Tonight:
2°c
Bill Nighy and Richard Curtis take Robin Hood tax campaign to Parliament
Louise Jury, Chief Arts Correspondent24 Feb 2010
Award-winning screenwriter Richard Curtis and actor Bill Nighy take their campaign for a Robin Hood tax on banks to the House of Commons today.
The frontmen for a coalition of charities and campaigners will be lobbying MPs over the proposal for a small tax on financial transactions which could create billions to be spent on tackling poverty and climate change abroad and preserving public services at home.
Nighy told the Standard: “The thing about the Robin Hood tax is we ourselves searched for the flaws and there aren't any. It's one of those simply brilliant ideas that works for everybody and it's slightly surprising that there should be any resistance from anyone.”
The Robin Hood tax would not be levied on banks' transactions with their high street customers, but only apply to transactions between financial institutions, starting at a rate of five pence for every £1,000 traded. There are estimates it could raise £250 billion a year worldwide.
But some City firms have objected with thousands of initial emails of objection coming from just two computer servers, one of which was registered to the investment bank Goldman Sachs.
Nighy, who appears as a banker in a film promoting the idea directed by his Love Actually director Curtis, said many bankers were not responsible for the economic crisis - but it was a way of atoning for those who were.
“There's no reason why it shouldn't happen. The central fact of our lives is that half the world has more than it needs and the other half has less.”
More than 300 economists and businessmen internationally have backed the proposal including the American Jeffrey Sachs, George Soros and Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority with political leaders including Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel supporting some form of transaction tax.
“It's not just bleeding-heart people,” Nighy said.
www.robinhoodtax.org.uk
Reader views (8)
What a pathetic attack on charities by some leaving comments, who are wrong of course.
What is it that brings certain people out from under the rocks when someone suggests rich banks should pay towards the mess they helped create ? Time they paid for the mess instead of everyone else.
- Phil Harris, Widnes. England., 25/02/2010 22:37
Report abuse
Its such a good idea, the Robin Hood Tax who could object, unless they feel they have something to loose?
Supported by 300 economists/businessmen as well,Mr Realist.
- Mary, Sheffield South Yorkshire, 25/02/2010 16:00
Report abuse
"a small tax on financial transactions which could create billions to be spent on tackling poverty and climate change abroad"
NO NO NO
Let the rest of the world sort it's own poverty out, it is not our problem.
- Daisy Willets, London SW1, 25/02/2010 11:00
Report abuse
The usual , A) All governments won't do this and more importantly B) The unintended consequences are massive. If you tax something you're likely to reduce the amount people do that. The unintended consequence of that is that liquidity will disappear and that isn't good.
- David, London, 24/02/2010 22:17
Report abuse
We have reached the limits of income tax and capital gains tax and VAT and stamp duties and inheritance tax and local council taxes. The scope for raising revenue by charging for "services" such as lower congestion and parking and ID cards is also fairly limited. This is a reasonable proposal.
- Bloke, Lambeth, 24/02/2010 16:30
Report abuse
Arrogance. Nighy & Curtis's cherry picking the group of organizations that'll receive the coerced donations via taxation. When organizations are no longer satisifed with voluntary donations, then one should consider other charitable organizations to donate their money.
- Charles Heights, Cambridge, UK, 24/02/2010 16:25
Report abuse
I have tried to find fault in it, there really isn't any. Implementation would be the difficult bit to get right.
You would have to think carefully about all the possible ways the tax could be dodged; it would have to cover all types of instrument trading, any left out would be where the money would get re-routed to, it would also have to be global. You would also need to ensure whichever global institution is created to look after the money is accountable to the people, not just the financial institutions; unlike unpopular set-ups such as the IMF.
In effect you would be moving towards a single global 'super' government, which I don't think is a bad thing; many of our problems have their root cause in fact that companies and money markets are global but governments are not, so this has to happen at some point, but it is a huge change, one which will unnerve some people.
- Chris Huang-Leaver, Cambridge, UK, 24/02/2010 15:53
Report abuse
"Nighy told the Standard: “The thing about the Robin Hood tax is we ourselves searched for the flaws and there aren't any."
Well that IS reassuring, Bil!. However I think I'll reserve judgement until I hear from the Bee Gees and Chas and Dave.
- Realist999, UK, 24/02/2010 15:00
Report abuse
