The Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on banks, hedge funds and other finance institutions that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad.
It can start as low as 0.005 per cent – and average 0.05 per cent . But when levied on the billions of pounds sloshing round the global finance system every day through transactions such as foreign exchange, derivatives trading and share deals, it can raise hundreds of billions of pounds every year.
And while international agreement is best, it can start right now, right here in the UK.
That can help stop cuts in crucial public services in the UK, and aid the fight against global poverty and climate change.
Why now?
Because of the financial crisis, frontline services at home – like the NHS and our schools – are under fire.
At the same time, poor communities and the environment are being hit hard – as aid and green budgets are slashed by rich countries.
So it’s time for the people who caused this mess to pay to clean it up.
Who’s in?
Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel (the German Chancellor) and Nicolas Sarkozy (the French President) have all spoken out in support of a tax on financial transactions.
Plenty of business bigwigs are on-board too. Lord Turner (from the Financial Services Authority), George Soros (the philanthropist) and Warren Buffet (US businessman extraordinaire) have all backed transaction taxes. And then there are the hundreds of economists who have backed the idea, too.
This isn’t some crazy pipedream. It’s a simple and brilliant idea which transcends party politics and which – with your support – can become a reality.
Follow the links on the left for more information, there’s lot more detail in our FAQ or you can read the academic research in our bibliography.
- Share this on Facebook
- http://bit.ly/a0mScK+(via+@robinhood)" title="Tweet This!" rel="nofollow">Tweet This!
- Subscribe to the comments for this post?
- Share this on del.icio.us
- Digg this!
- Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
- Share this on Reddit
Now don’t be put off by the reform being suggested by Tories or the issue of property rights, as of course all of us have economic property via our savings and pensions. And as well as many others have said, add nausea, pension funds ...are the majority owners of the global means of production and exchange. This Wednesday, Douglas Carlson MP (Conservative, Clacton) will introduce legislation into the UK parliament that takes the first step towards ending fractional reserve banking.
As Steve Baker MP describes: 'Douglas's Bill would assert property rights over demand deposits. Real savings - term deposits - would be loaned to entrepreneurs, delivering an economy built on save and invest.' Steve Baker MP explains this in further detail here: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/09/carswell-on-bank-reform.html
"On Wednesday, immediately after Prime Minister's Questions, Douglas Carswell MP will be introducing a moderate and conservative ten-minute rule bill which would introduce sound property rights and contract to monetary deposits. It is potentially of profound importance and I am delighted to support him". This legislation would have the effect of making fractional reserve banking impossible, requiring a shift to full-reserve banking (where the bank either lends your money, or keeps it safe, but doesn't claim to do both at the same time!).
In plain English, it would stop private banks being able to create money as debt. Then governments can issue thier own money without debt to accelerate humanity to another economic era, one that tackles global poverty sustainably....a tax on banks will still leave them creating economic chaos.
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!
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......
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.
Oh and why not enact reprisals against the low proffessions?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
To fight such causes, it must be sincerely given from the heart and not through robbing (taxing) people.
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.
How do they do that please?
This is the case with all taxes. Ultimately the public always pays.
Anyone who can start their post like this instantly is not really demonstrating a agrasp of the facts.
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.
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.
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.
The IDEA is a good one, so I vote yes. The devil may well prove to be in the detail.
- 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?
Many thanks
Rob
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps an RHT is a more prudent option for dudes who are just narrowly dodging being (literally) skinned alive, hmmmm?
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is one of those golden opportunities that a TAX directly provides more BENEFIT than the cost of the tax.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
