Afternoon:
9°c
'Chancellor must use Budget to bring in Robin Hood Tax'
19 Mar 2010The Government should introduce a “Robin Hood tax” in next week's Budget to fight poverty and climate change, activists said today.
The Robin Hood Tax campaign urged the Chancellor to announce a 0.005% stamp duty on sterling foreign exchange transactions and overcome a wait for international agreement.
The pressure group, made up of almost 100 unions, anti-poverty groups, environmentalists and faith bodies, said moves by Britain would encourage other countries to take action.
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said the “time has come” to implement such a tax: “Technology is now at the stage where this is a cheap and easy tax to collect.
“After the damage that bank recklessness has done to ordinary people's lives throughout the world it is only right that we ask them to help clear up the mess they have made and to play their part in making the world a better place.”
Oxfam chief executive Barbara Stocking said: “We have a golden opportunity to help people across the globe who are suffering from the effects of the financial crisis and climate change. We have the chance to make sure those living in poverty here in the UK have a better future. The Robin Hood tax won't cost the taxpayer a penny and we should grab it with both hands.”
Claire Melamed, head of policy at ActionAid, said: “A decision by Alistair Darling to introduce a tiny tax on sterling in this budget would be both fair and popular. It would raise billions now and could be the key that unlocks a system of global financial transaction taxes which would raise even more desperately needed money to fight poverty at home and abroad.”
The campaign has been attracting support from campaigners and politicians across the world, most notably in Britain from film director Richard Curtis and actor Bill Nighy, who made a film in which Nighy plays a bank executive who is convinced of the need for a financial transaction tax.
Reader views (26)
An even simpler way to increase revenue for charities is to require them to use a centralised administration service. Alternatively lets tax actors and idiots.
- Dave, Sydney, Australia, 22/03/2010 06:06
Report abuse
If we don't introduce something like this then we're all going to suffer - the weakest the most, but all of us. Services will have to be cut - potentially to an extent we've rarely seen before. We won't get the deal on climate change we all need. 500,000 women a year will continue to die unnecessarily through childbrith because there's no money to pay for health services. If we don't want that, we have to find a way of paying for it. If not this, then what. The costs would be partly off-set by reducing wastage through harmful speculative transactions that have no social benefit, and as taxes go this one would be far more progressive than most.
- Martin, Kent, 19/03/2010 16:41
Report abuse
Imagine you're the Prime Minister. The country's £178billion deficit is understandably giving you a headache. You have got to do something. This isn't a choice between do this or do nothing. Its do this, cut services or raise taxes on ordinary people.
I for one would rather look to the financial sector for an extra contribution. Not least because they're the ones who got us into this mess.
Thankfully it looks like this idea has been properly thought through and offers us a real alternative.
- Edward Simmons, London, UK, 19/03/2010 16:38
Report abuse
There are loads of organisations behind this, but they're not asking for a role in how the funds are allocated by governments, or staking a claim on the money themselves - just groups like the RSPB, TUC or Sally Army recognising that more funding for work around the world on climate change or poverty will help alleviate the situations they currently work to tackle - they don't need to be doing it themselves.
Personally I really support the idea. Where should the money come from to fix the damage done by the crisis and bailout from taxpayers' money? From higher income taxes, big cuts to public services, or higher tax on businesses (and hence more folding)? I'd rather some of the burden was actually born by the gamblers that caused this and that are still raking in profits big enough to swallow this tax and more, even after the crash.
- John, London, UK, 19/03/2010 16:34
Report abuse
Imagine a world without taxes and charities? They are very good things, and we all benefit enormously from them. Socially-progressive movements such as the Robin Hood Tax have achieved massive improvements in social equity and wellbeing, and without the vision and dedication of the people involved we'd all be worse off. It's not all about what's in your wallet.
- Sam, London, 19/03/2010 16:31
Report abuse
This isn’t about charity or necessarily about doing stuff abroad. Just think we’ve got a massive budget deficit thanks to the banks. Whether it’s the Conservatives or Labour in power, how are we going to pay for it? Do we want it to come from higher VAT, higher income tax, higher taxes on small businesses, higher corporation tax or rather by introducing taxes on parts of the financial sector which they’ve always kept away from clutches of the taxman? Who likes taxes, let’s face it most of us don’t, but I’d rather they paid, than I did. As it so happens I know a lot about the functioning of currency markets and this 0.005% tax would hit the richest 80 or so trading banks that dominate the market in high-value foreign exchange transactions. It would not in my opinion impact on the retail sector at all and even if it did it would be to the tune of 5p on every £1,000 exchanged. Just think how much we pay now - last week I paid 3 quid to get about $200. Five pence on a £1,000, which probably won’t even come my way, is nothing. This Financial Transaction Tax idea is not designed to impact retail transactions, it’s designed to hit wholesale trading between finance houses. It is not ordinary people who will bear the brunt, certainly not on currency, it will be big banks and hedge funds. And I’m sorry but I don’t have a lot of tears for them! So I say, go on Alastair, I dare you, put it in the budget!
- David Hillman, London, 19/03/2010 16:30
Report abuse
The consequences of the actions of a tiny number of cocooned chancers in the City of London are being felt by the poorest in our society and around the world.
In the weeks following the Standard's focus on those living in poverty in the UK I thought the reaction to a tax which could ensure we protect the most vulnerable rather than cutting essential services to them would get a better run of it...but sadly not.
The World Bank estimates that around the world 66 million people have been pushed into extreme poverty by the financial crisis. That means children not having enough to eat. That means adults not being able to afford basic medicine. We pledged to overcome by 2015 the historic injustices which cause such poverty and suffering and we are failing.
This tax is not naive. It has been endorsed by cold headed economists and heads of state. The naivety lies with those who see poverty overseas and think it has nothing to do with us.
Aid is effective. Our international development money has paid for hundreds of adults and children onto life-saving HIV treatment, provided clean drink water to millions, and put millions more into education. Yes there are problems, but that doesn't mean we turn our backs on the rest of humanity. It means we do more, try harder, and strive get better.
This tax is a fair and effective way of ensuring this crisis delivers lasting improvements to our society and world.
- Daniel Wurthers, London, UK, 19/03/2010 16:14
Report abuse
I'm a little confused as to how people can think this is a personal tax.
It's worth understanding the proposal before slamming it.
- Damon, London, 19/03/2010 16:13
Report abuse
Any person or company with proper money is already exploring the benefits of leaving our godforesaken island.. thats if they havent gone already.
What with our broken economy, soaring trade imbalances and corrupted political system, the current government has spent a decade pillaging everything they can.
The only transactions this tax will hit are the billions of pounds flying out the door - and this levy will prevent any of it coming back.
We are a busted nation, with a weak currency in a global market place... the rest of the world doesn't need sterling, and with a tax on buying it, you can bet your bottom DOLLAR that they really wont be.
- Pb, London, UK, 19/03/2010 16:04
Report abuse
I think everyone here is missing the point.
This is not, I believe, a tax on high street transactions, but a minute amount taken from bigger business deals between the banks and their investments.
Nobody's asking you to give up your "hard-earned" money.
They're just asking if you'll support a simple humanitarian idea that has the potential to make a real diference to millions of people who don't have the same opportunities as you.
Stop labeling people morons for having positive ideals and think of somebody other than yourself for a change.
- Ed Hamilton, London, 19/03/2010 16:03
Report abuse
I've been an active supporter of this campaign since its launch about 6 weeks ago and become more passionate every day. It's a teeny weeny tax on speculative transactions made by the institutions which include those that the tax-payers have bailed out and who still think it's ok to pay-out huge bonuses to some of their employees.
These so-called investors are bleeding us and our planet dry and just getting wealthier. This tax would raise billions to support key services in the UK, as well as help alleviate the effects of poverty. Remember over one fifth of people here are now living below the bread line and that is obscene.
I trust this wide range of charitable, non-governmental, non-partisan organizations to stick to their commitment to human suffering.
Weighed against the humanity and fairness of this tax, all arguments against its implementation are unfounded. We just need to concentrate any debate on how.
- Sheryl Odlum, Leeds, UK, 19/03/2010 16:02
Report abuse
Champagne socialists are all at it again taxing your money. As for the economic skills of Nighe and the other film muppet?intellectual barnstomers both of them.
- Roy Lewis, Swindon, 19/03/2010 16:00
Report abuse
Without a Robin Hood Tax to help fund spending, the next government WILL have to slash spending. The NHS will be crippled. Social programs will close. Crime will rise. There will be no money to pay for the police. Funds won't be able to support small business startups and stimulate jobs.
Taxation is not evil. It pays for public goods, and the bulk of the Robin Hood Tax money stays here in Britain, paying for British goods, helping out YOUR community. That it will all be going overseas is simply not correct.
This is about choice. Do you really want more huge banker bonuses? How does that help people in your neighbourhood?
- Harriet Jones, Shrewsbury, UK, 19/03/2010 15:56
Report abuse
Hmmmm. Firstly @Jack - "The planet is overpopulated and needs a bit of natural thinning out." - charming. Your kids or friends included in that? Foolish. A few of these comments have been cut and pasted multiple times all over the web. Will ignore those.
@Very Angry - understand your concerns. Transparency is often lousy in government. Is it improving? The web might help. On your substantial point re. driving business overseas the campaign has a very detailed response to this FAQ on their website
@Frank - 80% of charity donations wasted? Where did that figure come from? Sure, there is waste and sometimes it's shameful but all charities? - what nonsense. Most a highly responsible and accountable and very lean and efficient.
Is there anyone else on this board who sees things a little less intemperately?
- Eddy Lambert, London/Oxford UK, 19/03/2010 15:51
Report abuse
When certain charitable organizations are no longer satisfied with charitable donations from individuals & try to modify country’s tax codes to FORCE money to come to them, there’s a problem.
This sets a HORRIBLE precedent. Every idiot will want to initiate taxes on anything & everything to fund their organizations.
- Stan, London, 19/03/2010 15:43
Report abuse
Just one last itsy bitsy teeny weeny little new tax to squeeeeeze in before Gordon and his leftist morons are kicked into oblivion at the forthcoming election. Nice try. No chance!
- Doug Watt, London EUSSR 14, 19/03/2010 15:24
Report abuse
80% of charitable money is misappropriated at best, stolen at worse.
"Budget to fight poverty .."
Would that be the sort of poverty that exists in say places like India? You know the country I am talking about. The one spending billions on a nuclear weapons program and billions on pursuing a space program whilst 85% of the people of India live in abject poverty?
The likes of India receive our companies, jobs and we give them aid on top, well that seems fair. Yes why not, let's give more aid. It is not like this country is in debt to the tune of trillions is it?
Thanks GB, you're the best.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 19/03/2010 14:12
Report abuse
im off to the isle of man
- Terry Sullivan, morden england, 19/03/2010 13:33
Report abuse
Why should I pay for another country’s problems? as somebody said here 'who cares'? The planet is overpopulated and need a bit of natural thinning out.
Charities are just that an organisation designed to channel gift funds. However may, tax relieved organisations use 80% of income in paying staff wages and admin fees, bolstering the fat cat middle management classes. If these people like the concept of charity so much let them work for nothing!
Where the government can save money is to stop paying people to have children and instead tax them for each child up to the age of 18 if having a second child then that child is taxed at a higher rate, and so on, people on benefits get no child help or housing and have a growing debt for the child.
If a charity is not effective in raising a fund then it is clear that they do not meet a widely perceived need, so they should fold and their dependents left to fend for themselves.
Is this natural selection or just common sense?
- Jack, East London, 19/03/2010 12:53
Report abuse
I'm glad to see that at least so far, most people can see this idea for what it is. Yet another tax on the people of the UK to give to other countries who are in general so corrupt that a very small proportion would actually make it's way to the people that "may" deserve help. I've spent too much time in the third world watching the professional charity workers in their nice new shiny Landcruisers living in nice houses and sending their kids to private school. Almost all charities waste 50% on "administration" and when the money gets to the 3rd world probably another 50% is stolen. In addition, why should my money be taken from me to make a bunch of media luvvies feel better? This is not a "victimless" tax, it will merely be passed through in higher charges to the pension finds and other institutions..That's YOUR money, just because you don't notice it, doesn't make it right. Why don't we have a special tax on filmgoers "just 50p each" or just 5p on every music download, or charge Bono $100,000 every time he appears on TV to talk rubbish. How much has Richard Curtis given to charity this year? Well waiting to hear Dickie darling.
- Jon, london, 19/03/2010 12:47
Report abuse
At present, I calculate how much tax I pay - then I look at government expenditure on the work shy, asylum seekers on the gravy train and the cost of the political elite. Now some joker has asked me to contribute more! I am willing to pay more income - or other - tax for the elderly, sick and others who have contributed for many years- but as for the indolent, scroungers etc..............
- Royg, Solihull, England., 19/03/2010 12:40
Report abuse
I would have some sympathy if I thought that A) It had a chance of working , B) The money was going to be used sensibly. On the first point, if we were to introduce such a tax, it would drive companies offshore and HMRC would actually lose out. On the second point, many of us would feel a good deal happier if we were truthfully told what our taxes were being spent on, and that our money was used properly and not misappropriated or squandered. For example, Gordon Brown got defence spending totally wrong at the Chilcot enquiry. The Palace of Westminster expenses scandal, and just why should the House of Lords not fully disclose Baroness Uddin’s 2nd home expenses at our expense. Why should we fund the UNITE union £18m??? Only for UNITE to fund the Labour Party to the tune of £10m??? Large pay offs to senior Public Sector workers when they are sacked or move jobs – NHS and Council Chief Executives in particular. Bonuses paid to senior staff in jobs and projects that have failed abjectly. Large scale IT projects that run massively over budget, Scottish Parliament, pointless £780m reorganisations, etc, etc, etc,
It is all very well for these bodies to call for this Robin Hood Tax, but until the Government and Local Authorities can prove that they are using what we already pay them properly and be properly accountable we should not pay a penny more.
- Very Angry At Mp'S Expenses, Home Counties, 19/03/2010 12:23
Report abuse
I agree with Nobby Clark,never mind other's,as long as we are OK,they can starve to death,who cares.
- Niel Bellingham, London, 19/03/2010 12:15
Report abuse
No, no, NO!
If someone wants to give to charity, let them. But the thoughts that yet more of my hard-earned income will be doled out to those with caps in hand makes me mad. The group proposing this say it will not cost the taxpayer, but that is cuckoo-land thinking. The banks will recoup the money through any means they can, and that means taking it from account holders through higher charges and lower interest rates.
The causes that are asking for this levy are also highly suspect, especially when you find out that some of the charities are attempting to "fight climate change". The government already squeezes enough out of us on that Canute-like folly, thanks very much.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one, 19/03/2010 11:52
Report abuse
When certain charitable organizations are no longer satisfied with charitable donations from individuals & try to modify country’s tax codes to FORCE money to come to them, there’s a problem.
This sets a HORRIBLE precedent. Every idiot will want to initiate taxes on anything & everything to fund their organizations.
- Charles Heights, Cambridge, UK, 19/03/2010 11:37
Report abuse
How delightfully ill-informed these Robin Hood Tax people are...but not withstanding their well-meaning nonsense,think about this -
Gordon Brown has increased taxes throughout his time as chancellor to the extent that even before this financial crisis we were paying the highest proportion of earnings as tax since Dennis Healey's government nearly bankrupted us in 1976 (the last Labour government).
The problem is that Brown has squandered these taxes (again) and now the country's finances are in a terrible mess - he overspent by £6bn a year in each of the 5 years up to 2007 even before any crisis came along.
So the Robin Hood folk might first want to reflect on who the best people to spend that tax will be, lest we squander it again.
- Paddy, London, 19/03/2010 10:05
Report abuse
