Why not make it 25% ? ...

The man on the telly insists that there would be no effect
whatsoever on members of the public, and it wouldn't affect
banks profits either. But 0.05% would raise £250billion per year.

So - why not make the tax (say) 25% instead, then you'd raise
£125,000billion each year, which is enough to give about
£20,000 each year to every man, woman and child alive today.

It's magic!!

http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

"Will the tax be passed on to consumers?
The Robin Hood Tax will not impact on personal banking or
on retail banking. That's because it targets a distinct area
of bank operations - high-frequency large-volume trading,
undertaken by financial institutions in the 'casino economy'.
If you change money to go on holiday, send remittances
abroad, invest in a pension fund or take out a mortgage,
you will not be affected by this tiny tax."

"Tim" wrote in message
...
Why not make it 25% ? ...

Because it's a "transaction" tax. It has to be low enough not to be
noticed.

It means that if you buy 100 pounds of shares you pay 5p in tax.

If it were 25% you'd pay 25 pounds, so you wouldn't invest and the tax
collected would be nil.

The man on the telly insists that there would be no effect
whatsoever on members of the public, and it wouldn't affect
banks profits either. But 0.05% would raise £250billion per year.

So - why not make the tax (say) 25% instead, then you'd raise
£125,000billion each year, which is enough to give about
£20,000 each year to every man, woman and child alive today.

It's magic!!

http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

"Will the tax be passed on to consumers?
The Robin Hood Tax will not impact on personal banking or
on retail banking. That's because it targets a distinct area
of bank operations - high-frequency large-volume trading,
undertaken by financial institutions in the 'casino economy'.

It has an effect here because this type of "investment" works on margin.
That means the percentage return is very small for the amount invested.
0.05% (times 2, paid to buy and then again to sell) is a substantial amount
if the expected profit is 0.5%.

The banks will argue that this tax will kill such margin investing, but
given what has recently happened, the authorities should respond "good
riddance".

If you change money to go on holiday, send remittances
abroad, invest in a pension fund or take out a mortgage,
you will not be affected by this tiny tax."

You would be affected in the sense that you would have to pay it, but not in
the sense you wouldn't notice it

tim

"Tim" wrote
Why not make it 25% ? ...

"tim...." wrote
Because it's a "transaction" tax. It has
to be low enough not to be noticed.

But according to the proponents on the telly (and
their website), it would have *no* effect on people
anyway, so even 25% "wouldn't be noticed"...

"tim...." wrote
It means that if you buy 100 pounds of shares you pay 5p in tax.

If it were 25% you'd pay 25 pounds, so you
wouldn't invest and the tax collected would be nil.

But members of the public won't be subject to the tax,
and it won't affect the profits of banks either (according
to the people on the telly). Not even a small amount.

So - just multiply "not at all, not even a small amount" by 500
(say), and you still have "not at all, not even 500 x a small amount".

"Tim" wrote
The man on the telly insists that there would be no effect
whatsoever on members of the public, and it wouldn't affect
banks profits either. But 0.05% would raise £250billion per year.

So - why not make the tax (say) 25% instead, then you'd raise
£125,000billion each year, which is enough to give about
£20,000 each year to every man, woman and child alive today.

It's magic!!

http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

"Will the tax be passed on to consumers?
The Robin Hood Tax will not impact on personal banking or
on retail banking. That's because it targets a distinct area
of bank operations - high-frequency large-volume trading,
undertaken by financial institutions in the 'casino economy'."

"tim...." wrote
It has an effect here because this type of "investment" works on
margin. That means the percentage return is very small for the
amount invested. 0.05% (times 2, paid to buy and then again
to sell) is a substantial amount if the expected profit is 0.5%.

According to the proponents of the tax, it *won't* affect the profits
of the banks. If it did, then it would affect (eg) pension funds (which
invest in bank shares) - which they categorically say it will *not*
affect (see the snippet from their website which I quoted previously).

"tim...." wrote
The banks will argue that this tax will kill such margin investing...

In that case, either the margin investing didn't produce any profits
overall (in which case it wouldn't be missed) -OR- the proponents
of the tax are wrong when they say it won't affect the banks profits.

"Tim" wrote
From http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/
"If you change money to go on holiday, send remittances
abroad, invest in a pension fund or take out a mortgage,
you will not be affected by this tiny tax."

"tim...." wrote
You would be affected in the sense that you would have to pay it...

You & I might think that, but the guy on the telly & their website doesn't!!

"tim...." wrote
You would [not] be affected ... in the sense you wouldn't notice it

It seems to me that even if you spread £250billion over the
entire global population, everyone would be contributing on
average around £40 each year - wouldn't you notice that?

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
Why not make it 25% ? ...

"tim...." wrote
Because it's a "transaction" tax. It has
to be low enough not to be noticed.

But according to the proponents on the telly (and
their website), it would have *no* effect on people
anyway, so even 25% "wouldn't be noticed"...

"tim...." wrote
It means that if you buy 100 pounds of shares you pay 5p in tax.

If it were 25% you'd pay 25 pounds, so you
wouldn't invest and the tax collected would be nil.

But members of the public won't be subject to the tax,
and it won't affect the profits of banks either (according
to the people on the telly). Not even a small amount.

So - just multiply "not at all, not even a small amount" by 500
(say), and you still have "not at all, not even 500 x a small amount".

"Tim" wrote
The man on the telly insists that there would be no effect
whatsoever on members of the public, and it wouldn't affect
banks profits either. But 0.05% would raise £250billion per year.

So - why not make the tax (say) 25% instead, then you'd raise
£125,000billion each year, which is enough to give about
£20,000 each year to every man, woman and child alive today.

It's magic!!

http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

"Will the tax be passed on to consumers?
The Robin Hood Tax will not impact on personal banking or
on retail banking. That's because it targets a distinct area
of bank operations - high-frequency large-volume trading,
undertaken by financial institutions in the 'casino economy'."

"tim...." wrote
It has an effect here because this type of "investment" works on
margin. That means the percentage return is very small for the
amount invested. 0.05% (times 2, paid to buy and then again
to sell) is a substantial amount if the expected profit is 0.5%.

According to the proponents of the tax, it *won't* affect the profits
of the banks. If it did, then it would affect (eg) pension funds (which
invest in bank shares) - which they categorically say it will *not*
affect (see the snippet from their website which I quoted previously).

"tim...." wrote
The banks will argue that this tax will kill such margin investing...

In that case, either the margin investing didn't produce any profits
overall (in which case it wouldn't be missed) -OR- the proponents
of the tax are wrong when they say it won't affect the banks profits.

I agree, it probably would affect Bank's profits, but I don't see that as a
bad thing.

I didn't make the film, I don't agree with all of its claims. Just
explaining the process.

tim

In article , tim....
writes

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
Why not make it 25% ? ...

"tim...." wrote
Because it's a "transaction" tax. It has
to be low enough not to be noticed.

But according to the proponents on the telly (and
their website), it would have *no* effect on people
anyway, so even 25% "wouldn't be noticed"...

Anyone who says it won't affect people have little understanding of
corporate taxes.

Bank A does some international transactions for Supermarket B, and
increases the cost of the transaction marginally to account for the
transaction tax.

Supermarket B, when it comes time to adjust the price of a tin of beans,
puts them up by the anticipated 5p plus another extra 1p to offset the
transaction tax and maintain their profits.

Very simplistic example of how corporate tax increases get passed down
the chain until they arrive at the consumers who eventually pay.
Corporate tax reductions of course go straight to the shareholders!
--
K.

Hmmm...

Gordon Brown's tax on dividends...
- Nominal 20% on 3% annually
- Effectively 0.6% per year against annual return
- Incurred for however many years the shares are held

Gordon Brown's tax on scalping trades...
- Nominal 0.05% on value of the trade
- Incurred every time a Buy or Sell order occurs
- Assuming 100 scalps per year that is 5% per year

So it is going to hit any transactions that occur regularly.
For financial trading it forces higher leverage or different trading
patterns.
For corporations it just adds to the inflation cost chain.
Probably hits things like FTSE-spread-betting or such like.

The alternative is it forces trading offshore, financial empires
eventually follow the money to new pastures.

"js.b1" wrote in message
...
Hmmm...

Gordon Brown's tax on dividends...
- Nominal 20% on 3% annually
- Effectively 0.6% per year against annual return
- Incurred for however many years the shares are held

Gordon Brown's tax on scalping trades...
- Nominal 0.05% on value of the trade
- Incurred every time a Buy or Sell order occurs
- Assuming 100 scalps per year that is 5% per year

So it is going to hit any transactions that occur regularly.
For financial trading it forces higher leverage or different trading
patterns.
For corporations it just adds to the inflation cost chain.
Probably hits things like FTSE-spread-betting or such like.

The alternative is it forces trading offshore,

The theory for this tax is, if implemented, there will be no offshore to go
to

tim

On Feb 10, 9:51*pm, "tim...." wrote:
The theory for this tax is, if implemented,
there will be no offshore to go to

That will not go down too well :-)

The theory for this tax is, if implemented,
there will be no offshore to go to

That will not go down too well :-)

So if China (say) does not play ball who is tasked to send a gunboat?

Or is this another of G Brown's laws with no enforcement (and hence low
compliance)?

--
R

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:22:49 GMT, "neverwas"
wrote:

The theory for this tax is, if implemented,
there will be no offshore to go to

That will not go down too well :-)

So if China (say) does not play ball who is tasked to send a gunboat?

Exactly. I assume this nonsense is for naive domestic political
consumption only. The idea that the whole of the rest of the world is
going to go along with this is quite ridiculous.

Chris