Tobin Tax

[La_Dolce_Vita]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6909135.ece

 

Seems like the government is trying to pacifiy the public by making the finance industry responsible for the problems it has caused. But would this workable at all? You're not going to get every country signing up to it, so I don't see how it would. And I can understand the argument that the banks will push the costs onto the customer in some form.

[Cambon]

Seems like the government is trying to pacifiy the public by making the finance industry responsible for the problems it has caused. But would this workable at all?

 

Yes, the government is trying to pacify the public by making the finance industry responsible for the problems the government caused. No it is not workable. The sooner the one eyed git and his cronies are out the better.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The government was never THE problem. The problem is with how the economy, and particularly the finance industry. The government just stood back and did nothing.

 

I am no economist but although I think it is good that ways are found to pass back the risk to the banks, I just don't see it possible when society is unfortunately so dependent on this dangerous industry.

 

Are there any other ways to pass back the burden to the finance sector or make them accept the cost of their risks?

[Cambon]

The government was never THE problem. The problem is with how the economy, and particularly the finance industry. The government just stood back and did nothing.

From the day that brown became chancellor he promoted the borrow and spend economy that has come around to bite everyone in the ass now. The banks are a convenient scapegoat. He says we had to bail out the banks. However, the reality is they had a choice. They could have let them go into foreign ownership, in which case the UK would be in debt to the middle east. Alternatively, let them go bust, then the cost of a real bail out would have to be born by the tax payer (KSF situation many times over). Or, buy into the banks and in the long term make a killing for the tax payer - best option.

 

The banks owe UK PLC around £45 billion combined. According to the national debt clock the Uk is in debt to the tune of £848 billion. The money invested in the banks is a drop in the ocean, but a fantastic excuse for how shit labour governments are. They always end up like this.

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The problem is market liberation and the consequences of the finance industry adopted free-market principles in a system that doesn't operate as one. This goes WAY back to the 80s. It is the industry that is to blame, that promotion by the government of taking credit. Look at who advertises for credit - the finance companies. They're the ones who have heavily pushed credit as an 'easy' alternative.

 

Besides, as awful as the Labour government is the Tories were no better at managing the economy.

[Cambon]

So are you saying then that it is the financial institution's doing that the uk labour government is nearly a trillion pounds in debt? Not the fact that they are fighting wars they cannot win, giving billions to europe for nothing in return, and giving assylm and benefits to virtually anyone who asks for it?

 

When the tories lost power the percentage of national debt to GDP was actually less than when they came to power. Under labour it is now around 60% higher than when they came to power.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

First of all, the UK doesn't offer asylum to anyone who wants it. It is rather strict. Besides the Tories edge towards more harsh border controls and offensive measures to force people into shitty work. But yes, the Labour government does have a penchant for war. However, I very much doubt the Tories would have taken a different course. Ultimately, British foreign policy follows the American. We would have followed the USA into Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of what group is in power.

 

In terms of national debt, you are quite correct about the figures. But what was started in the 80s (not necessarily BY the government, but by the finance industry) has come to an inevitable conclusion. It is just that it is NOW that it is happened while there is a Labour government in power.

And regardless of whether it would have been Labour or the Tories in government the risk would have been socialised. The government is not going to make the finance industry bear the costs it should really should have if we follow the industries adherence to the myth of pure markets. However, the consequence of not bailing out would lead to collapse. We are unfortunately dependent on this industry, it collapses and so does the economy. Letting them go bust is not an option,

 

Buying into the banks would have been a far better option it seems - but this would certainly not be done by the Tories!

As for the Middle East buys out - where did this idea arise?

 

In any case, I find comparisons that move beyond just looking at the obvious interests of the elites groups as pretty silly.

The Tories today are not the same as those in the 80s and nor will their economic policies be the same. But they favour satisying business interests somewhat more than Labour and that is why I dislike them a little more. Whether it is a Labour government or a Tory government in power over the next few years the economic policies will be very similar, there isn't much room for manoeuver.

[mollag]

First of all, the UK doesn't offer asylum to anyone who wants it.

 

 

Hang on! the Sun says we do, surely the Sun cant get it wrong?

[Cambon]

As for the Middle East buys out - where did this idea arise?

The middle east is the only place with indisputable wealth at the moment. That is where Barclays went when they needed a capital injection. The investors have got their money back with a very nice profit and Barclays are not beholden to the Uk government for anything.

 

It has always been said that the financials lead us into recession and the financials will lead us out. Until the government (tory or labour) stop getting in the way of recovery (RBS, Lloyds et al) we are doomed.

[Cambon]

First of all, the UK doesn't offer asylum to anyone who wants it.

 

 

Hang on! the Sun says we do, surely the Sun cant get it wrong?

 

If someone claims political asylum they are effectively granted it immediately, pending an investigation into the claim. If it proves that asylum should not be granted to the person it is withdrawn. By that time the person has usually found an alternative means of staying legally in the country or disappeared into the system. So yes, the Sun is effectively correct.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What do you mean by government getting in the way though? In terms of pushing the costs of the crisis onto the finance industry or in preventing further crises?

[Cambon]

For example, we are told by the government that the banks are not lending enough. Then we were told last week by Hester of RBS that there is not the market of borrowers. They will not reach their lending target this year because there are not enough people wanting to borrow, even with the low interest rates.

 

The government tell the banks to cut costs and make a profit. Then when they announce job losses, higher interest rates, less attractive deals on mortgages and raising charges everyone (lead by the government0 are up in arms.

 

The government cannot have it both ways.

[rolandkirk]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6909135.ece

 

Seems like the government is trying to pacifiy the public by making the finance industry responsible for the problems it has caused. But would this workable at all? You're not going to get every country signing up to it, so I don't see how it would. And I can understand the argument that the banks will push the costs onto the customer in some form.

I do agree with you. This prooves that this economical system must be radically transformed to see reel changes.

[Rog]

What do you mean by government getting in the way though? In terms of pushing the costs of the crisis onto the finance industry or in preventing further crises?

 

 

If the banks are required to pay additional tax where do the banks get the money to pay it from?

 

In addition how long would it be before the Tobin Tax became the Brown Tax wherein all bank transactions became taxable?

 

Brown is a dangerous fool, he and Blair are responsible for what has happened to GB because they failed in their responsibility to provide good governance of the country.

 

The combination of their inadequacy, incompetence, stupidity masked by cunning, arrogance, and an imperative to destroy Great Britain as it stood is waht is 100% responsible for the mess we face today.

 

 

Left wing governments will ALWAYS be crap because of the rubbish that are elected into parliament.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Left-wing? Why do you think Brown's government is left-wing?

 

I assume the banks would pay for the tax out of their revenue, but of course (as a previous poster mentioned) the banks would simply find new ways to take even more money off their customers.

 

It doesn't seem to be a measure that would make much sense.