Not convinced?
Not convinced by Bill the Banker and the homepage? We understand. It's a big idea. In fact, we think it could be the most important idea of our generation. As the gap between the richest and poorest continues to grow both within, and between countries and the impacts of climate change begin to hit home money needs to be found from somewhere. The Robin Hood tax is the best option on the table.
Worried that the cost will be passed on to customers? Concerned that the banks will leave the City, devastating the economy? Been told this would have to be global to work?
We have answers to all these questions and more. Please take a few minutes to explore the site and let us convince you how we change this crisis for the banks into an opportunity for the world.
Get your
questions answered
"We need to stop socialising loss and privatising gains"
Comments
#1 I am not convinced
I'd be more convinced if this "big idea" had more information on how this might actually work.
"A tiny tax on risky investments"?
Define tiny, define risky and how in the name of jebus do you plan to implement something like this and how much will the implementation and enforcement of this cost?
All I'm reading is vague, populist hargle-blargle about "The banks have money! lets get 'em!" which is not good enough.
#2 sounds great tax the rich
sounds great tax the rich then they say to tackle world poverty and global warming, are we taking responsibility again for the whole world, I show all my pupils in school the globe and the size of the UK to the size of Africa and India guess what there is not enough money in the whole world to help these ccountries get through anything
#3 You're a teacher?
Interesting, you're a teacher. Yet you cannot make the distinction between Africa and India, one is a country and the other a continent. I wonder if you're also using a distorted Mercator map which places Europe at it's heart in an effort to make it look larger than the rest of the world. I imagine you probably are and have no idea of the real size of countries and continents, let alone their developmental paths.
Secondly, you seem to suggest that the plight of people in the continent of Africa (clue) - which is vast - and the country of India (clue) is one of universal poverty. Wrong again. The so called 'recession' has had very little impact in India, China (another very large country by the way), Latin America, South East Asia and Australia . . . it is a feature of the European and USA economies. Africa, a continent composed of numerous countries with distinct characters and features, is also experiencing economic and developmental changes.
In all these regions there is undeniably poverty, there is also great (and growing) wealth and development which is changing those societies.
That their path of development doesn't exactly mirror ours is not a 'fault'. Neither are they at 'fault' by being different to us. The 'western' model is not supreme, and to view it as being so is I suggest somewhat limited at best, racist at worst.
Finally, you seem to forget the lesson of history (I pity your pupils) that the Asian economies are simple re-assuming the position they long held before colonialism exacerbated their temporary political decline, a period from which those economies are now recovering quite well (have a look at this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/07/gdp-projections-chin...).
I do wish your pupil's all the very best. They will need it, especially if they are being taught by someone as limited as you.
#4 Dan
He never said Africa was a Country, you dolt. He also never made any mention of the impact of the recession, only that there were economic issues in those area which has been the case as long as I've been alive. Quit making strawman arguments and learn some basic reading comprehension skills. mkay?
#5 Dolt?
@Dan: "He never said Africa was a Country, you dolt"...I guess you think that that sentence proves your reading and comprehension skills does it? Those who 'never' learned to write, most likely never learned to read neither, and therefore shouldn't be commenting on others' use of reasoning. Educate yourself first, so you can decide who your enemies should be, then insult them.
The teacher in question is incredibly naive, due to lack of education and brainwashing. Her comments were utterly silly, childish, and pointless. The guy who gave her a lecture is also a bit naive, I suppose, since it is pointless attempting to convince people who have no understanding of the topic of argument in question. But it is evident that he has intelligence and at least some education. He was simply making inferences and jumping to conclusions. So your comment on comprehension skills is not relevant.
What is a dolt, btw?
#6 Yawn
Arrogance and ad-hominem attacks fail to impress today. Please come back when you have an argument that doesn't start with "You are too stupid to see you're evil and Western Civilization stole everything it ever had..."
#7 You are so smart. Please
You are so smart. Please enlighten me, Exactly how does this tax work? And yes, I have looked through the website which is vauge. Which governing body decides who gets all of this money and how is it accounted for?
#8 I absolutly agree, who does
I absolutly agree, who does govern this vague idea? and also money doesn't change attitudes and habits. education is most important in climate change and healthy environments.
#9 European maps should have Europe at their centre
"using a distorted Mercator map which places Europe at it's heart in an effort to make it look larger than the rest of the world"
There is a reason why Europe is at the centre of the globe for European countries. It is because as a European you are more likely to want to look closely at Europe than any other continent in the world. By putting European countries at the centre, you are magnifying the countries not for 'imperialist reasons' but in order to have an enlarged view of the countries you are more likely to focus on.
Cannot believe you thought it was for imperialist reasons :')
#10 Eurocentric maps
and we Europeans forced Asia, Africa and Americas to use our Eurocentric maps. And you're saying it's not for imperialist reasons?
#11 and who decides where this
and who decides where this money goes? The idea of pumping it into the NHS is unbelievable. We need a project that is worthy of funding. This just sounds like paying a charity without having a choice.
#12 Its the same old story, more
Its the same old story, more expences and bureaucracy for the productive sector. By directly taxing the rich they will be indirectly taxing the poor. By the look of it every transaction involving forex will be taxed.
2 Questions!!
What are the definitions for poor and rich?
#13 Convince me
The Banks, Market traders, and International Corporations ARE making huge indecent profits, but are unwilling to pay their share. They use those proffits to pay corporation lawyers, accountants, tax experts and lobby groups to look for loopholes and convince government to allow their money out of the country and into tax havens.
They try to convince us they provide a necesary service, but instead they bleed communities dry of jobs and resources. In Australia the international food markets have convinced state governments to allow 24 hour shopping, which forces smaller family owned stores out of business. Then the big proffits are taken out of the country, gradually bankrupting the state.
This immoral behavior is common around the capitalist world. We workers pay taxes to government for infrastructure (like roads and water) and services (like health care and unemployment). The banks and the stock market were set up to provide funding for business, but business has convinced the government to give them free money with subsidies and incentives. The banks and the stock market have now become gambling cassinoes. We tax payers should not have to buy our jobs. The capitalist system is returning workers to serfdom, and slavery.
#14 What did capitalism ever do for us?
This posting just about sums up the deep stupidity of the Western left.
Capitalism is the system which lifted the world out of universal poverty, superstition, early death, total dependence on the local weather from year to year. The wonderful windpowered world of (say) 13th century Europe was known for is plagues, starvation, marauding looting armies and by the omnipresence of primitive, oppresive, murderous religion backed by and supporting state power and thuggery.
Thanks to capitalism, I, and an ever increasing number of people around the world am sitting at a (capitalist developed) computer, with (capitaist developed) power industries keeping me warm, well-lit and able to travel. Thanks to evil capitalism I can phone (or Skype or Webex) my relations in Australia, my mother in the north of England, my friends in Abu Dhabi and India, business partners in Argentina and Chile and yesterday I bought tickets to fly to Qatar and Lebanon without leaving this chair.
Of course, I could perhaps go for a state run, fair system like the ones that were found in Lenin and Stalin's Russia, Honneker's East Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, Mobutu's Congo, Castro's Cuba, and so the list goes on.
Thanks to the production of wealth created by manufacturing, and the infrastructure provided by banks the world has become immeasurably better for humanity, and we should not forget that it is in the horrible capitalist west that the movements to control and diminish the damage to the planet started and the only place where they have any currency.
Perhaps you would like to revert to a society where 'might is right', where the state owns all property and takes it whenever it feels like (usualy referrd to by idiots as a 'fair share'). Personally, I quite like to be able to take what's left after state extortion and stick in in a nice safe account at HSBC or Barclays rather than having to buy gold, bury it under the floor and spend every night wating to fight off armed robbers. But then, perhaps if the state made my 'fair share' big enough I'd just have to rely on having gathered enough turnips in October to survive until next May, and I could decide which of my children I would allow to starve first.
As for the "Robin Hood" nomenclature, I realise that its supporters have not usually read more widely than 'The Idiots' Guide to Being Offended' and 'Marx for Useful Idiots', but Robin Hood was a champion of the people against the power of the state (Robin Hood's enemies were Sherriff of Nottingham, Guy of Guisborne, Prince John as I recall) and and I don't remember any of his adventures involving setting up taxes to steal yet more from the suffeering peasants. Despite the "thinking" which has characterised - and infantilized - politics in Europe and the USA for the past 15 years, just calling something 'nice, friendly and fluffy' doesn't make it so. Renaming extermination and slave labour camps as 're-education centres' didn't turn them into academic powerhouses.
#15 Was going to post something.
But you saved me the effort, couldn't have put it better.
#16 Yeah, what DID Capitalism ever do for us?
If the first post showed the "deep stupidity" of the Western Left, your reply isn't doing much for the deep ignorance of the Western Right.
Any arguement that relies on hyperbole to prove its point loses a lot of validity. And your comparison of Oxfam (or, more generally, the left wing) to Feudal Europe, Mao's China, even Pol Pot's Cambodia, is like comparing the Liberal Democratst to, say, France during the Reign of Terror. And I've never seen Nick Clegg enjoying a mass guillotining. Yes, atrocities committed in the name of Communism have been numerous, but you can't judge an entire political grouping by the actions of its extremes. If you do, the right has just as much to answer for - the slave trade, once justified because it cut the costs of sugar and cotton in Britain, the Great Depression, dragging millions of Americans into poverty with no welfare to drag them out again, Child Labour, the perfect solution to the cost of workers during the Industrial revolution. I know you don't support any of those - please accept that it's the same for a leftie like me.
I suppose I have a lot to thank capitalism for - even Karl Marx called it a vital step in the world's socio-economic progress, so no-one's denying its value - but socialism has given us a lot too. I'm happy knowing that my healthcare is free, as is everyone's in the UK. No-one can be denied treatment for being born into poverty, and those who made mistakes with drugs and alcohol are able to get help without needing to buy it. I am also happy to know that education is free and denied to no-one, and welfare gives opportunities to those who would otherwise have very few. And have you heard of "War Socialism"? First implemented during the darkest days of the First World War, this strategic distribution of money and careful arrangement of industry supported the war effort in a way which the previous capitalist system could not. When you consider that it was also used in the Second World War, keeping the war effort strong enough to repel German invasion, we might have an awful lot to thank it for.
I'm confused, also, as to how left-wing politics reverts to a system of "Might is right". The extreme left does, of course, as does the extreme right. Perhaps a system where "Money is Key" would be more appropriate for the latter. But when socialism is paired with Democracy, a la Hugo Chavez or Clement Atlee, it support the ideals of liberty and responsibility you believe only capitalism can supply along with a greater sense of equality. Your description of hiding money away to avoid Armed robbers, by the way, sounds far more like anarchy than socialism - what kind of left-wing government wouldn't fund a police force in the interests of its people? And if there's one thing even the worst communist governments did, it was subsidize turnips. Your little farm is safe and the welfare state will see to those starving children.
So I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time - you probably have more charities and lefties to offend - but you seem to have completely the wrong idea of what the left is and how it's helped society. Thanks for all the wealth capitalism - now let's see if we can't do something good with it.
P.S. For the love of God, don't get so hung up on the name. They're using Robin Hood more as a pop-culture figure than the person he really was. It's no worse than having a Syrian soldier who never got further than Turkey in his life as the symbol of Englishness...hey, how long is it to St. George's Day?
#17 Chavez? Seriously?
I was actually listening to you until you used "Hugo Chavez" and "liberty" in the same sentence. He's a dictator with no interest in civil liberties, using the state to suppress dissent. Don't be an apologist for his reprehensible regime just because you oppose corporatism, it makes all of us who want a brighter future for everyone look like fools.
#18 Excellent assessment.
In the first video, they say it's a 0.005% tax on a non-"person" transaction. Well, after working in financial services for nearly 15 years, I can tell you that 0.005% of a 10000000£ transaction is a significant chunk of change (50000£ correct?). There are probably thousands of theese transactions/day with many banks using large wire transfers to park their money in various places to maximize their interest rate, even by 0.005%, because with a large enough transaction, that's a lot of money missed out on if they opt for a lower interest rate. Theses videos act as if this money will not be missed and that it is insignificant but it is not taking from the rich! It's taking from all the customers of the bank, from the ones with 100£s to the wealthiest and the bank WILL pass those costs on to those who can afford it the least. Bill Nighy's character finally says that the tax will raise 100b+ £ ( maybe 200). They act as if there is some magic that occurs during a bank transaction where free money that nobody will miss is produced. Well, think about the idea that if the tax raises 100 billion, then there were 500 trillion £s of transactions, but there isn't that much.. So where is this money comming from? They are either lying about the percentage or about the potential amount they could raise.
This makes me sick!
#19 I AM NOT CONVINCED, EITHER
The quality of thought here is perhaps best exemplified by their
inability to even spell "Nobel Prize" correctly.
#20 perhaps not, comment came
perhaps not, comment came from the heart
#21 Sounds like a good reason to
Sounds like a good reason to dismiss the idea entirely.
#22 There are lots of flaws in this video.
There are lots of flaws in this video.
Not all banks had a government handout.
A tax on non customer transactions would hit (for example) pension funds rather than the banks.
In effect, this tax is stealing from my pension.
I'm not happy!
#23 I feel the same way. Also how
I feel the same way. Also how do we know the money would actually be used to help the poorest or tackle climate change? And that, if put to those purposes, the tax revenue will be used effectively?
#24 ?
Agree.... Who and how is this money specifically going to be spent??? Is this only for the UK? What governing body will decide who gets the money?
#25 Finally someone with a
Finally someone with a brain. What we need is less taxes and regulations and at the same time less greed at the top. Corporations are not people they are organized units created to make money but maximization of profit will just kill us all in the long run. We are in the stickiest of messes right now and I would not be surprised if things turned violent as the months get colder. I hope everyone can remain humane through this process though.
#26 That's not a policy...
While in many ways I agree, what you've just said is not a policy - it's empty rhetoric. Indeed, it would be fantastic to have less taxes, less regulation, and less greed. But if you reduce taxes and regulation, you have to introduce something else to reduce greed. As you say, corporations are created to make money, so "greed at the top" is institutional. It's part of the design. How exactly are you going to tackle that without regulation?
#27 indeed
what of the danger that this #robinhoodtax poses as an indirect way of blessing the corporate and political elite to merrily carry along with their ubiqitously framed heist?
#28 Red Herring
This proposed tax would clearly do more financial harm than good. Proponents don't understand how financial markets work. First of all, trading volume would significantly decline, causing two major problems > (1) Market liquidity would be severely hampered, causing more volatility, which is counterproductive in the world turning the global economies around (2) Anticipated revenue would be much,much lower than forecast. Many "ordinary people" would be forced out of the financial industry, further causing more economic displacement within the world's economies. On net its likely that total tax revenue would actually decline due to the lost income tax revenue relative to the money generated from the financial tax. This idea is basically a short term overreaction to the problems created by the big boys - the governments and the big time bankers. The net losers will end up being the little guys in the financial industry and everyone, once its realized that all that has been accomplished is displacing more commoners while not collecting any more money on net. The world needs to think before it jumps! Now more than ever we need to use common sense. Think about what I've said ... I've been around awhile ... experience has its benefits. Thank you everyone. Best of luck to all !
#29 incovenient truth
I sorry to tell you incovenient truth, but the reason that we are in this mess we are in is not BANKS or Capitalism, its massive over spending - mostly by socialist governments over the years, I know its much easier to blame 'the rich' and other weath creators for not paying enough tax for other people to spend on benefits or the public sector jobs
but you would be better placed blaming politicians, who in a despirate bid to be popular and keep there jobs bribe voters with their own money.
The truth is really more important than the right answer!
#30 ^Nailed It
I have nothing left - well said^^...
#31 Get real
Agree.
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Financial%20Transaction%20Tax_0.pdf
This paper by the IEA is written in a somewhat patronising tone, but at least it brings a rational perspective.
#32 Robin Hood robbed the government!
It is ironic . . . Robin Hood was not a tax collector . . . He robbed tax collectors. . . A true Robin Hood venture would rob from the governments and give the people back their tax money.
No more new taxes! It is covetousness and theft.
#33 Robin Hood Tax.
I would say it is a complete no Brainer. Socialist garbage as all these confiscatory legal "Heists" are. What do think the government will do with the extra cash-- Pay down debts or use it to improve their opewrations, create more new wasted programs, waste more of our treasure or would they spend it usefully?. Dont think so.
Nothing more than a tax grab with no corresponding benifits. No wonder Britain is going downhill. I would support this only if it was tax nuetral: ie reduce other taxes on the ordinary citizen.
Expat British citizen resident in Canada.
#34 Tax the high paid bankers/ and their bonuses!
Bonuses paid to bankers who have cost this country billions in debt, is ridiculous. Confiscate these bonuses to pay back the debt, re introduce only when debt is paid back malpractice should never be rewarded!
#35 Its all just a bit pathetic.
Its all just a bit pathetic. I assume this will get squashed by the powers that be in due course.
We do have overheads you know. And frankly, it is technical. And we work pretty darn hard.
#36 And you should not be convinced.
The transaction tax will have a negative effect and will not fulfill its expectations. It sounds great, and I would support it if it would work, but so many unsupported claims and assumptions are made by the politicians. I actually have no idea where to start, but have the urge to explain it all. Let me give some pointers to at least raise your eyebrow and question if it is true what this site claims:
1. The tax income calculations made appear to be incomplete (also investigated by E&Y). As an example: the calculations did not include that the loss in the GDP will exceed the tax income making the measure uneconomic and we will make a loss.
2. The measure is destabalizing instead of stabalizing, as it affects the liquidity of the market. There will be less buyers and sellers to give you the price that you would like to see. You will pay more than now if you are in the market.
3. The measure can be easily avoided by moving to countires outside the EU. This will cost jobs, but more important, trades on which the tax need to be paid. Financial institutions will move their activities somewhere else and expected income may not be met.
4. There are already questions on wheter it will be spent on the 'poor'. Who will make sure this will happen? It will be just another income source for the EU with no special social purpose. I has already been said (France) that it is used to cover potential future losses from a new financial crisis. What is social about this?
5. The 'inventor', mr Tobins thought well about it and also included a super high tax to prevent market (destabalizing) moving transactions. The politicians are not introducing this important part of this measure, making it a limited implementation. I am sure that Mr Tobin was smart enough to conclude that this very high tax part is neccessary for the measure to have effect, otherwise he would not have included it. As this is not part of the proposals I conclude that the politicians show their true face. They are not after the stabalizing effects, but merely the extra tax income.
Anyway, this site is making me mad and I am already spending too much time on it. If you like to know more, you can send me an email: jasper@idefx.nl
#37 "Tackling Climate Change"?
Please, for the love of God, stop exploiting the moral panic of climate change. The Robin Hood Tax is a brilliant idea, on the basis that it takes a portion of bank transactions as a tax. However, you can't generalise 'taking from the rich' and justify it. That completely reaks of communism, and have you forgotten that the higher economic classes already pay considerably more in tax? Back on topic, don't say you can use this tax to 'tackle climate change'. You can't. Slow it down, maybe, but not tackle it, so stop using this as a rally cry. And, even if you could tackle it, I'd like to thing, as intelligent people, you'd prioritise problems like the economic and deficit issues we're dealing with on home turf. Let's sort our own country out first before worrying about everyone else's.
#38 A brilliant idea, NOT
So you want to pay more for depositing and withdrawing your money, paying for a mortgage and property taxes, even credit card payments, water, electricity, phone, TV, because guess what these are all banking transactions. Yea real brilliant, higher taxes for everyone.
#39 banks arent the problem
The problem is the monetary system. The problem is debt. Reduce the issuance of debt, and the gap between rich and poor will close. Ofcourse they are now so parasitic and systemic in our system, we need to break them up first.
#40 Correct, they will just print
Correct, they will just print the money out of thin air to pay the "tax".
This is diversionary. The issue is fractional reserve banking. If you really want to fix this problem then get governments printing debt free treasury notes and forcing the banks to compete for business on a level playing field like everyone else.
#41 Is debt the problem, really?
Is debt the problem or stupid lending?
The "housing crisis" in the US seemed to be mostly caused by social engineering, fiscally unconscionably lending practices (no money down on a 30 year note) and fraud (at least in mortgage backed securities being sold down the line as being good investments as though they were based on loans written with reasonable security and diligence),
If banking in the developing world is as stupidly performed as was done in the US housing market, I'm not surprised the debt load is onerous.
I suppose the first world doesn't want to foreclose on other nations. Solution...?
#42 First decent observation I've seen on this crisis...
...not to mention the Land Use laws that distorted the housing markets in certain areas of the US.
I agree with the sentiment from the nobel prize winning economist, but "we are privatising gains and socialising losses" is not a complaint about the gains, it is a complaint about bailing out the losses, there's nothing wrong with having the profits they have but they wouldn't make anywhere near the risky calls they would if they had the fear of going bust for bad mistakes. If you bailed out a gamblers losses he'd bet on everything.
I believe the solution is free markets, if you dig deep enough behind these problems there's always a very complicated effect of government intervention.
#43 When we had a fixed money
When we had a fixed money supply the gap between rich and poor was greater. Issuance of debt is not a bad thing. Debt allows poorer people to get ahead through leverage.
Teach people to not make stupid decision and you'd be better off. I heard a woman complaining at OWS that she is deeply in debt from school loans and can't find a job. Her degree was in art history. Anybody out there hired any art historians lately? Anybody said, 'man, there are so few art historians in this town, I had to wait three weeks just to get an appointment?'. Duh. No. But, you might have to say that about an electrician, or a plumber, or a doctor, or a specialist. Why is it so hard for people to accept responsibility for their own poor choices?
#44 Stupid idea
Unworkable, unenforcable and missing the point. Concentrate of getting the system right not on opportunistic attacks on an unpopular sector of the economy to achieve your vested interests.
#45 I have to agree
while I agree with the quote about not socializing losses, face it, any tax on banks will eventually be passed on to consumers always is.
Helping poor countries is a noble idea, but we first have to get our own houses in order because many 1st world countries are headed to 2nd or 3rd world status because of our insane overspending. In California police retire in their early 50s often at 90% or more of their salaries which often tops $100,000 a year. And our federal government is even worse, and has been since the early 2000's much less after this government caused bank calamity. Our government has pushed banks and lenders to lend money to people who could for decades. Obviously the bankers and wall street obliged when the federal reserve told them to "get creative" with mortgage products. I'm sorry to see Europe buy into this crap (bad loan products) and while punishing the bankers is satisfying at 1st it won't put a dent in our deficits and frankly we have no business attempting to save the world when we can't save ourselves.
#46 This was a useful post and I
This was a useful post and I think it is rather easy to see from the other comments as well that this post is well written and useful. I bookmarked this blog a while ago because of the useful content and I am never being disappointed. Keep up the good work .repair ps3 | inflatable kayak
#47 Beg to Differ......
You haven't done your home work have you?....who owns the bank(s)? who makes all the decisions for our country?
THE GOVERMENT!!!!!!!!!.....legislation has put it in place that so called "Lending" to other banks has been regulated......lets face it thats how banks work, pasing transactions to transactions, that has to be be recorded everytime a morgage,loan,credit card,home insurance has been applied...it gets scrutinised by the financial dept of the bank to see if the applicant can afford not just the installments but paying the whole balance off.
the tax payers are paying enough out as it is. how on earth can we introduce a tax? the local tax payer down the street is paying a council tax, morgage, nurserie fees, insurances, petrol, and all the bels that go with it.
plus...its the goverments say so through the commons wether its plausible or should not go through
Your telling me you are going on a crusade against the goverment to applie this tax and when the funds come through they get transfered to the locations of the charities that need the funds to carry on with the aid workers, but theres a snag, the poorest countries are the ones with corrupt goverments or set in there ways of how things should run (communists)...you willing to challange them as well? even the tax haven countries where basically our money is being held with a tight iron fist!? thought not!
#48 Beg to differ
The government does NOT own the banks. It has a majority shareholding in one (as a result of its own hubris), a minority shareholding in the other (as a result of a "marriage of convenience" forced on it by that poor excuse of a government we had at the time) and that's it. And the shares have gone up in price since they bought them. This continuous "bash the banks" is now getting tiresome. They did not cause the crash on their own, a weak tri-partite regulatory system of dubious quality between the FSA, the BofE and the Treasury, with no clear demarcation lines between the three, certainly played its part.
#49 ShouldyHoodyNoNo
Appalled - your advert with the hooded black youngsters (and then blonde girl) simply increased the stigma associated with black young hoodies and gave the impression of social turmoil in order to achieve the ends desired. No, count me out. We are too stupid a nation in the first place, having let the banks (if news is to be believed) ruin us, but at least we hold some moral ground? Perhaps your tax is a good thing - portraying it in this way is definitely not - to me at least. A lot of the poor have caused a lot of the problems - a lot of the rich have caused a lot of the problems. The government is correct in trying to clear up the mess but they are going about it in a pretty unsavoury and heavy-handed way; alienating just about every social class.
Well, we voted them in - and tough on us for laying in bed and not voting or being too stuck in our social attitudes to change what was wrong with our society.
I don't think the English have the stomach for any real action that the government would take notice of - history has shown our apathy in the face of adversity and that goes right back to WW2 when we sat and watched while one country stomped their way around Europe.
If the banks get away with what they seem to be getting away with then perhaps we should be holding up a mirror to our own fortune and putting a stop to it. Do we need the banking community in the UK? If the current expected job losses, massive financial losses and pain are anything to go by I can't see how we have benefited from their presence.
#50 One dimensional
This idea is one dimensional and not in itself a sensible solution. It fosters 'bank bashing' which achieves little and inspite of a requirement to increase regulation and ensure the banks are appropriately taxed, some overly simplistic, ill-explained, pantomime tax will solve nothing - nor of course will it happen. Fortunately.
Post new comment