The unofficial online home of the UK Independence Party
Robin Hood Tax?…Ugh!
Somebody please kick me in the shin to make me feel better!
A transaction tax on banks would raise as much as $400bn a year (£250bn; 291.2bn euros), campaigners have said.
Supporters say money raised could help protect public services and jobs, fight poverty and tackle climate change.
The campaign is backed by almost 50 groups, including the TUC and Oxfam, as well as big names like actor Bill Nighy and film maker Richard Curtis.
No, no, no. But they even have this helpful video to show how the ‘win-win’ (!) idea is simply brilliant…
Now we all know Richard Curtis, Bill Nighy, the TUC and Oxfam are world renound economists, but the film conveniently doesn’t explain a couple of issues…
1) Only people pay taxes. Levying a tax on banks simply means the cost falls on people differently. Lower interest rates for savers, higher rates for borrowers, etc.
2) A transaction tax will significantly impact liquidity, and have consequential impact throughout the whole economy – less fiannce for business, less explansion, less employment, etc.
For these campaigners to suggest it is a win-win idea – that it is some kind of ‘free’ pot of money that will only hit rich nasty bankers – is disingenuous at worst and naive and ignorant at best.
The biggest disaster of this whole eocnomic crisis is the credibility and support it has given to the loony left-wing who do not understand economics.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Harry Aldridge on February 10, 2010 at 11:02 am, and is filed under Featured Articles, Harry Aldridge. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 6 months ago
Harry
Does anyone actually understand "econonics"? Can you, for example, put your hand on your heart and say that you do? The reason this type of policy is so appealing to so many is because uncontrolled free market economists have led us to a place where we're paying out for their lack of restraint.
Given the mess we're in it's not hard to argue that most economists don't understand economics. The majority certainly don't understand that infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet.
You were especially wrong to suggest to Caroline Lucas that greens don't understand economics. Very few economists of any persuausion spotted the current economic crisis but one of the few who did might be worth catching up on. She's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Pettifor. Her organisation is ironically, one of those behind the Robin Hood Tax.
Yours interdependently
Greg
about 6 months ago
Greg, economics is essentially logic in academic form. Yes, economies are complex and so following throught e consequeces of various actions are hard, and ultimately it is mroe of an art than a science. I certainly don't profess to understand economics wholly and fully, but I do have a decent grasp of key concepts.
The problem we are in globally is fundamentally about credit being too cheap for too long. Why? Well I would say because we were getting the 'one-off' and sudden benefit of China – i.e. globalisation. This freed up £s and $s to be spent on other things. Inflation in consuer goods was kept low by offshoring, thus keeping central bank rates low and reducing the cost of debt. Money supply growth shot through the roof and decoupled from nominal GDP. There was too much money chasing too few goods, and ultimately it showe ditself in asset prices rather than consumer prices which were being kept artificially low.
The Tobin tax would reduce volatility in markets which is a good thing, but it also reduces liquidity which is a abd thing. It is a trade-off. That is all economics is. One has to make a choice about whether the trade off is worth it. I don't think so. A tobin tax would effect market interest rates, and thus business expansion, etc. To what extent I cannot say, but there is empirical evidence for it.
As for Caroline Lucas not understanding economics I stand by my statement. She has been saying we should have a "green new deal" and switch to green energy because it "will create 1m green-collar jobs". What she doesn't also relaise is taxing the private sector to pay for these jobs will cost jobs elsewhere. And also that jobs are a cost of delivering a service, and habing job intensive energy is not great. Having energy prioduced with zero jobs would be great – then we could all have free energy, and people could be employed elsewhere in the economy, business would have lower operatings costs, wages and investment returns would be higher, etc, etc.
about 6 months ago
Aren't the socialists/communists wonderful. They have a knack of thinking up new taxes and giving them cute names. The 'Robin Hood Tax'. Sounds so innocuous, doesn't it?. Firstly, Why should this tax be imposed at all. It is immoral and inequitable. Secondly, who is to determine the recipients of so much beneficence. The harvesting will yield so much money that the controllers will have enormous power. Who is to control them and who is to define what it is to be spent on? Right – it will be socialists. Please God, spare us from any more left-wing destructive activities.
about 6 months ago
Greg, I'm sorry mate but you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
"The reason this type of policy is so appealing to so many is because uncontrolled free market economists have led us to a place where we're paying out for their lack of restraint. "
Get your facts right – the sole reason we are in this mess is because people borrowed money they knew they couldn't afford to pay back, and then defaulted on their loans. Pure and simple. No one forced them to play roulette with their family security when they lied about their income to get a mortgage – they did it out of personal greed, buying into a market they didn't understand using money they didnt earn in order to make a quick buck they didn't work for.
Uncontrolled free market? What planet are you living on? If we had a genuine free market, there's no way the banking industry would ever in a million years have considered lending money to people who were obviously bad credit risks. Inept, shoddy legislation permitted brokers to hide behind layers of opaque regulation, and the greed of ordinary people did the rest.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt, eh?
about 4 months ago
People need some where to live, when house prices are flying, people panic, cos their paying rent. and buy into the market when they should stand back and wait, so its not all greed, theres much more to it. this boom lasted longer than it should have.. I`m not an economist, but i have seen a lot of life. " GOVERNMENT IS TO BLAME" they should control the banksters
about 4 months ago
Harry , Only people pay taxes,, this bit is what counts. Bryan