A Financial Transaction Tax, or a Robin Hood tax has been bulldozed into existence inside the EU this month…
‘Robin Hood’ wins: EU to levy Financial Transactions Tax from 2016
The EU has established a financial accord on an EU financial transactions tax to be implemented from 2016. Eleven EU member states will be imposing a ‘Robin Hood’ tax on financial transactions, after it was proposed in 2011 to counter financial crises.
The tax was proposed three years ago by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and then French President Nicolas Sarkozy to encourage banks to pay for the crippling financial crisis which had struck the eurozone, plunging a range of countries, including Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal, deep into debt.
…bulldozed because the elites do not want a Financial Transaction Tax. The Financial Economy that did so much damage to the real economy during the Global Financial meltdown, has a responsibility to share some of their vast wealth to rebuild that real economy.
A Financial Transaction Tax would do that…
…in NZ we didn’t have Robin Hood stealing from the rich giving to the poor, we had Hone Heke, which is why MANA call their Financial Transaction Tax the ‘Hone Heke’ Tax.
A .5% Financial Transaction Tax would generate more tax than all the revenue from GST while forcing the currency down, if the EU are serious about a Financial Transaction Tax, why isn’t NZ looking at it?
Why shouldn’t the mega wealthy, the corporations and the banks pay their fair share for once via a tax they can’t have their army of accountants hide? If progressives in NZ want extra funding to combat inequality, the money has to come from somewhere. A Financial Transaction Tax forces those with the most to pay vast sums of revenue that can be ploughed into the social and economic infrastructure.
In light of the EU taking this step this month, the time to debate a Financial Transaction Tax is this election.
Instead of borrowing $50 billion dollars government debt wouldn’t it have made sense to install a financial transactions tax –isn’t this strategy of GST corporate welfare.
But this Govt is not interested in paying down debt, or anything else that will help the masses. All they are interested in putting as much wealth into the top 1% pockets, before the gravy train crashes.
This kind of tax is the inevitable response to global corporations – and a fair measure given the tax avoidance strategies of operators like Starbucks, Apple, or Microsoft. This is what Roger Douglas would have come up with instead of GST if he had not been a corrupt little corporate shill, and had actually given a shit about NewZealand.
But a financial transaction tax was suggested back in 1984 bug the banks opposed it and Roger Douglas caved in and imposed get.,
you don’t have to be Einstein to figure out why the banks opposed it .
The video says 0.05% not 0.5% Is the MANA party proposing 0.5%?
I would assume enough to replace GST so probably only 00.5%
I like the idea and would love to see it debated. From what I can see the EU agreement is just afirst step. Much debate ahead. Looks like it is a variable tax rate – 0.1% on shares and .01% on things like derivatives though this will continue to be debated. Conservatives and bankers say it will cost jobs and development because it will raise the cost of capital- UK and Sweden against it for this and other reasons. Progressives see the opportunity to focus the extra revenue on things like poverty reduction ie the robin hood effect.
So far the only benefit I’ve heard for this tax could generate a large amount of income. But that is what every tax does!
Why is this tax better than say, higher income tax, property tax, a wealth tax or a mansion tax?
It’s superiority lies in its targeting – it captures some income from freeloading non-human entities – corporates and banks. Other taxes tend to allow these to escape, or pretend not to be earning.
But these “non-human entities” only exist for the benefit of humans. Businesses serve, their employees, shareholders and customers. A tax on mansions or land would directly target those with wealth.
You are mistaken – capital is not always obedient to the interests of shareholders, and when it is they seldom pay tax. Such corporations are lawless and exploitive – and are as likely to oppress customers by creating monopolies as they are to serve them.
Your mansion tax targets human use – it is the inhuman use that is more problematic. The mansion is taxed through rates in any case.
An incorporated company exists for the very reason create wealth for the shareholders. Almost everyone is a shareholder these days, you’ll punish them all regardless of wealth.
At 0.05 – 0.5% it’s not a hefty punishment.
Rather less than 50% of NZ are shareholders in any case.
This tax breaks across one of the most egregious corporate tax evasion areas.
Around 2.3 million are in Kiwisaver, so that’s a around 60% already.
And as investors rather than speculators their exposure to this tax is minimal.
As is my minimal understanding of the matter, many countries would consider a FTT only if it is adopted globally. At least there’s discussion elsewhere of the matter, while here – deafening silence in the political mainstream.
I think Keynes proposed a FTT as a means of reducing market volatility, considering the Depression. Considering the GFC, there should be some added weight. Unlike the thirties, around the world at present in many cases there’s a further push to the economic Right. Which in this cynical age, should many or perhaps most people desire a dignified life in future; they should consider the social ramifications of this path unless they are prepared to live like the Cynics of antiquity.
To combat inequality, Progressives should focus on a FTT and a Universal Basic Income. FTT to keep in check the financial sector empowered over the years by neoliberalism, a UBI to provide opportunities and certainty to those struggling, alleviate social ills and drastically reduce the abhorrent bloated WINZ bureaucracy specialising in stigmatization.
These are policies relevant to the 21st century and could provide the basis of an evolved welfare state. If Labour should desire relevancy in future they should at least consider such policies, but it wouldn’t surprise me if eventually they face the same fate as the former Liberal Party.
A FTT was a major part of Social Credit’s policies in the 70s and early 80s. It is worth a debate.
It’s worth a trial.
This epiphenominal rubbish that’s been economic policy since the 90s isn’t working. If you follow the numbers on Polity we’re only about ten years out from the average wage not servicing a mortgage – at which point rents can no longer increase in step with the housing bubble. It puts an end point on the irresponsible policies both Labour and National have been running on housing since Rogergnomics.
Do-nothing budgets aren’t going to cut the mustard much longer – significant reform is coming, like it or not. This one is one of the smarter ways of restablishing control of NZ’s sovereign wealth. And we’ve almost run out of stupid ones.
I may be wrong but, as I understand it, Social Credit used to to advocate a tax on all transactions, not just financial ones.
Has not the euro governments just past it.
Given that everybody makes financial transactions, why are they being targeted?
If the problem is wealth, why not tax wealth?
Financial transactions are taxed at source.
Financial wealth is hidden all over the world in convoluted ownership structures – haven’t you been keeping up?
Also, many financial transactions are really a form of legalised gambling – and not only contribute nothing to the community/country but often cause harm because of the negative effect these transactions can have.
http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9780099541721?redirected=true&gclid=CjkKEQjw7tabBRCc0YvZ0-PigM4BEiQA8quBqUTePljnA5T1fzplw4WaOY5-dCI7RswQLQSyKU9NqFHw_wcB
This book on tax havens was a real eye opener, I borrowed it from Auckland Libraries.
Given, as you said, financial transactions can be hidden all over the world, what chance would our little own IRD have in chasing these up?
Who do you think will have the resources and knowledge to access offshore bank accounts and financial advisors?
It’s also a flat tax (al la ACT party), everyone pays the same rate. Hardly progressive is it?
A buying a home with a $400,000 mortgage would cost a young couple $4000 under this plan. How is that fair?
Amongst the wealthy a much greater proportion of income is devoted to financial transactions.
(Citation needed)
Isn’t everyone who sells their labour for money undertaking a financial transaction?
The problem is not wealth. The problem is inequality.
A FTT tax would have a big impact on speculation in financial markets. Recent economic growth has seen more growth in financial markets than in markets that produce consumables. This growth takes energy and specialisation away from productive areas of our economy, to grow the non productive sector.
Speculation in financial markets is a huge problem. It’s a big cause of volatility. Billions of $$ are traded in short term trades every day, and our NZD / USD currency pair is one of the very popular markets traded.
Day traders may make many trades in a month. If each transaction was taxed, even by only .05 or .1 percent that would change behaviour in those markets.
Taxing this unproductive activity would raise revenue, reduce market volatility and move focus from unproductive financial markets to more productive sectors of our economy.
It would be very easy to implement, and very hard to avoid.
This is my educated and experienced opinion. I make my living analysing these markets.
Sure, but isn’t inequality simply about the distribution of wealth?
A tax on all assets over say $1,000,000 would bring in
considerable funds, but wouldn’t effect those at the bottom. A mansion tax would also be very effective and easily enforced.
Telecom doesn’t have a mansion. Many freeloading corporates would be affected by this rule.
I guarantee all the board members of Telecom would all have mansions that would be subject to a tax.
A ‘mansion tax’ would return a tiny fraction of what the proposed tax would – and banks and foreign interests would escape it entirely.
I have seen it posted somewhere a 0.01% ftt in NZ would bring in around $645 million a day just on shares derivatives and currency transactions.
The fact that the EU is implimenting it should give it the respectability needed for some party, eg the Labour party, to adopt it here.
Funny, but we had a financial transaction tax, that only applied to the little guys, the 5c stamp duty on cheques. National just abolished it. FTT is just the same thing applied on a percentage basis to the zillions of dollars that speculatively slosh back and forth through the financial system on a daily basis.
Comments are closed.