vastly profitable enterprises not targeted by this also?? I am dismayed that the founders of this cause have fallen into the media frenzy of targeting investment banks rather than other sectors such as technology, pharmacology and even other financial institutions like hedgefunds and PE houses. It turns a good cause into yet another populist piece of rubbish which will be passed onto the consumer.

Much like any individual person, banks will do whatever it takes to survive.

This colossal (£100bn a year!?!) tax will simply be paid for indirectly by Joe Public. This will be in two direct ways:

1. Higher rates in borrowing (mortgages, loans etc)
2. Higher rates for companies' borrowing (thereby slowing economic growth, increasing unemployment and increasing inflation)

Ultimately, any tax decision boils down to this...
Do you think your money can be better spent by the government, or you?

Personally, I think I look after my pennies much more effectively.

I think it is an excellent idea. However my concern is that banks will put their tax up to pay for this robin hood tax. So there should be some sort of legislation in place to prevent this from happening. Perhaps the financial ombudsman could regulate and monitor it.

If its only UK people taxed in this way then the money raised should only go to UK funds, our economy is suffering and its so wrong to tax UK people and then send the money abroad. I think it would have greater support if the money stayed within the UK, where citizens are tired of our country supporting others before its own

You're deluded, Winky.

Even if the tax was workable, and would have any other effect besides driving more skilled jobs out of the already ruined UK economy, climate change does not exist, and all previous government attempts to eradicate poverty have ended in disaster. This one will too.

It's really just a lame attempt by a dying prime minister to plug the massive hole he has created in the public finances since 1997.

The current "crisis" is not a result of under regulated and under taxed banks, it's a result of 13 years of unchecked government spending that has spiralled out of control, and even out of reach of the ever rising taxes we have been paying over the same period.

It's drastic cuts in public spending that we need to get us out of this mess, not more of it.

And for what it's worth, 150K PA poverty czars, and multi million pound climate change summits would be a good place to start the cutting.

Bad idea. Really really bad idea. For heavens sake tax profits made by the banks don't tax actual transactions!

There are literally millions of little guys across the world trying to support their families day trading(most struggling already) out there that will be made unemployed by this.

I can understand a tax on profits made by business but a tax for just doing business??? C'mon.

Since, at least, 1979, the financial markets have been demanding less regulation, now that the proverbial s**t has hit the fan, economists and bankers alike, are running for cover, insisting that it wasn't all our fault, we should have been better (more?) regulated, blame the system.

But with plans to curb the sort of trading that this would tax the figures talked about would shrink rather dramatically.

Another suitable tax to be agreed amongst members of the World Bank, G9, United Nations, and any other multinational organization:
All bonuses paid to bankers will be taxed at the rate for unearned income or the highest available rate of tax whichever is the higher.

Banks don't give away money even if it's enforced. They will recoup the money one way or another.

I can't see how the Robin Hood tax can work. This idea suggests a dim understanding of international banking. I can see the following problems:

1. what is 0.05% of £1billion? Its easy to suggest this is a 'tiny tax' but in financial terms 0.05% is an significant amount.

2. Banking these days requires little more than an internet connection. The U.K relies almost solely on its service industries, especially in the finance sector. For the comparatively small cost of setting up in another country, why would the banks keep their money and staff here where every transaction is taxed? Gain 0.05% 'Robin Hood tax', lose 70% of your most taxable and successful industry to other major economies.

3. If 0.05% is such an insignificant amount, the banks will find a way to pass this tax onto the customer. This isn't dirty or 'daylight robbery', it is just good business practice.

Seems to me, that this is just another slight of hand (job), maneuver meant to distract us from the real issue, which is how our Governments continually misspend everything that is sent their way... there is plenty of money in the coffer, it is simply mismanaged. With the right fiscal discipline, we could have all the services at a fraction of the cost...so debating over how to raise more money for the government to waste is a mute point. Here's a novel idea; let's tackle the real issue. Any cause/solution that routinely beats us over the head with the promise of solving "global warming and child poverty" is immediately suspect in my book, and relies on such soundbites because it lacks the foundation for a proper argument as to why it is a good idea...after all how can anyone dare argue a plan which would solve child poverty and global warming, two hot button "pop" liberal tools used to guilt people into "action". It's a load of BS.

You do know that Countries such as Brazil walk hand in hand with NM Rothschild, they will never agree to anything that could damage their strong and long stand allies. This website is pointless as is the tax, If one country says no all banking operations for the entire plant will move there.

I only hope its Israel, not that they need to be vilified any more but then they will have the astronomical resources that standard banking taxation would give them so they would care a little bit less about what parts of the planet think about them

Within what framework will the revenue be distributed? Who will be in charge of the distribution? Will it be the same people (i.e. the corporatised political state) that has messed up so many peoples lives (including my dads pension. yes this is personal) time and time again. Or will it be ...

... used to fund further corruption, weapons development, armies, privatising foreign resources and infrastructure, a continuation of surveillance, Private Finance Initiatives, yada yada yada.

The empowered don't want to alleviate poverty, relative or actual, otherwise they'd be just like the rest of us. So yeh, lets give them more money to play with.

Unless of course the people who came up with this idea have a way to get the money raised straight to the neediest communities and/or directly to climate ameliorating projects...

My only concern is of creating a massive pot of money in front of governement and bankers. They will figure out how to milk it. The money needs to be decentralized fast into the hands of local groups globally.

As per the comments by other people,whilst I think it's an excellent idea, I share the same concern of how you make this genuinely a tax on the banks and not something that they will just claw back from us through increased bank charges etc.
How is this, very real issue to be dealt with? I can't see that anywhere on the site as yet?

You couldn't make it up. We will be left with a thousand thousand million debt to pay off as it is and we get this proposal.

The proposal is a tax on the people, their pensions, savings, their employer their accounts. After being shafted someone thinks its a great idea to tax the ordinary person for billions more every year.

Yes fuel duty 85 pence in the pound is paid to the treasury by the oil companies. But who really pays it, yes us. This tax proposal is the same, the banks will act as tax collectors, earning a slice off it and pay our money to the governments.

Tell me why you want to tax the public so much and not even address the causes or solution of the banking problem by this tax on us ordinary people. We already have a huge debt to pay off.

Why are you trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? The banks that got bailed out (Northern Rock etc) were lending money to bad risks, not playing the markets. Haven't we got enough taxes already? Anyone who votes for this will end up paying via their pension fund. Why should banks pay for fixing climate change, the NHS or education? Put your pitchforks down and let Britain's only succesful industry thrive again.

So, who would collect this tax, the government? I hope not

I'm supporting this, so if it turns out only member charities receive the funds I'll be furious. I trust that isn't what this is about.

If it's a UK tax, then the money should help alleviate the problems in the UK. Billions goes in overseas aid, which finds its way via corrupt governments into swiss bank accounts or is spent on arms and luxury embassies in other countries. Let's use the money to help our own first - then worry about the rest of the world. As for climate change - do you really believe that pseudoscientific drivel?

The worlds financial system is ours not theirs ( bankers, politicians and companies).

So lets make this global aspect work for us all.Half the monies to U.N.Millenium Goals & half to U.K.National Debt.

"Think global, act local & vote today".

I think this is an excellent idea whose time has come. The global economic crisis puts it beyond doubt. It's not new though - the notion of the Tobin tax comes to mind.
The retort that the financial institutions will only pass it on is a recipe for doing nothing. With democratic control - transparency, regulation and accountability - such a reaction from the financial institutions can be kept at bay.
An important area for consideration is who will control the distribution of the proceeds of such a tax and how will its distribution be prioritised.
The Bill Nighy piece is nice and subtle and convincing. Anything that draws such peurile attacks on "smug and patronising" people from the "celeb culture" can't be all that bad. In sport they call it attacking the player rather than the ball.
Best of luck - I shall follow this issue with interest.

Andrew Thomas
Sydney
Australia

people listening to bill nighy need to be careful, even if he is a huge talent, with that oh so louche look.
i think i approve of the tobin tax, to the extent i understand it. but it should run alongside a tax on the super super rich - or the super super smug.
like bill nighy. if you put down his succees to, say, 5% talent and 90% luck (sorry don't do maths), you could leave the talent untaxed, but charge a rate of say 5% on the luck. assuming he's on £3m a year, times 90% (the luck part), times 5% tax. that's a lot of nurses, and a huge amount of parking tickets.

This is an interesting idea. Transaction taxes could even replace income taxes and corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, etc.

Check out this proposal put forth by a US economist.
http://www.apttax.com/

I think its possible to get a lot of voters behind this idea if you also show the potential of transaction taxes - the potential to do away with the entire tax code and enforcement. But the biggest hurdle will be the financial industry since it will spread the tax burden to those who have the biggest transactions - and off the middle class workers.

The problem with replacing all taxes with transaction taxes is the cost and complexity of such a scheme, following the cannons of taxation and more recently the guiding principles of taxation. It would be incredibly difficult to operate a system that covered every single type of transaction. But yes transaction taxes have the potential of being great. Although another problem with transaction taxes is that it takes NO redistribution into account, which the UK government specifically wants, which I think we all want to be honest. That the richer, those more able to pay more do so. If you think about the poor having to pay transaction costs say if they have to look after an elderly relative then they would be paying the same tax as a rich person in the same situation. However the expenditure would not be as critical to the rich. Thus transactions taxes could be seen as extremely unfair.

No I do not think it is a good idea. Why don't you luvies stick to the job you are paid for. If one think puts me off it is celeb culture who are smug and patronising. This tax will be passed on to us. Keep on paying for the world to breed and electing corrupt governments and next we will be asked to share our homes that we have worked bloody hard for. I had wanted to be a saint I would have taken holy orders.

This sounds too good to be true.

I want to instantly add my name in support of this, but, and it is a BIG BUT. What's to stop the banks from adding this to fees, overdraft fees etc? will we ultimately end up paying the banks again?

would welcome an informed answer.

Thanks.

By the way - you might like to find out who else uses the green arrow as their symbol. Are you sure you want to be associated with them, even through a tenuous link like this?

The only criticism I could come up with is: maybe it incentivises financial traders to leave the UK?

I think its about time the international community started taxing banks on an international scale. It has to be a unified responce however, other wise the banks will just move to where there are tax free zones. Like what is happing now in London due to the tax hikes. Banks and international companies alike should all have this tax, and it should not be allowed to be pushed down on the customers either, it all needs to be heavily watched. Cheers