Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Robin Hood Tax

rated by 0 users
This post has 7 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 35
Gary Hall Posted: Thu, Feb 11 2010 1:16 PM

Robin Hood Tax Propaganda

Depressing, really. As Walter Block mentioned in Jeff Tucker's recent 'Economics in One Lesson' interviews, it's the sort of intuitive, knee-jerk solution that, on first blush, looks like the answer to everyone's prayers.

While it is true that parts of the UK banking sector is now explicitly underwritten by the taxpayer, that shouldn't be the premise on which to build a tax. Christ, if that's the reasoning, shouldn't we all be able to expropriate whatever we feel we need from a nationalised bank?

I was pretty sure this idea was already dead in the water - Gorgon Broon tried to hawk it at a G20 meeting, with Geithner rejecting it out of hand. However, now Richard Curtis and Bill Nighy have climbed aboard the bandwagon - and given it some aspirational branding under the moniker 'Robin Hood Tax'. I expect it'll gain appeal over here and probably end up being ratified. Even at a projected '£100bn' speculated revenue, I don't doubt that it will some how end up costing more than that to implement, just like the MPs expenses claims.

 

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Thu, Feb 11 2010 6:04 PM

The hypocrisy of these malinvested spermatazoic products is simply astounding. They create policies that allow the banksters to take power, give the banksters they've created golden parachutes when the trip goes south and then blame a free market that doesn't even exist for the failures of their own interventions, and in this case, even try and lead the charge against the very policies they were just championing a few minutes ago!

1984 is starting to look like fiction less and less every day. It seems the British leviathan is growing hungry, and it's resorting to cannibalism.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 694
Points 11,400
Joe replied on Sun, Feb 14 2010 8:45 PM

I think I could offer a fairly blunt explanation for why this is a bad idea, but could someone please post something (original or from a link) that attacks it more specifically, especially on the points that would be brought up in its favor of how "its such a small percentage"

 

reading on some forum about it I have seen this sort of mentality:

 

"Seriously, the c*nts need to be punished for wanking our money away."  (referring to people at big financial institutions)

"I'd tax 100% of their bonus if it were up to me, sounds like a great idea, but how would they prevent the banks from forcing this tax back on to the customer or lower paid members of staff? We'd all love to see the fat cats brought down but scum always rises to the top doesn't it?"

"You mean the people that fucked up the economy in the first place would leave the country for good to fuck up someone else's? I'm all for it, where do I sign up?"

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Sun, Feb 14 2010 9:37 PM

I agree with them. The only problem is, they are attacking only one of the right targets (the other being politicians and central bank officials who create and foster FRB in the first place and bailout financial executives), and the "executive bonus" teacup hurricane is merely a trojan horse for eventual government control over the common mans wages.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5
Rurik replied on Sun, Feb 14 2010 11:39 PM

There is another article on this at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hundreds-of-ecomomists-call-for-tax-on-currency-speculation-1899534.html

The economist and politicians promoting this idea of a 0.05% tax on currency and security transactions have no idea how it would decrease liquidity, and therefore the actual tax revenue that they are seeking.  For example the typical currency transaction of $5 million dollars in euro has current bid/ask spread of 2/100 of a euro or $735.  This would increase to $2,500 on the most liquid currency in the world.  You can imagine what would happen to the others. 

Not only that, but just the name "Robin Hood Tax" promotes the ridiculous idea that two people trading amongst themselves negatively affects poor people.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 694
Points 11,400
Joe replied on Mon, Feb 15 2010 12:15 AM

Praetyre:

I agree with them. The only problem is, they are attacking only one of the right targets (the other being politicians and central bank officials who create and foster FRB in the first place and bailout financial executives), and the "executive bonus" teacup hurricane is merely a trojan horse for eventual government control over the common mans wages.

seems to me that blaming the bankers would be like blaming putbulls from a dog fighting ring for being aggressive.  Yes some of them are unsalvageable and should be put down, but the real culprit would be the people who bred the aggression into the dogs.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Mon, Feb 15 2010 12:21 AM

I'd say it goes deeper than that. I think politicians and (non central) bankers are partners in crime, with bankers providing funds and other forms of material support to politicians and central bankers in exchange for political favours, legislation and bailouts. To paraphrase Kevin Carson, bankers are the bagman and government officials are the gunman and the getaway driver.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 663
Points 10,885
Moderator

Dr. Madsen Pirie assured me it was never going to pass, because it required mutual agreement between all countries.

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (8 items) | RSS