Lots of discussion at: http://videosift.com/video/Robin-Hood-Tax-on-the-Rich-to-Benefit-the-Poor?noredirect

You can believe they would notice all you want - but when it comes to the difference between $1 billion in profits and $999,500,000 in profits I think most rational people would suggest it's a negligible amount. Obviously you are not among those people.

I will defend that the tax is nothing to those who pay it, and that it's billions for those that will benefit. It's no different form the tax I pay on the cup of coffee I buy - that is used to build roads and schools. In fact, the tax I pay on a cup of coffee is magnitudes bigger than this Robin Hood Tax. Some folks here in Canada scream 'Tyranny' and 'Big Government' at those taxes - and most people correctly identify those kooks for who they really are - zealots.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
Actually, I believe very strongly that they really would notice.

And don't tell me I'm the one playing semantics when the video goes on about how the tax is both virtually nothing and worth billions. The game is semantics, but I'm the one that's calling it out for that.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.

You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.


In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.

Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!

Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by blankfist.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Throbbin. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Nighy-Nails-The-Haughty-Banker-In-The-Robin-Hood-Tax

>> ^MaxWilder:
And NetRunner, you really think there's a lot of competition in banking? Come on. There's like three or four major corporations running all the banks. Even without the cost being transferred directly to the average mortgagee or checking account holder, this still looks like a boondoggle to funnel more cash through the government. I'm not all that paranoid about government corruption, but nobody can deny the tendency for government pork projects and general waste.


I meant my questions mostly to serve as a Socratic way of making a point.

You answered the one about competition, and said that in effect there ain't no competition. I agree.

Here's my next question along that chain: What exactly determines their profit margin then? In that environment, aren't profits exactly like a tax, only instead of having a plebiscite to determine the rate, and having the money dispensed in some public program, it's being set and pocketed by some of the wealthiest people in modern society?

Here in the US, we're still expecting competition. The UK seems to regulate from the assumption of an effective cartel. We should either follow their example, or end the cartel.

Oh, and about the tax "slowing down the economy", it's really just a disincentive to engage in high volume short term trading, or more to the point, it encourages investors to use longer term investment strategies. It doesn't seem to me that that would necessarily raise unemployment, in fact it might actually make the economy a lot less prone to booms and busts.

Gee...What a shock. Is there -anyone- on this site that couldn't have predicted this unsupported claim from the guy that thinks government can do nothing well or right?
>> ^imstellar28:

Exactly correct; and the government is the largest (and most wasteful) of them all.
>> ^Sve
NitoR:
Waste and inefficiency is not a government problem. It's a problem with -all- large organizations.

Exactly correct; and the government is the largest (and most wasteful) of them all.

>> ^SveNitoR:

Waste and inefficiency is not a government problem. It's a problem with -all- large organizations.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Waste and inefficiency is not a government problem. It's a problem with -all- large organizations.
>> ^MaxWilder:
... I'm not all that paranoid about government corruption, but nobody can deny the tendency for government pork projects and general waste.



I never thought about it that way, that all large organizations have a lot of inefficiency. I always heard people say "if private companies were run like the government is, all companies would go bankrupt." Thanks for sharing that thought!

Seriously? Have you any experience with a large corporation? They waste money like you wouldn't believe... I worked for a major insurance company for 12 years back in the 80s and early 90s. The wasted funds were easily in the same scale as anything I've ever heard of. $600 hammers were nothing. They spent 2 years paying a dozen consultants to build a reporting system, cost: a few million dollars. Flew two people from each city office to Hartford for training and bought new computers specifically to run these reports, cost: ~ $10K per office...so another couple million. Ran the reports once, and abandoned the system. I'm not even sure that one run was ever actually looked at by anyone. This was standard procedure, not some isolated event.

Waste and inefficiency is not a government problem. It's a problem with -all- large organizations. At least there is some slight hope of finding out what happens with the government. There is no such hope for corporations...at least not for unregulated (or poorly regulated) corporations...or any business, not just corporations. A company is -always- paranoid about keeping its books private, and accountants are great at finding ways to disguise the facts when required to display them.
>> ^MaxWilder:

... I'm not all that paranoid about government corruption, but nobody can deny the tendency for government pork projects and general waste.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I know I've seen this one before, but I'm not sure it was here. Worth an upvote anyway, for sheer hilarity.


Indeed it was here coz i posted it.
http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Nighy-Nails-The-Haughty-Banker-In-The-Robin-Hood-Tax

(more evil thoughts)

@NetRunner

1. Clearly you haven't ever seen any Robin Hood movies...you know...the guy who "steals from the rich and gives to the poor." This is the Robin Hood tax we are talking about after all...

2. You don't think poor people have checking accounts? Car loans? Mortgages? Rent from people with mortgages? Buy goods from small businesses who have business loans? Use credit cards? Maybe .01% sounds like a small increase in APR, but for a lot of people its enough to make a monthly payment just out of reach.

All this tax would do is give yet another person access to the cookie jar. Right now, its just banks, but this tax would expand it to bureaucrats -- you know, the guys who make $100,000 a year in pensions after they retire -- the guys who contribute and produce nothing in society. This "Robin Hood" idea rests on the very naive assumption that if a bank adds a -$100,000,000,000 line to their operating expenses they would just say "oh well" I guess we are all taking pay cuts from now on, and the poor would rejoice with their newfound money. You must be kidding if you think thats what happens in the real world.

The rich will NOT be paying for this tax, not one cent - the poor will because all they are going to do is pass along the expenses; and by getting the oh-so efficient-and-just government involved you can be assured that they will take their cut too. In reality, the banks will raise rates by $100,000,000,000 while the bureaucrats spend money on themselves and their cronies.

Society is like a pyramid...built on the backs of the working class who comprise the base. Nobody at the top cares about the poor - nobody - because the poor must exist for them to be rich. You think this tax gives money to the poor, all this does is give more money to the rich. Get real, who do you think you are talking to? You think I'm the CEO of Citibank or something? Why would I want to make more money for anyone at the top? Why would I want to take money from anyone at the bottom?

I'm all for the intentions of this measure - save the poor etc. but this implementation, formulated with emotion, hate, and ignorance, will ensure that those intentions are never achieved. We don't live in a fantasy world and Robin Hood doesn't save the poor with his merry men. The rich are rich because they are shrewd and calculating, and if you think something like this could possibly have any bearing on the rich you are daydreaming.

Disheartening? Maybe, but you can't change anything if you can't see it for what it really is.

>> ^imstellar28:

This video sums up why I hate people: emotional, hateful, ignorant creatures.


You are the money winner. Why should we hate you?

>> ^imstellar28:

This video sums up why I hate people: emotional, hateful, ignorant creatures.


hmmmmm.....