Comments on: How it works

By: Robin Hood

Robin Hood — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:03:35 +0000

I will be out of the office starting 14/08/2010 and will not return until
30/08/2010.

I'm on holiday from 16 Aug and will return 30 Aug. If your enquiry is
urgent please contact Ged Barker - gbarker@oxfam.org.uk

Oxfam works with others to overcome poverty and suffering.

Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International and a company limited by guarantee registered in England No. 612172.
Registered office: Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY.
A registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SC 039042)

By: Ceri87

Ceri87 — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:44:26 +0000

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!

By: Robin Hood

Robin Hood — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:05:31 +0000

By: Youwish

Youwish — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:36:14 +0000

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......

By: jupiter30066

jupiter30066 — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:21:03 +0000

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.

By: Wizard

Wizard — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:15:47 +0000

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).

By: Joseph Mee

Joseph Mee — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:03:03 +0000

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?

By: Piskeydoll

Piskeydoll — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:24:45 +0000

sounds quite sensible.

By: Curtis

Curtis — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:22:32 +0000

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.

By: Curtis

Curtis — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:18:36 +0000

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.

By: emmy

emmy — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:42:12 +0000

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!

By: Nottelling

Nottelling — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:11:17 +0000

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

Oh and why not enact reprisals against the low proffessions?

By: Lee

Lee — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 03:03:57 +0000

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

By: gman

gman — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:07:55 +0000

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.

By: ☆Just because...

☆Just because... — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:10:38 +0000

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…

By: Sha45pc

Sha45pc — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 03:21:24 +0000

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!

By: Mao

Mao — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:36:29 +0000

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

By: zaidfayyad

zaidfayyad — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:36:42 +0000

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.

By: Tess

Tess — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:23:41 +0000

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.

By: Selling Antique Rings

Selling Antique Rings — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:01:55 +0000

TAX are really important!

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:25:10 +0000

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.

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:17:45 +0000

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.

By: David Dunn

David Dunn — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:57:23 +0000

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.

By: Suzy Boyce

Suzy Boyce — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:12:16 +0000

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.

By: Suzy Boyce

Suzy Boyce — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:54:22 +0000

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…

By: Linnea

Linnea — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:56:43 +0000

Make it global!!!

By: Tonguetiedyou

Tonguetiedyou — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:36:23 +0000

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.

By: Ed Fisher

Ed Fisher — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:33:37 +0000

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.

By: RJC

RJC — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:23:51 +0000

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.

By: Mark Video

Mark Video — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:47:09 +0000

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/s...) 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.

By: HopefulPessimist

HopefulPessimist — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:26:53 +0000

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

By: Nic_nic_nicole

Nic_nic_nicole — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:05:54 +0000

I support the tax 100%. TELL YOUR FRIENDS

By: robin banks

robin banks — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 03:45:17 +0000

and you are a complete muppet :)

By: William Shepherd

William Shepherd — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:25:41 +0000

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/ch...

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:24:38 +0000

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.

By: 123

123 — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:46:16 +0000

you are a complete liar

By: Av

Av — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:45:16 +0000

you are a fool. growth does not eliminate hunger

By: Sgaff

Sgaff — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 01:53:29 +0000

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.

By: Lucas_Wyrsch

Lucas_Wyrsch — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:51:12 +0000

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.

By: I Object

I Object — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:48:13 +0000

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.

By: Darlene

Darlene — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:52:59 +0000

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.

By: RoBiN BaNkS

RoBiN BaNkS — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:46:18 +0000

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…

By: RoBiN BaNkS

RoBiN BaNkS — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:40:01 +0000

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

By: RoBiN BaNkS

RoBiN BaNkS — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:19:31 +0000

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!

By: Matt from Oxford

Matt from Oxford — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:10:38 +0000

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.

By: Lester Kang - Singapore

Lester Kang - Singapore — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:00:13 +0000

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.

By: derrfe

derrfe — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:13:58 +0000

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.

By: maria

maria — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:01:47 +0000

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!

By: Wilberforce

Wilberforce — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:49:58 +0000

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

How do they do that please?

By: Wilberforce

Wilberforce — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:48:13 +0000

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

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